Trouble shooting Dynamic Block w/ Multiple Visibilites

[david.santos.tsgt]

Trying to learn the tecnique to create a dynamic w/ multiple visibilities, I found two great post explaining the process.

hwalker https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/dynamic-blocks/dynamic-block-with-four-look-ups-as-visibility-paramet...
Libbya https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/dynamic-blocks/ootb-multiple-visibility-states-solution/m-p/4961288#M...

Unfortunately, I am doing something wrong, and I need help finding the errors in my block.

The blocks used in this post are for learning purposes only and is a weld symbols dynamic block with the version of each method.

Thanks for the help.

[Anonymous]

Can you elaborate on which issues you're having? Seems to be working fine to me

[Libbya · Accepted solution]

You should read through the end of the thread you linked where I initially posted the method.  That thread was started the day I came up with the method, but it was not yet optimized.  It didn't take me very long to realize that a point parameter makes more sense to use than linear parameters as they separate the X and Y values on the lookup table.  Because of that, you can use the X for one value and the Y for the other.  You also do not need to add any actions to the input parameters.  List values on input parameters are not needed and can, on occasion, cause issues.

Your method2 block seems to work fine for me.  What are the errors you are seeing? 

Your method1 block does not work initially because the as-drawn positions of the point parameters do not match any row on the lookups.  You also need the initial as-drawn values to match the default visibility state (topmost row in the visibility dialog).  Screencast shortly.

[david.santos.tsgt]

In method 2 the block works fine in the first few combinations state but after weld type "J" the block stops working.

[david.santos.tsgt]

Libbya, thank you very much for the help and all the past posts, they are a great help. I saw my ploblem and I have to improve my QA/QC on those tables. I think I will keep the point approach for my system in future blocks.

Again thank you for all the replies.

[Libbya]

There's one other method I've adopted to make these more complicated blocks easier to build.  For the visibility state names and on double-lookup for the lookup properties (row names), I have gone to using the actual input parameter values.  The names are usually something like this 1-1-1, 1-1-2, 1-1-3, 1-2-1, 1-2-2, etc...  I also place them in sequential order.  This convention makes going through all the permutations easier, makes finding the appropriate visibility state easier, makes finding the row on the lookup table easier during troubleshooting, and reduces the likelihood of issues cause by slight spelling differences (the lookup names must match EXACTLY).