Unapproved constraints

[mjdanowski]

This is mostly an issue which effects the family editor, and is absolutely horrible when it comes to drawing such things as model and symbolic lines in a stretchable family.

My beef is that when you draw something like a model line, and but it up to some sort of reference, that model line will constrain itself to that reference. When you have a few things overlapping, this can get very aggravating, very fast.

Ultimately, a good functionality of this would to be able to either toggle "auto-constraints" on and off, or possibly even removing them all together. I know when I create a family I can make them rather complex, and I have a tendency to be very specific on where I want everything to go when certain parameters are changed. When these ninja-constraints counteract what I am trying to do for what looks like no apparent reason, it can lead to many hours of hair pulling frustration.

Another example is doing equality constraints between three lines, where one of them is pinned and then adding a length parameter to the outer three lines. Ideally this would create a length of whatever which is centered over a pinned reference plane (origin) and as it increases/decreases in size it stays centered. However, what happens if you add an equality constraint first, and then add the length parameter, is you get a big annoying error and it forces you to remove the equality constraint.
I finally, after a lot of aggravation, figured out that if you add the length parameter first, made the two lines equal from the center line after then, and THEN added the equality constraint, then it works. Don't ask me why it works, I am sure there is a reason, but it is still quite annoying.

So my ultimate wish is this: The family editor is a powerful tool that will get whatever you want made... eventually. The problem with it is there are some annoying quirks which if you don't have down, will make you pull your hair out in frustration. A more friendly atmosphere in the editor would be beneficial for everyone as it would make it easier to create custom content, something RMEP will definitely need in the future.

[truevis]

It's my #1 wish, to be able to turn off mystery associations, both in RFAs and RVTs. E.g., I put a wall somewhere where I want it to be -- I don't want Revit to move it willy-nilly.

I like your term, "ninja-constraints".

I think the simplest way to do this would be to have a Yes/No instance parameter on elements affected by this -- "Auto-Constrain". Its default would be Yes.

Whether we'll see this in future versions of Revit remains a mystery.

[mjdanowski]

It's my #1 wish, to be able to turn off mystery associations, both in RFAs and RVTs. E.g., I put a wall somewhere where I want it to be -- I don't want Revit to move it willy-nilly.

I like your term, "ninja-constraints".

I think the simplest way to do this would be to have a Yes/No instance parameter on elements affected by this -- "Auto-Constrain". Its default would be Yes.

Whether we'll see this in future versions of Revit remains a mystery.

I don't even think it would have to be an instance parameter, but a global setting, kind of like OSNAP in AutoCAD.

[aaronrumple]

Naaaawwwww.....

Revit just needs to do a better job of letting the user understand how the constraints are being applied. This needs to be addressed in the UI, the help files, better lock and pin tools and with a better warnings and errors system.

Once you get the Zen of how it all works, it is a great system. If we had to manually edit each constraint like in Inventor, we would never get any architecture done.

[mjdanowski]

Naaaawwwww.....

Revit just needs to do a better job of letting the user understand how the constraints are being applied. This needs to be addressed in the UI, the help files, better lock and pin tools and with a better warnings and errors system.

Once you get the Zen of how it all works, it is a great system. If we had to manually edit each constraint like in Inventor, we would never get any architecture done.

Well I think this is a bit of a disparity between architecture and MEP. Architecture elements are a bit more "on the fly" while in MEP we need everything to stretch like crazy with 30 different things going on, as we are more component based so to speak.

I used my example of line work constraints as I find myself trying to constrain symbols to geometry pretty often. For example, on a recent family I have renovated I wanted to put a supply "X" on a diffuser, but I only want it to be symbolic lines. When I change the size of the diffuser I would expect the lines to stretch with it (according to some awesome trig of mine), but for some stupid *** reason the cross changes its center for no reason.

I have no problem with these ninja-constraints as sometimes they are helpful. However, with no option to turn it off, helpful can turn into pain-in-the-*** quote quickly.

[aaronrumple]

When I change the size of the diffuser I would expect the lines to stretch with it (according to some awesome trig of mine), but for some stupid *** reason the cross changes its center for no reason.

Do you know how to lock the endpoint of a line to another endpoint? Typically this often what you need for angled lines. We have the same issue in arcitecture with door swings in plan and elevation.

Post the family and I'll take a look....

[truevis]

Naaaawwwww.....
Once you get the Zen of how it all works, it is a great system....

Ahh, the Zen.

After ten years of apprenticeship, Tenno achieved the rank of Zen teacher. One rainy day, he went to visit the famous master Nan-in. When he walked in, the master greeted him with a question, "Did you leave your wooden clogs and umbrella on the porch?"

"Yes," Tenno replied.

"Tell me," the master continued, "did you place your umbrella to the left of your shoes, or to the right?"

Tenno did not know the answer, and realized that he had not yet attained full awareness. So he became Nan-in's apprentice and studied under him for ten more years.
I must practice for another ten years. You may call me Grasshopper.