Community
Dynamic Blocks Forum
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Using a combination of lookup and visibility state to draw lines?

11 REPLIES 11
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 12
DisposedHero
716 Views, 11 Replies

Using a combination of lookup and visibility state to draw lines?

Hello all,

 

I am working a block that ties lookup parameters back to a visibility state. The block currently has 24 visibility states and each visibility state gets turned on/off depending on the length of a stretch action within the block. So far it is working fantastic! However, I am trying to come up with a way of drawing lines that will be placed from 2 points. The lines that I am trying to draw in the block are called "jumpers" for the purpose of this block (the block itsefl is a terminal block for use in electric panels). 

 

Within the file I have showed a few variations of how I would like the block to act along with a few notes. I'm having trouble decribing this so it would be easier to just take a look at it. 

 

Thanks in advance!

11 REPLIES 11
Message 2 of 12
Libbya
in reply to: DisposedHero

I think I would opt for something in between.  Have a lookup with visibility states for the number of jumpers.  Then have two more lookups on each jumper so that you can set the two legs of the jumpers at the appropriate terminals.  Set the jumpers using stretch actions not visbility states.  

Message 3 of 12
Libbya
in reply to: Libbya

Here's an example of what I was talking about for one of the jumpers.  You would then need to make as many copies of it as the number of jumpers you think you would need.  Notice, no visibility states involved.  Then add a visibility parameter and the states for the number of jumpers.  

Message 4 of 12
Libbya
in reply to: Libbya

I actually like this better.  It has the single pulldown for the jumper (basically your Option 2).  It also has the visibility state added to switch between one jumper and two.

 

 

Message 5 of 12
DisposedHero
in reply to: Libbya

Thanks for the reply! That solution is similar to what I was thinking. There are a few problems that I forgot to address in my original message. When there are more than one jumper on the same point they need to have the ability to stretch out to the right. Also, these jumpers might not neccessarily be connected to another point on the same terminal block, they may need to stretch down to another point on a differnt terminal block. So for instance jumper 1 on terminal block A could to jumper 2 on terminal block B. So really they need to be open ended with a stretch so that in that case it can be stretched to where it needs to go. 

 

Example:

JUMPER COMPLEXITY.jpg

 

I think I will probably just have to have a Lookup table with choices for how many jumpers are needed (0 - 10). Then have it place that number of jumpers out in space but with dynamic actions for each one so that they can moved and placed where they are needed. By my estimation this will require another 240 or so visibility states.

Example 2: 
1 JUMPER TURNED ON.jpg

 

Unless of course you think what I'm trying to do in that first image can be done solely with lookups and stretches! Thanks once again for your help on my complex blocks!

Message 6 of 12
Libbya
in reply to: DisposedHero

I think you'll need a visibility state per jumper but all the movement of jumpers can be accomplished with stretches and lookups.  For  jumping to another terminal block, you could have locations 0 and 11 in the lookup with 0 Up to a single point the appropriate distance above the block.  I added the states 0-1 through 0-10 to the first jumper and added a stretch to straighten out the line.  There are other ways it could be done.  Possibly easier would be visibility states, but as is, I am only using 1 visibility per jumper.  

Message 7 of 12
DisposedHero
in reply to: Libbya

Ok I have made some pretty good progress on this block. I still have another ton of visibility states to add but I think this is going to work great. As usual I have encountered an unforseen issue. The list of point to point connections for each jumper (1-2, 1-3, 1-4, etc...) works fine. However, would it be possible to have that list change its values when the user changes text in the middle of the terminal block? For instance if the first # in the terminal block changed from 1 to say 7. Would it be possible for the point to point connection list to update accordingly? In that case it would need to change to (7-8, 8-9, 8-10, etc...) I can't think of a way to do that and it isn't totally neccessary I suppose. But it could cause some confusion in the future. I will in clude an example in this drawing I'm posting. Thanks again for getting me started on this!

Message 8 of 12
Libbya
in reply to: DisposedHero

You can make the point to point lists match but it will require the visibility states to be (#of jumpers) X (# of terminal list selections).  That makes 240 visibility states.  It will also require 240 lookup tables for the jumpers.  You would then have the terminal list selection change the visibility state so that the desired jumper lookup tables were visible.  I'd be reluctant...  Instead, I would place Defpoint numbers next to the terminal numbers so that it always lists the 1-12 next to the fields that list the actual numbers.

Message 9 of 12
DisposedHero
in reply to: Libbya

Yeah I agree that would be too many lookup tables. I have finished this block and so far I haven't found any problems with it. There are a total of 240 visibility states. Let me know if you notice anything odd with it or if you think it could be made better. 

 

Thanks again!

Message 10 of 12
Libbya
in reply to: DisposedHero

It probably would have been better to mention this sooner, but I was wondering why you felt so many vis states were needed.  If there isn't any linework that needs to show up behind the block, you could have used a wipeout to cover the unwanted terminal numbers and had the wipeout stretch up or down as needed.  That would have brought the number of visibility states needed back to the number of jumpers.  If the use of a wipeout is not possible, then I believe you could also have used lookups to create blank fields for the terminals you did not want to show.  Looks good and appears to work fine as far as I can tell.

Message 11 of 12
DisposedHero
in reply to: Libbya

Well darn! That could have saved a lot of time but I'm fine with it since it works. How would I have used the "blanks" option for the jumpers? Also, I have often wondered what happens in a drawing when a lot of complex dynamic blocks are inserted. I should probably test to see if it slows down or causes problems as well.

Message 12 of 12
Libbya
in reply to: DisposedHero

I have found that very complex dynamic blocks can slow down their own operation, but I have not found their presence in files to significantly alter working in the file.

 

Here's the option with blanks.  You need to regen with any changes to the stretch or # lookup.  The blank values are just a space in the lookup string value.  There may be simpler ways, but that's what I was thinking if a wipeout wasn't an option.  It's still a bit of work, but considerably less than the extra 230 visibility states.  Ah well, at least your block is working.

 

 

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

”Boost

 

”Tips

 

”Services