Panelboard MCB Rating Parameter

[jim.overholtzer]

This a problem that has existed for many years.

When is the MCB Rating Parameter (system Parameter) going to be changed from a Type Parameter to a Instance Parameter?

In the Panelboard families, the Mains parameter is a Type Parameter and is used to differentiate between the different sizes of Main Busses, the MCB Rating which is also a type Parameter is often different that the Mains rating requiring you to make a different type for each combination of these parameters that you are using.

[Anonymous]

Why has this still not been fixed!?

This issue applies to:

 - The 'Mains' Parameter... It's an Instance and should be a type

 - The 'MCB Rating' Parameter... It's a Type and should be an instance

 - The 'SubFeed Lugs' Parameter... It's a Type and should be an instance

Alaaeldin's solution is in NO way a realistic solution... especially on large scale projects like ours.

It would be good enough if Autodesk would just even deactivate these Built-In Parameters instead of shoving them down our throats. At-least then we could set them up properly ourselves without confusing the heck out of our modelers... modelers who just end up seeing Two of every parameter.

[Anonymous]

That's not a realistic solution for me! My projects rarely have less than 80 panels and some even have 250+.

[MuirEng]

I find it odd that no one has created an idea about this. But maybe I missed it and there is a duplicate?

So... I just created an idea based on the conversation. See 

Idea to Fix Internal Panelboard Parameters

If you are following this conversation then please go here and vote this up. (and please also vote up the other ideas listed in my signature)

I wholeheartedly agree that MCB value needs to be instance, not type and I believe I also agree that Mains Type and Subfeed Lugs should be as well. Our basic position is that if any aspect of the panel is field configurable then it needs to be type, not instance, and those parameters seem to address field configurable elements. 

[Anonymous]

100% Agreed! There is a AUGI Wishlist item for this that is presently in the top 10% of wishlist items for all of Revit MEP, however, it has been in that position for years. As a developer myself, I understand that the Autodesk Developers are FAR more likely to make progress on small wishlist items that are 'cool' to them (such as the circuit path addition to Revit 2018) than on larger, but 'boring' wishlist items... no matter how difficult it actually is to implement that seemingly boring fix. It's unfortunate that the developers are often times not also the end users of the product.