Hi,
I am trying to create a casework family for an upper corner cabinet with a diagonal door. I had brought in a door from an existing family. When I create different types with different heights, the door will not flex along with the case. I have tried to nest the door family, copy and paste the door, and nothing helped. Any ideas?
Rina
Gelöst! Gehe zur Lösung
Gelöst von ToanDN. Gehe zur Lösung
Gelöst von PijPiwo. Gehe zur Lösung
You need to reassign parameters and constraints for your nested door family.
You need to associate the door family's dimension parameters with the host family's parameters. Example below:
Nope. Still not working. Now it says that it can't create the Door family.
![]()
Nope. Still not working. Now it says that it can't create the Door family.
![]()
Nope. Still not working. Now it says that it can't create the Door family.
![]()
Nope. Still won't work. Now it says that it can't create the Door.
Apologies. I clicked couple of times too many..... and we can't delete posts....
Uploaded. Multiple times even.
You assigned the door height parameter to the casework height param. correctly, but the door family itself is falling apart. Flex it, make sure to apply all constraints.
FYI, it is better to create a ref plane skeleton first, create parameters, flex it and then create geometry and lock it to the ref planes. Locking geometry to other geometry is not the best approach.
I created a formula for the geometry to flex correctly when you increase the door Width. I am a bit busy to fix the model but I think you can take it from here. Let me know if any troubles.
Thank you! I re-created the Door family and reloaded it. Awesome!
One last question - would there be any way to make this sit on corner walls without too much hand-eye coordination? The way that out-of-the-box casework families grab hold of walls?
The formula works beautifully. I changed it so that the casework size flexes when we keep the width constant and input the desired end width. A question - can you explain why the square root of 2 was needed?
Can't believe I missed it! ![]()
Another question - when the new value of EndWidth comes up, the geometry at the angled face does not flex. Quite simply because the end of Depth (it is now a reference line, which works no better than a reference plane) is not locked to the diagonal reference planes. This is what I get when the value of Depth is changed from 2' to 1'9".
Any attempt to lock the ends of the reference lines to the reference planes at that intersection make Revit say that this would over constrain the sketch.
Hey all... @Sahay_R
I hope you don't get me wrong but after having a look at what you attached, that family (with or without that formula) is a disaster...starting from the whole down to the nested doors and handles
Using formulas for that purpose is not the ideal approach, it is not wrong but to get that family to flex properly with the nested elements one shouldn't need a formula.. Forcing Elements to resize using formulas means more computation where it is not necessary, means more complexity, means less performance, means less likely I would use such family as a 3nd choice. And most likely the family will break again and you will need a new formula to fix it!
The proper solution is more or less what @PijPiwo suggested and you should start off from the handles to the panels to the cabinet. And while at it, you might want to
YOUTUBE | BIM | COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN | PARAMETRIC DESIGN | GENERATIVE DESIGN | VISUAL PROGRAMMING
If you find this reply helpful kindly hit the LIKE BUTTON and if applicable please ACCEPT AS SOLUTION
Of course it's a disaster! If it worked I wouldn't be posting here!
Sending it as is to Interiors for use - it works beautifully - disaster or not - for the 24" depth. For the 21" depth - I may start over just for the purpose of education. Or I may not. Wish me luck.
Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.