Model groups with in-place families

[patricks]

I have several identical instances of a model group consisting of an in-place family and a few family components. When I go to Edit Group, then edit the in-place family, then finish editing the group, it says that the groups are now inconsistent with each other. This makes no sense. Why does it not update all the groups with the changes I made to one group like it's supposed to? I tried to tell it to just remove the inconsistent groups so I could re-copy the group instances from the original, but that gave me a Serious Error, and it still said that my groups were inconsistent.

So frustrating! I could just as well have just copied each instance of the in-place family and the components, because I still have to re-copy all the instances when I make a change to the group, just like if it was not a model group.

[ron.sanpedro]

I have several identical instances of a model group consisting of an in-place family and a few family components. When I go to Edit Group, then edit the in-place family, then finish editing the group, it says that the groups are now inconsistent with each other. This makes no sense. Why does it not update all the groups with the changes I made to one group like it's supposed to? I tried to tell it to just remove the inconsistent groups so I could re-copy the group instances from the original, but that gave me a Serious Error, and it still said that my groups were inconsistent.

So frustrating! I could just as well have just copied each instance of the in-place family and the components, because I still have to re-copy all the instances when I make a change to the group, just like if it was not a model group.

It seems to me that in-place families and groups are somewhat oxy-moronic. By definition, the group is going to be used more than once, and the group really does make a separate "managed copy" of everything. So when an in-place family is in a group, you get a separate in-place family in each one, that being the nature of in-place families. The bummer is, you can't export that in-place family to a RVT file and link it into a regular family to trace over. And for me, the main use of an in-place family is where the family is based on the context. I would LOVE to see in-place editing of families, ala ADT, but until then I think you are stuck with designing as an in-place, possible even creating your own "shop drawings" of the thing, then manually creating it again as a standard family, and put THAT in your group. PITA, but I don't see any other way. Maybe someone else has a better option.

Best,
Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

I would venture its because the in place families have some sort of "relationship" to some outside element, so they are trying to change from one group to the next.

Thats why i tell people to never use in place families, unless dire circumstances mean they have too, like unusual foundation shapes that the foundation tool wont create (stepped top sloped bottom).

If i need more than one of something, i use an actual family. Even if i only need one, and its context is huge, ill typicall draw enough symbolic lines in the family editor to make the element im trying to put it in context with, and then make the family. Ive got a family of reveals that sits on the facade of a 40' x 90' facade of a tower, LOL... I copied the shape of the tower in with symbolic lines, and used a wall hosted family. Seems to work better (for us) than using in places...