Electrical Circuit Schedule

[smbrennan]

I am trying to create an electrical circuit schedule. I have successfully created this, but I'm trying to consolidate it. I have a project parameter for electrical circuits, nothing more than a text string entry. Multiple circuits will share this value, and the schedule is grouping based on that project parameter. However, even though this is resulting as expected, I want to take it a step further. I would like to consolidate/concetenate the circuits into a single "cell". So rather than a single line per circuit, have all circuits show together.

Has anyone attempted this and had any success?

Thanks,
Shawn

[CoreyDaun]

By the sound of it, you should only have to disable the "Itemize Every Instance" option at the bottom of the Sorting/Grouping tab under Schedule Properties. This will cause all elements that fall into the same Grouping to be combined into a single line in the Schedule, in lieu of each one being listed individually.

[smbrennan]

I tried that initially. It simply blanks out the circuit value, or any parameter that has multiple values for that matter. It's only filling in the parameters that have the same value.

Example: 6 single-pole receptacles, each one on it's own circuit. # of Poles displays 1. But, where a 3-pole device and 2-pole device are grouped together, the # of poles field is blank.

[CoreyDaun]

So if I've got this right, you would like to group say, circuits 1, 2, # 3 together but have the Circuit Number field display as "1,2,3" or something intelligent like that? If so, that is not possible - Revit will display only a single common value amongst the elements or blank if there are multiple values. If I have misunderstood, can you provide an example of what you're trying to achieve?

[smbrennan]

Yep, you got it. I figured it was impossible, but wanted to ask before moving on. Thanks for the confirmation.

[Chris.Aquino]

As mentioned, since the project parameter you are using has multiple values the cell in the scheduel will be blank.

If you would like this behavior to change,  the following link is setup for you to submit feature requests, or feedback, directly to our Development group:

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=1109794

I encourage you to use the feedback link as our Development group is always interested and would like to hear your feedback directly, since you are better suited to state the business case for a feature request.

[smbrennan]

Thanks Chris. I am always using the product feedback link for such issues. I wanted to check with the community first before submitting the request, and via the automated email I said it wasn't solved, to see if any Autodesk employees had any other ideas.

While Corey's post was informative, it is not a solution. If what I want is impossible, how can him confirming the fact that it's impossible, be a solution? Just something to think about.

[Chris.Aquino]

While the answer that the functionality is not available may not be the preferred answer to the question, it is none the less the answer and therefore the solution to the question.

[CoreyDaun · Accepted solution]

This "the Solution or Not the Solution" debate had occurred before in other areas of these forums. Ultimately, the entire purpose of marking a post as a Solution (to my understanding) is to highlight said post for other users. While I certainly agree that simply confirming that this is not possible is not a solution, the point of marking it as such is so that it is more noticeable and so that other users who search for such as solution will be more likely to find it first, rather that said post representing a public declaration that the proposed idea has actually solved the problem.

Another issue I had brought up (which had no real resolution) was, what happens when a post is marked as a Solution (and is) but later on the software feature is completely removed or otherwise nullifies the previous solution? The only remedy for such a situation would be to ensure that the software version is stated in the post (and not in the user's signature, since that changes with the user's settings). I'm not trying to change your mind here, just expressing my opinion.