Available parametres for tagging

[radu.grosu]

Does anybody know why only some of the families parameters are available for tagging?
Is there a way to add existing family parameters to the parameters available for tagging in the annotation family?
I understand that choosing "Structural Framing" for the annotation category I get only the parameters all structural framing families normally posses (all though"cut length" or "volume" would be absolutely general and are still not available"), but is there a method of "sharing" existing parameters of the families - for clarity, is it possible to share "cut length" to make it available for tagging"?

[petervanko]

Check out the SHARED PARAMETERS explanation in the help file; this may be what you are looking for. Whenever you start a new annotation family, they generally like to look to one model category so it only is dealing with a handful of associated parameters. Dont' forget that tags cannot "see" PROJECT parameters, only SHARED...

[rjjlee]

Does anyone know why not all families can be tagged?

[radu.grosu]

I wanted to know how it would be possible to make an existing parameter "shared", not a new one. Whenever I add a new parameter to a family, I could share it and thus make it available for tagging, but I need to use an existing parameter that I cannot duplicate in one of my own, like "cut length".

[aggockel50321]

Try this (see screenshot)

Create a shared parameter in the family you want to tag and set it equal to a parameter you cannot access.

You'll then see the shared parameter is available for use in a tag.

The expample here is a counter length tag.

[radu.grosu]

Thanks man, I think I get it. I loose my admiration bit by bit for this software and the people who develop it for making me do such things to get a simple and normal procedure like that working. But anyway, still thanks a lot, it is something, I appreciate it.

[Calvn_Swing]

Don't get me wrong, I share the same frustrations. About half the time there is a simple (logically, not necessarily easy to program) solution to something I want to do, but Revit makes me jump through hoops to accomplish it. Very annoying.

However, keep in mind that this isn't some evolutionary program with 20 years of development like AutoCAD. This kind of software is revolutionary, they are doing things that haven't really been done before (Revit and ArchiCAD both) and that makes progress that much harder. Also, the complexity of even a simple change in Revit is massive compared to a similar change in ACAD because a simple change in Revit can affect so many other things. It takes time to get everything right, and this is still a fairly young software.

Instead of loosing admiration, be amazed that this much has already been accomplished and continue to push for more innovation and improvements. Just hang in there. Remember that for every pain in the butt problem you've found, there's some awesome capability you haven't even discovered yet.

[radu.grosu]

Maybe I was too harsh.. but I feel a little disappointed as I think I see now the boundaries of Revit and that it's not as broad as I had imagined. Perhaps I feel Autodesk should simply invest more in Revit...I really do not want to wait I don't know how many years to see this working as I expected from the beginning.. I'm just frustrated - the 60's are gone but technology isn't here yet also. Just joking, thanks for your reply..

[mostafa90]

although i should go to the hard way i still can't figure it out how to tag the beam cut length, cause i found nothing in the family...? Weird...:(