nstable yes/no parameter to a family

[Anonymous]

Hi, 

I have this yes/no parameter to my door family, it controls a visibility setting and it is a instance parameter. I am working on a very large project and it seems that this paramter gets deactivated for no reason every couple of weeks. Any ideas as to why this may be? 

[FGPerraudin]

Hi kveleva,

Be careful when you reload the family. When you do so, it prompts with a warning.

Pick not to reset the parameters!

It could be a good explanation...

Cheers,

François

[Anonymous]

I know about this option, but i dont think this is the answer, becaus there are many instance parameters and they would all get muddled. It's just this one that creates the problem... 

[FGPerraudin]

Interesting, can you send the family so that I can have a look?

[Anonymous]

Sure.

It;s the Emergency release parameter, and  it doesnt always act up... also i do work with a large team, so it may be something silly too..

thank you very much for takling the time. 

[FGPerraudin]

Have you seen that it is a shared parameter?

I would personnaly search that way...

First, check your shared parameter setting (default value, ...)

Then, check that this parameter is used only by the same category of object (IE doors)

Finally, check that everyone uses the same shared parameters file. It could happen that, from time to time, someone overwrites the shared file (unintentionnaly) with one that doesn't contain your parameter...

One thing is for sure, considering the frequency of the event (one a fortnight if i understood well), it is not a family issue. 

Working as part of a big team makes it difficult because it is very hard to identify the event / or/ the person that makes it happen...

I am very sorry I cannot help more than that, it is for sure related to the workflow on your project..

Wish you the best,

François

[Anonymous]

Hi, 

Yes, it is very intentionally shared. 

I think that someone may be loading an old shared parameters file may be the most probable case. 

Thank you very much! 

[barthbradley]

kveleva wrote: "I know about this option, but i dont think this is the answer, becaus there are many instance parameters and they would all get muddled. It's just this one that creates the problem..."

Sorry, but this is not true. That message refers to overwriting TYPE parameters, not INSTANCE parameters.