Fix Pattern Surface Pattern issues in mirrored groups

[josh_moore]

Fix the patterns in mirrored groups issue.  Please refer to this post and my comment at the bottom.  The work around suggested in this post is not sufficient for projects that have an angle, best I have been able to figure out in my testing.  As this was a request years ago, I would suggest to the development team that this be considered a higher priority item to get fixed.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-architecture-forum/help-mirrored-group-elements-do-not-retain-s...

[Anonymous]

Groups are great but they are also limited. They work best when you stick to best practices and one of them is Don't Mirror Groups.

cheers,

-tomek

[josh_moore]

I can appreciate that however it kind of negates the point of groups.  If you told a CAD user to use blocks except when they need to be mirrored that would be unacceptable.  This is one of the only issues I’ve found with mirroring groups and I use groups a lot to manage repetition.  Groups aren’t perfect but outside of linking they are the only good way to manage repetitive elements that shouldn’t be families.

i think at the end of the day this request is about fixing something that is broken, not a work around or a “don’t use groups”. Groups work fine but this particular issue is not consistent with mirroring objects outside of groups or anything else for that matter.  The tools we have should provide consistent results.

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I'm totally with you on this one. I think that groups *should* work when
mirrored but since they don't what ya gonna do? Who you gonna call? 😉

Seriously though, we use groups a lot on multi-unit residential projects
and it is a real pain when things get mirrored and they break. I resorted
to making "left-right" variants of my groups. Yes, it's less efficient but
at least it works now. I make a group of a bunch of elements, then I copy
it, ungroup the copy, mirror all the elements in the copy and then group
those and give it a "-left" or "-right" suffix.

-t

[josh_moore]

Posting again on this.  I don't really think this would be classified as a new feature, it's really a fix to inconsistent/broken functionality.  Would love to hear from someone at Autodesk on thoughts regarding this.