I have a detail component for a mortar line (draws the grout and masks the beads at both ends) and another detail component, a separate family, for a CMU which also contains a mortar line. It happens that the CMU family mortar component has the same name as the mortar component in the project. Is this why Revit created a separate family type number 2. Do they share a common definition within the project now?
Gelöst! Gehe zur Lösung
Gelöst von RobDraw. Gehe zur Lösung
Well I just tested and it's absolutely the case! These are two different components saved under two different filenames and they share a definition of a subcomponent! WHY?
This creates a possibility by which someone can unintentionally modify something else without realizing it, as just happened to me when someone removed the edge lines from the mortar in their component and inadvertently redefined the other unrelated component everywhere else in the project!
What garbage!
So, it sounds like you want the subs to independent?
Why are you using the same name if that was not the intention?
I can't test ATM but I think what is happening is that in the project the "sub" that was renamed was not the one nested in the family but rather the one that is stand alone in the project.
Had I known that all subordinate families of the same name share a common definition under the project I certainly would not have used the same names, but sometimes that's beyond my control. Components come from different sources, copied out of previous projects, downloaded from the web, modified and later recombined with other components from other unrelated projects in a new project. I've always assumed that Revit was renaming them to prevent such cross contamination but that only seems to apply to components of the same level in the project browser. One component within another component that has the same name is vulnerable to error.
Yes, I can see it making a certain degree of sense in a large, organized BIM environment but we've never had the time or budget to go about that. But even if we had it seems that all it takes to screw EVERYTHING up is for one colleague to redefine a component in a place they thought wouldn't affect other components because it's inside another component. Things named generically are especially liable to be redefined in ways that are not immediately identifiable and may only be noticed after a drawing set has gone out. No, I still think this is bad design.
Revit warns you when you're loading the family. That's a very good indication that something might be out of line. Choosing to ignore the warning is out of control of the program. Revit can't prevent such things.
What I missed apparently is the ability to share components across a project. It's actually a feature checked in the component under Shared in the properties. I was unaware of this or that it was on by default in our detail components.
Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.