Quite probably a super simple Family/Type/Instance Question

[Anonymous]

Hi There,

Apologies in advance if this makes everyone groan with its obviousness but,

I have a roof light family. all the parameters are 'Type' and I've created some Family Types - 900x900 1200x1500 etc. setting the input parameters accordingly so as when you choose from the 'Name:' drop down the rooflight changes size.

i've also made a Family Type called 'Custom User Defined' allowing the user to dimension the rooflight to their specific requirements within 1mm.

The problem, which I completely overlooked is that in the likely scenario an architect places say, 10 rooflights and requires more than 1 custom size, all the custom sized rooflights are forced to the same dimensions.

I'm assuming this is because I'm using Type parameters rather than Instances?

Would it be bad practice for me to just change every constraining/input parameter to an instance or is this a well known topic with a more suitable workaround?!

cheers,

Dylan

[Anonymous]

Hi There,

Apologies in advance if this makes everyone groan with its obviousness but,

I have a roof light family. all the parameters are 'Type' and I've created some Family Types - 900x900 1200x1500 etc. setting the input parameters accordingly so as when you choose from the 'Name:' drop down the rooflight changes size.

i've also made a Family Type called 'Custom User Defined' allowing the user to dimension the rooflight to their specific requirements within 1mm.

The problem, which I completely overlooked is that in the likely scenario an architect places say, 10 rooflights and requires more than 1 custom size, all the custom sized rooflights are forced to the same dimensions.

I'm assuming this is because I'm using Type parameters rather than Instances?

Would it be bad practice for me to just change every constraining/input parameter to an instance or is this a well known topic with a more suitable workaround?!

cheers,

Dylan

[CoreyDaun · Accepted solution]

That could go either way I think, but it depends on how the recipients are intended to use it. When loaded into a Project, it pretty easy to duplicate one of the existing Types and just make another custom Type. If you choose to convert everything to Instance Parameters, your pre-made Types may be invalidated, because the user is likely to place one of those (named for a specific dimension) and then change that instance's values.

If you wish to take the "Instance" route, there is a way to lock-in and maintain your preset Types:

1. Create a parameter "Custom Type" (Yes/No, Type).

2. Converting the existing dimensional parameters to Instance.

3. Re-create the dimensional parameters as Type Parameters, and suffix their names with "Preset".

4. Re-create them again as Instance Parameters, and suffix their names with "Custom".

5. Set the formulas for the original parameters as per example:

    Length = if(Custom Type, Length Custom, Length Preset)

6. For each preset Type, enter the appropriate Dimensions and clear the "Custom Type" checkbox.

[CoreyDaun · Accepted solution]

That could go either way I think, but it depends on how the recipients are intended to use it. When loaded into a Project, it pretty easy to duplicate one of the existing Types and just make another custom Type. If you choose to convert everything to Instance Parameters, your pre-made Types may be invalidated, because the user is likely to place one of those (named for a specific dimension) and then change that instance's values.

If you wish to take the "Instance" route, there is a way to lock-in and maintain your preset Types:

1. Create a parameter "Custom Type" (Yes/No, Type).

2. Converting the existing dimensional parameters to Instance.

3. Re-create the dimensional parameters as Type Parameters, and suffix their names with "Preset".

4. Re-create them again as Instance Parameters, and suffix their names with "Custom".

5. Set the formulas for the original parameters as per example:

    Length = if(Custom Type, Length Custom, Length Preset)

6. For each preset Type, enter the appropriate Dimensions and clear the "Custom Type" checkbox.

[Anonymous]

Cheers CADastrophe,

It seems, as you say, easy enough to create new family types within the type properties window whilst inside a project, so i'll go with that and assume everyone using the family will be capable of duplicating an existing type as and when.

thanks for the pointers regarding instances though, might be something worth looking into in the future

cheers,

Dylan

[Anonymous]

Cheers CADastrophe,

It seems, as you say, easy enough to create new family types within the type properties window whilst inside a project, so i'll go with that and assume everyone using the family will be capable of duplicating an existing type as and when.

thanks for the pointers regarding instances though, might be something worth looking into in the future

cheers,

Dylan

[Alfredo_Medina]

In my opinion, you're putting more work on your shoulders than it is required, and therefore, you might end up complicating the family, unnecesarily. If users need a custom size, they will do what they do every day with any other family: 1, 2, 3.

1 is duplicate, 2 is rename, 3 is change the dimensions, and now they have a custom size.

[Alfredo_Medina]

In my opinion, you're putting more work on your shoulders than it is required, and therefore, you might end up complicating the family, unnecesarily. If users need a custom size, they will do what they do every day with any other family: 1, 2, 3.

1 is duplicate, 2 is rename, 3 is change the dimensions, and now they have a custom size.

[Anonymous]

perhaps you're correct. The closest I have come to using revit for creating projects was building 4 walls and a roof, purely to host my families, maybe if i used it to make a more complex structure I'd be able to better appreciate how important, or not, a family and its constraints are!

[Anonymous]

perhaps you're correct. The closest I have come to using revit for creating projects was building 4 walls and a roof, purely to host my families, maybe if i used it to make a more complex structure I'd be able to better appreciate how important, or not, a family and its constraints are!

[CoreyDaun]

I will agree with Alfredo on this one, unless there is a specific reason to list the Custom sizes separately.

On another note, are you familiar with Type Catalogs? They may prove to be a useful asset - you could include many sizes in the Catalog and when the Family is loaded into the Project, he user selects from a list which Types he wishes to load.

[CoreyDaun]

I will agree with Alfredo on this one, unless there is a specific reason to list the Custom sizes separately.

On another note, are you familiar with Type Catalogs? They may prove to be a useful asset - you could include many sizes in the Catalog and when the Family is loaded into the Project, he user selects from a list which Types he wishes to load.