Multiple instances of dynamic block in the same file.

[deepak_fer]

Hi,

Good day!

I am working on a crane model, with a fixed boom length. I prepared a dynamic block with a rotate action just to change the radius. I have to use this block for multiple instances with different radiuses. However, when I change the radius of one instance of the block, the radiuses of the other instances change as well.

Is there a work around to avoid this situation?

I have already checked the forum but no answer specifically to this problem.

[deepak_fer]

Hi,

Good day!

I am working on a crane model, with a fixed boom length. I prepared a dynamic block with a rotate action just to change the radius. I have to use this block for multiple instances with different radiuses. However, when I change the radius of one instance of the block, the radiuses of the other instances change as well.

Is there a work around to avoid this situation?

I have already checked the forum but no answer specifically to this problem.

[j.palmeL29YX]

Do you really work with ACAD 2004? (Your file was saved in this format).

Dynamic blocks were only introduced in version 2005 (as far as I remember).

[j.palmeL29YX]

Do you really work with ACAD 2004? (Your file was saved in this format).

Dynamic blocks were only introduced in version 2005 (as far as I remember).

[j.palmeL29YX · Accepted solution]

Now I see what surely causes the problem: You did mix parametric constraints (concentric, collinear, ...) with Dynamic Parameters and Actions (rotation parameter, rotation action). That often results in an unexpected behavior.

I'd suggest to use the bcparameter -> angular command instead of the dynamic parameter/action.

Try the attached block "test".

If my reply solves your problem, click the "accept as solution" button. This can help others find solutions faster

[j.palmeL29YX · Accepted solution]

Now I see what surely causes the problem: You did mix parametric constraints (concentric, collinear, ...) with Dynamic Parameters and Actions (rotation parameter, rotation action). That often results in an unexpected behavior.

I'd suggest to use the bcparameter -> angular command instead of the dynamic parameter/action.

Try the attached block "test".

If my reply solves your problem, click the "accept as solution" button. This can help others find solutions faster

[deepak_fer]

Hi  j.palmeL29YX 

Thank you for your solution. 

My SaveAs Settings are set to save the file in 2004 version. I use 2019 version.

While your solution works like a charm, the issue is if I get into the block editor then all the instances are reset to the initial block instance. Is there a way around this?

[deepak_fer]

Hi  j.palmeL29YX 

Thank you for your solution. 

My SaveAs Settings are set to save the file in 2004 version. I use 2019 version.

While your solution works like a charm, the issue is if I get into the block editor then all the instances are reset to the initial block instance. Is there a way around this?

[j.palmeL29YX]

---

@deepak_fer wrote:

.. the issue is if I get into the block editor then all the instances are reset to the initial block instance.

---

I'm afraid no.

If you add a new parametric dimension, which was not known in the block definition before, the block references can not know what a value have had an (now deleted old) dynamic parameter.

[j.palmeL29YX]

---

@deepak_fer wrote:

.. the issue is if I get into the block editor then all the instances are reset to the initial block instance.

---

I'm afraid no.

If you add a new parametric dimension, which was not known in the block definition before, the block references can not know what a value have had an (now deleted old) dynamic parameter.

[Libbya]

I don't see any reason for any of the constraints in the block which is a simple rotation with an added arm that needs to stay in alignment.  Instead of adding another parametric constraint, I would delete all of the other unnecessary ones, leaving just the rotation parameter/action.  Add to that a simple chained polar/polar stretch and a chained point/stretch and the block would behave consistently.  Adjusting the angle (or any other property) of any individual insertion will not affect other insertions.  See screencast. 

[Libbya]

I don't see any reason for any of the constraints in the block which is a simple rotation with an added arm that needs to stay in alignment.  Instead of adding another parametric constraint, I would delete all of the other unnecessary ones, leaving just the rotation parameter/action.  Add to that a simple chained polar/polar stretch and a chained point/stretch and the block would behave consistently.  Adjusting the angle (or any other property) of any individual insertion will not affect other insertions.  See screencast.