different annotations in the same family

[cmazz]

What is the best practice for displaying different annotations for types within the same family? For example, rather than using the text subscript to differentiate between a standard and GFCI receptacle, I want to use a different annotation altogether. (I have created a family that uses the "Visible" parameter in combination with user selected "Yes/No" type parameters, but it seems a chunky way to accomplish this. See attached) Any suggestions?

[mjdanowski]

I just load all annotations into the family, place and constrain them and then bind their visibility to a check box. Then each Type has a different check box checked to turn on the right symbol.

The other way I sometimes do it is load all the different annotations into a "master annotation" and then bind the type parameter check boxes in the model family to the parameters in this master one. This way is beneficial if you do not want to worry about constraints with individual annotation. It came in useful for me with my damper family where the double line and symbol line annotation was a bit different.

[cmazz]

I do like putting everything in a "master annotation" but would prefer that once the family is loaded into a project, the family type is the only thing that determines which annotation appears. (I'm trying to avoid the problem where an instance of the object is set to be a particular family type and then the visibility checkboxes are manually changed.)

[mjdanowski]

I do like putting everything in a "master annotation" but would prefer that once the family is loaded into a project, the family type is the only thing that determines which annotation appears. (I'm trying to avoid the problem where an instance of the object is set to be a particular family type and then the visibility checkboxes are manually changed.)
just make them type parameters, and if you REALLY wanted to get into it you could make a locking formula to put in each parameter.

if (Type = NEMA, Yes, if (Type = Quad, No, If (Type = Duplex, No, No)))

However, this would require a parameter "Type" which in theory could be changed, but you get the idea :)

[cmazz]

Thanks - that did the trick.

[mott-45]

Another way to accomplish this is to load the annotation into your receptacle family, place your first annotation and then select it. On the Options Bar your should see a label drop down, this will allow you to create a Family Type parameter that you can set that will change the annotation out for you. Now all you have to do is create your types and set which annotation that you want to appear.

[dmckevitt]

Another way to accomplish this is to load the annotation into your receptacle family, place your first annotation and then select it. On the Options Bar your should see a label drop down, this will allow you to create a Family Type parameter that you can set that will change the annotation out for you. Now all you have to do is create your types and set which annotation that you want to appear.

mott, this seems like the easiest way to associate a annotation with a family type, but I don't know how to take the next step towards limiting the annotation to just one family type. Can you describe this in further detail? Thanks!

[mott-45]

Sure, once the Family Type parameter is created, it can then be set/changed in the Family Types window on the Design Bar. It looks similar to the type drop down on your options bar and works in the exact same way. The main difference is that it can be set per type, so you could have one receptacle family that has a type called 'Floor Mounted' with its annotation, as well as a type called 'Wall Mounted' with its annotation.

[dmckevitt]

What I have right now is a single family called "Receptacle". To keep it simple, I am starting with two family types - duplex and quadplex. I modified the family types correctly, and I have loaded the annotation symbol for both the quadplex and the duplex into the family. I've created the label for each symbol as you described, and when I get into the Family Types dialog, I can see both parameters, but I don't know how to properly manipulate them. In the family type dialog for duplex, I have changed both the duplex label parameter and the quadplex label parameter to 'duplex', but I can't imagine that's the right way to do it - a warning tells me that duplicate instances will result in double counting in schedules.

Is there a way to leave a null value for the labels that don't apply to each family type? Is there another way to manipulate that I am missing? Thanks!

[mott-45]

I've created the label for each symbol as you described, and when I get into the Family Types dialog, I can see both parameters, but I don't know how to properly manipulate them.

Actually, as stated above, you only need to tie a parameter to one of the annotation elements. So just go ahead delete one of them from your view, as well as the parameter that it was tied to, and you should be good to go.

[dmckevitt]

mott, if I do that, won't I need to create a seperate family for each individual type of receptacle that I want to use? If I delete the 'quadplex' annotation and parameter, then this family becomes a duplex only, so there would be no point to my having created the seperate family type for a quadplex within the receptacle family, right?

I've attached the example .rfa of the all inclusive receptacle that I would like to create - when inserted into the project, it will bring with it a family type for every type of receptacle I use. Using the label tied to each annotation symble seems to be the best way to do this, but I am still not understanding something... let me know if I am not making any sense! Thanks again ;-)

[Steve_Stafford]

I saw this thread earlier and meant to reply but missed it for some reason till now. Now that you've been through all this learning let me toss a wrench in your general direction.

Nesting annotation in concept is great, place a component and annotation comes along, quick and back to work. In concept though...have you placed the family yet on a room with 8 sides? You know walls at every conceivable angle? Notice that the annotation doesn't stay oriented so it is readable? Sorry, no fix for that.

Next is the 3D geometry and the 2D symbol. If you really want to provide value you'll be providing a 3D element to show where this device actually exists on the wall. When you embed the 2D symbol you need to provide separate dimensions and parameters so you can move it separate from the 3D geometry. When gang boxes are installed above each other for various reasons it is consistent with what actually happens in the field yet the 2D annotation stacks on top of each other.

You have just entered the 3D/2D twilight zone where one dimension's requirements don't fit the others. Most of the stock content will not truly work for this reason. The explanation that the 2D is just symbolic or schematic doesn't cut it because you have 3D "real" elements as well that can't just slide over a few inches so the symbol looks okay. That will create a very interesting series of RFI's asking if the contractor can put the gang boxes on the same stud even though they appear staggered on the elevation.

The answer to this little novel? Don't put the annotation in the family. Tag them with Tags. Create tags that report the information you need to show and tag them separately when you need to. A bit more work but much more flexible.

Now if Autodesk finds a way to make the nested annotation rotate as desired and allows us to move the annotation schematically (possible though clunky and not in the stock content) while properly positioning the "real" 3D element then great. It just isn't possible now. The real solution perhapps is to provide a label element within the family editor for regular content too so we don't have to nest it at all. Then the keep readable behavior would be easier to assure from within the code, since the nesting probably prevents it from working, guessing...

I'm hoping to offer some perspective before you get too far along.

[mott-45]

dmckevitt, I figure it would be easier if I just post an example, so here is a thinned down version of the receptacle that I have created for my firm. Its setup to work as an 'all-purpose' receptacle and has worked well up until this point.

Steve, I agree with everything that you said and I believe that this still has a way to go as far as annotation is concerned (*cough* pipe fittings! *cough*). There are work-arounds however.

All of my testing for nested annotation includes the 8 sided wall configuration that you had mentioned and you are right, there is no way to have the text for things such as GFCI stay aligned. Thats where a shared parameter and a tag come in, and it works great minus a few positioning corrections while still being able to let me keep my annotation for normal receptacles.

As far as stacked receptacles, we chose to handle this with a visibility parameter to turn off the second annotation (just in case) and a simple text note to call it out. Its really too much trouble to program the annotation to move, and even then it may not always function as expected.

Regardless, it all comes down to time, and its going to take a lot more before we get to a point where this is flawless and semi-automatic.

For some reason the file didn't appear even though it was in the 'Attach Files' area...

[dmckevitt]

Mott, thanks a million! By fiddling with your receptacle example I was able to understand what it was that I needed to do. Thanks you!