Flexing family moves reference level

[MikeJarosz]

There are a lot of countertops around, but I needed one specific to quartz surfacing which is generally a metric thickness of 20mm or 30mm, so I decided to make my own. Along the way, I wanted to make backsplashes, edge thickness and a few more features optional. It's working, but when testing each of the parameters, I discovered that flexing the <Height> parameter didn't lower the countertop, it raised the floor! (ie Reference level). Yikes! If I load that into my model, will it move my second floor out of whack?


http://forums.augi.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=102095&stc=1

I started with the Revit casework family template which provided the basic length, width and height parameters, so the <Height> parameter comes from the factory. Silly me, I expected the factory template to work as expected.:roll:

Anyone know what is going on here? Should I fix it?

[Duncan Lithgow]

I can't see why it would move the level in the project. Have you pinned the Level in the family? Getting it to work with that was is probably the way to avoid surprises. Otherwise, just post the family so we can look at it.

[MikeJarosz]

Here it is. It's saved in units set to decimal inches, but the 20 & 30 mm quartz surfaces are accurate. It is designed to make the backsplash, front face and the left and right closures optional, so it can be used almost anywhere. The voids are controlled by parameters that stretch them over the backsplace and/or face, making them disappear. All parameters are instance.

Set the view to front and flex the height. If I pin the reference level, Revit warns that constraints not satisfied.

[cliff collins]

Create a new Reference Plane, and use it to set your dimensions/parameters instead of the Ref. Level in the family.

[Duncan Lithgow]

I've found that to help sometimes but never understood why. Should it just be regarded as best practice? Any insights?

[MikeJarosz]

As I pointed out, it came out of the box (casework template) that way. The height parameter was hitched to the reference plane and I just went ahead and used it that way. Cliff does have a point about using a reference plane rather than the level. I often use reference planes instead of grids and levels for dimensioning. In a team environment, I find reference planes "stay put" better than grids and levels.

[Duncan Lithgow]

As I pointed out, it came out of the box (casework template) that way.

I'm sure we all can agree that OOTB is not the same as good practice...

[buchrick344977]

The ref. plane the Height is dimensioning is pinned. Unpin it and it works fine.