Page 3 of 45 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 441

Thread: Revit Formulas for "everyday" usage

  1. #21
    Moderator
    "Mark Twain"
    mdradvies's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 16, 2010
    Location
    Boxtel, Netherlands
    Posts
    4,564
    Current Local Time
    03:23 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by dzatto View Post
    Currently, <= and >= are not implemented. To express such a comparison, you can use a logical NOT. For example, a<=b can be entered as NOT(a>b)

    What if I need this statement, but with another parameter in front of it? For example:

    Lift Height (NOT<1'). It gives me errors saying the left paranthesis is unexpected. If I take out the parenthesis, I get errors saying Lift Height NOT is not a valid parameter.
    Not sure I quite understand but shouldn't it be: NOT(Lift Height > 1')? The formula you type is indeed wrong. The syntax is off since there's no equation (what is not smaller then 1'?)

  2. #22
    Moderator
    "OMG I killed Revit"
    dzatto's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 9, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    5,280
    Current Local Time
    10:23 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by mdradvies View Post
    Not sure I quite understand but shouldn't it be: NOT(Lift Height > 1')? The formula you type is indeed wrong. The syntax is off since there's no equation (what is not smaller then 1'?)
    You would be correct sir. I was doing it wrong from the start. lol
    Quote Originally Posted by Munkholm View Post
    Ahh... think I know what you┤re wanting to do... the NOT(a>b) doesn┤t work with Yes/No (visibility) parameters, instead you can use a NOT as shown in the attached

    But... now that you figured the trig, maybe you should just add a Angle parameter to the Ramp, so it slides over the floor at an angle when the lift is raised from the floor ?
    That was my original thought, but after staring at it for 10 minutes without even attempting anything, I abandoned that idea. lol


    Geeze, I just realized I hijacked your thread Munkholm. Sorry about that. Any way to split it up (if you think it needs it)?

  3. #23
    Junior Member sgermano's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 24, 2011
    Location
    Sin City
    Posts
    49
    Current Local Time
    08:23 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    This is a great thread guys..a very good consolidated list of formula syntax. I would love to see a way for us to use the new extensible storage data in our parameter formulas, this would allow us to get rid of lookup tables and also attach alot more data to a family without using parameters. Ill cross my fingers for 2013! Is anyone here using hidden shared parameters?

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    10
    Current Local Time
    07:23 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by Munkholm View Post
    In all fairness, Joe Zhou came up with this genius formula!

    My initial take at it used an extra "Calc" parameter, which is a bit more clumsy but also way easier and more manageable for us mortals.

    Calc = if(Length A > Length B, Length A, Length B)

    Return Length = if(Calc > Length C, Calc, Length C)
    My unresolved problem with getting the max of 2 or 3 values is in schedules where any of the values may be null. For example, Revit Structure foundation schedules combines three different types of foundations (Wall Foundations, Isolated Foundations (by adding a shared parameter), and Slab Foundations) but each of these reports its thickness with a different parameter. I've tried to use a max formula to combine these into a single calculated value to display in a single column, but the original parameters are apparently null in the rows for which they have no values, so comparing them with > fails. Does anyone have any workarounds?

  5. #25
    Moderator
    "Mark Twain"
    mdradvies's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 16, 2010
    Location
    Boxtel, Netherlands
    Posts
    4,564
    Current Local Time
    03:23 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Yep, use < instead. Revit reads > as greater than or equal to. < is smaller than (or the other way around, I can't keep them apart. Anyway, if one option fails, the other usually does the trick).

  6. #26
    Administrator Munkholm's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    4,287
    Current Local Time
    05:23 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Hi rgesner, and welcome to the forum.

    Must admit that I┤ve never used this in a schedule, but in the family editor only.
    In the family editor there┤s no reason not to use zero as a value - See the attached.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	zerovalue.JPG 
Views:	394 
Size:	31.5 KB 
ID:	1475  

  7. #27
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    10
    Current Local Time
    07:23 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Munkholm View Post
    Hi rgesner, and welcome to the forum.

    Must admit that I┤ve never used this in a schedule, but in the family editor only.
    In the family editor there┤s no reason not to use zero as a value - See the attached.
    the problem is that they have null values in schedules, and since they are system families, there is no way to give them zero values.

    If Autodesk would just let us test for null (like we can in AutoLISP), it would be easy to resolve

  8. #28
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    10
    Current Local Time
    07:23 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by mdradvies View Post
    Yep, use < instead. Revit reads > as greater than or equal to. < is smaller than (or the other way around, I can't keep them apart. Anyway, if one option fails, the other usually does the trick).
    Doesn't help in this case, the problem isn't whether it is greater or lesser, it is that Revit formulas apparently fail when comparing a null value. A blanks in a schedule field is apparently seen as null, not as zero or an empty string.

    Furthermore, apparently in a calculation, such as
    Default Thickness + Foundation Thickness
    whenever one or the other is null, the result is null

    Autodesk REALLY needs to fix this

  9. #29
    Moderator
    "Mark Twain"
    mdradvies's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 16, 2010
    Location
    Boxtel, Netherlands
    Posts
    4,564
    Current Local Time
    03:23 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by rgesner View Post
    Doesn't help in this case, the problem isn't whether it is greater or lesser, it is that Revit formulas apparently fail when comparing a null value. A blanks in a schedule field is apparently seen as null, not as zero or an empty string.

    Furthermore, apparently in a calculation, such as
    Default Thickness + Foundation Thickness
    whenever one or the other is null, the result is null

    Autodesk REALLY needs to fix this
    Could you post this? doesn't seem correct to me, I use this all the time and never have the problem.
    O, what I do know: Revit does NOT recognize a blank! You need to fill in ALL cells used in a Calculated Value (also if it's in a deeper level).
    I think that if you fill out the value to actually be 0 the whole thing will work.

  10. #30
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    10
    Current Local Time
    07:23 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by mdradvies View Post
    Could you post this? doesn't seem correct to me, I use this all the time and never have the problem.
    O, what I do know: Revit does NOT recognize a blank! You need to fill in ALL cells used in a Calculated Value (also if it's in a deeper level).
    I think that if you fill out the value to actually be 0 the whole thing will work.
    See the attached Revit model.
    The parameters in question are from system families, so we have no way to control their contents. There are two types of foundations/footings, which appear in the same schedule, however their thickness parameters are named differently and therefor appear in different columns and each is blank in one column or the other. What we want to do is create a calculated parameter which would combine their values and display it in a single thickness column, and then hide the original two columns.
    I don't think this is possible.
    Attached Files Attached Files

Similar Threads

  1. Fˇrmulas de Revit para el "uso diario"
    By Munkholm in forum Foro Espa˝ol
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: December 14th, 2017, 05:44 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 18th, 2016, 10:32 PM
  3. Slab slope discrepancy btw "Slope arrow" and "Define Slope"
    By jh75 in forum Structure - General Questions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 6th, 2011, 08:39 PM
  4. Revit 2011 - "Black rendering" with Non-English Win XP
    By Munkholm in forum Tutorials, Tips & Tricks
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 10th, 2011, 08:15 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 7th, 2011, 06:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •