Adjustable Symbols

[kmgates]

Is there a way to make a symbol work the same as a line based detail component?

To explain further:
I'm trying to create a symbolic "dimension" that is only used to dimension to something (i.e. gridline, structure, etc) that is outside the view of the detail (see attachment). I have already created one that allows me to change the "dimension" witness and length via instance parameters within the element properties box, but I'd like to have it so that I can just drag the line lengths without going in to the dialog box (like a detail component).

I realize that this is normally done through the use of reference planes, and that reference planes are not available when creating a symbol family. But I'm asking anyway with the hope that somebody has a solution for me. If this is just one of those things that is what is, oh well...


[and yes, I was one of those users that just stalked the forums without making meaningful contributions. I'm trying to change my ways, I promise...]

[cliff collins]

Would it be possible to just "drag" the real dimension text to where it is visible in the detail view? This seems like a more reliable method.

It might be possible to create the "automatic" dimension symbol family you are trying the achieve, but this seems a bit "cad" like and not "BIM" like in nature. I would worry that if something moves, you may be "chasing" those "fake" dimensions all over a big set of drawings? Maybe just drop an arrow symbol family into the detail view, with the "real" dim. text showing. This way if there are changes, the dimension will still be correct.

OR--Maybe the symbol can actually "know" the dimension from a reference plane once placed into the Project? Not too sure about that...........

cheers

[kmgates]

Thanks for the (incredibly fast) reply;

I have to say I'm a little confused - I don't really follow how I would have the 'real' dimension text showing when what I am dimensioning to is outside of the cropped view. Unless I am missing something, dimensions only display when both ends of what is being dimensioned fall within the crop...

Yeah, it's a bit cad-like, but I feel that having those type of 'reference' dimensions within a detail is important enough to regress, so to speak. If there's a way to tie the faked 'dimension' (as I have it) to the actual dimension (as you describe), I am all for it.

Either way, that still doesn't solve my initial problem: how to make a symbol "stretchable" without having to go into the dialog box and adjust the dimensions within the instance parameters. Basically, I have the symbol adjustable, I just want to eliminate that single step that requires me to go into the element properties box.

[Alfredo Medina]

Basically, I have the symbol adjustable, I just want to eliminate that single step that requires me to go into the element properties box.

If the symbol were a line based detail component, you could pick the two points, start and end. I think that´s what you are trying to do.

Just be aware that since this symbol is just an annotation, not a true dimension, there will be some issues, like the ones mentioned by Cliff. For a comprehensive list of the issues, see reply # 16, by Aaron Maller to a thread with a similar topic:
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?p=1090301#post1090301

[twiceroadsfool]

You cannot make a Line Based object whos scale is Annotative in nature, such as a generic Annotation. Every combination of nesting has been tried, they lose the Line Based capabilities the moment they get in to the automatically scaling generic Annotation.

[kmgates]

Aaron-
Thanks, thats what I was looking for, if it is possible.

[twiceroadsfool]

No problem. For the "Dimension Arrows" that dont call out a dimensional value specifically, and are just meant to point you to the story elsewhere in the drawings, such as that one, we use a Generic Annotation that has the exact Hash mark as the Dim, and an arrow to one side. It has an instance length, and the text.

Its not value adding to use a real dimension, when you dont want the real dimension value, since youre not giving a dimension to an actual reference. Youre basically saying "see plan." At least, thats my understanding, and whats what i do with the GA in that case. If youre putting an actual dimension in, then yeah, use a real Dim. Otherwise, its a bunch of hokey tricks to get it to look right, for no benefit.

Ive asked for Line Based Generc Annotations for a lof of things, but havent gotten them yet, sadly. There is a kludgy workaround of making a Line Based Model Family, with a Generc Model in it that has a Generic Annotation in it, but i would NEVER do that doe something this micro. We use that for Egress calcs.

[Alfredo Medina]

You cannot make a Line Based object whos scale is Annotative in nature, such as a generic Annotation. Every combination of nesting has been tried, they lose the Line Based capabilities the moment they get in to the automatically scaling generic Annotation.

I am not sure, Aaron, if I understand what you're saying. Because, I know that it is possible to create a family, starting from the Detail component line based template, in which we can nest and lock generic annotation elements, such as labels and tick marks, and this family, once loaded into a project, will let me pick a start point, and endpoint, and the tick marks will scale up and down if the scale of the view changes. The same can be done for a label that reads the length. It will respond to the scale. There will be some scales where the text will overlap with the line, of course, but at least it will respond correctly to some scales used for details. I did a family like this to create some "dimension" for common notes, such as "Verify in field", "Rough opening" and other common notes.

[twiceroadsfool]

True enough, as i made one that was posted in the Brick Coursing thread... But: Theyre Detail Components. If you dont mind them being Detail COmponents, with the GA's in them, then its possible. But to make it an Actual Symbol (Generic Annotation) cant be done while keeping Line Based properties.

Thanks for clearing up what i misstated.