Tapered beam: Analytical vs physical model

[smadsen100]

Hi!

I am trying to model a timber frame section with tapered beams (see attached file). For the tapered beams I made my own family (attached). I can not figure out how to place the analytical and the physical models in a consistent way. I tried to set the justification and the Vertical projection to both top and centre (see attached) both without any luck. The analytical model should represent the centre line of the tapered beam in both ends, and not some mean value representation of the centre line, as shown on the attached file.
Any good ideas?

Kind regards Søren

[m20roxxers]

2011 has expanded functionality that you will be able to control additional aspects of the analytical model with references planes. I would wait to test that.

Alternatively to get it done you can create an inplace column and draw the analytical line. Switch off the analytical capabilities of the column and then use the new line as it does transfer to other packages.

At this stage any analytical lines you create in families will not be passed on.

[smadsen100]

Thank you for your answer! I have two comments:

Firstly, just to make sure that we are talking about the same problem:
It is the beams that are the problem . The columns works fine with the analytical line in the centre of the them, since their cross section is constant and thus not varying over the length.

Secondly: I have tried to create an inplace component of the tapered beam. Here I have made Symbolic Lines (Analytical Model (cut) or Analytical Model (projection)) to represent the analytical model. But the analytical lines are not "real" so to say, ie. it is not possible to add BC's or snap other elements to the inplace component.

I hope you know what I mean...