Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Filter based on instance parameter being greater than a type parameter?

  1.    #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    June 2, 2015
    Posts
    30
    Current Local Time
    07:50 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Filter based on instance parameter being greater than a type parameter?

    Just thinking if my wall types parameter has a fire rating of 1hour but I only need to show that particular wall as 30mins in plan for the contractor. How can I make sure users aren't putting in incorrect values.

    Can anyone think of a way to visually highlight if a wall instance parameter is greater than its a type parameter?

  2.    #2
    Moderator Robin Deurloo's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 7, 2011
    Location
    Rotterdam, Holland
    Posts
    1,938
    Current Local Time
    08:50 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Because the build in Fire Rating is a text parameter, you can not use the value in formula's. The only thing I can think of right now is have an extra Fire Rating type parameter that is a number and an extra Fire Rating Instance parameter that is also a number. Then you can build a formula into a Schedule and have Conditional Formatting make the cells red for example when the one is larger then the other. Just tested that and that works fine. But it is only in the schedule and you will have to ignore the build in parameter.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fire rating.JPG 
Views:	14 
Size:	97.5 KB 
ID:	40363

  3.    #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    June 2, 2015
    Posts
    30
    Current Local Time
    07:50 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Yeah that's what I was thinking. We'd have to make a new type parameter that is number based. Problem arises when trying to make sure people ignore the built in parameter. What's the best way through steer people away from it or even hide it (if easily possible, don't want to tag around with background settings).

    Schedule method is good and is what I was leaning towards doing as I know it is achievable. but I'd love it if in plan views I could highlight the clashing walls. Eg make them bright dashed green for cut lines. As far as I know though, you can't have a filter with a greater than calculation comparing 2 different parameters.

  4.    #4
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    11,691
    Current Local Time
    01:50 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    You can 100% filter in VG Filters, with text parameters. And greater than/less than works.

    EDIT: actually, I might not be using greater than or less than. So I might be wrong about that. But you can still do it, because you can check for a text parameter that starts with four, and a type parameter (number) that is less than four.

    Ours have been this way a long time. So I am sure it does work.

    Getting users to ignore the default one is easy. If your system is set up well nobody should begin the type properties at all. And in training you just explain which one is the proper parameter.

    People act like this is a huge barrier, but the reality is if people don't listen about which parameter to use when you're training, any system that you set up that's not out of the box isn't going to work, hypothetically. It's kind of a weak argument.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Twiceroadsfool; April 18th, 2021 at 12:13 AM.

  5.    #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    June 2, 2015
    Posts
    30
    Current Local Time
    07:50 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    True. Post Grenfell fire in the UK there is a big fire fear here at the min. Some I suspect are using it to push their own preference.

    Yeah I looked and hit a wall trying to make a filter in the view template to compare if the instance parameter is greater than the type parameter.

    I saw less than and greater than (if it was a number parameter) but that was only in relation to the selected parameter. Not comparing the 2 parameters.

    At the risk of being cheeky. Could you post a pic of your filter settings?
    Last edited by mountain1985; April 18th, 2021 at 01:03 AM.

  6.    #6
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    11,691
    Current Local Time
    01:50 PM

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    One thing i was wrong about: BOTH of these Parameters (RATING POTENTIAL and RATING ASSIGNED) are Text Types. The Filters still work fine.

    The ASSIGNED is looking for an exact entry, since someone would be saying "its a one hour wall" but POTENTIAL can be ANYTHING greater than a 1 hour potential, or equal to a 1 hour potential. Works perfectly.

    EDIT: BTW, "Post Grenfell fire" (again) doesnt matter. Its irrelevant. Its a complete misdirection tactic. Someone declaring "Fire is extra important" doesnt lend any bearing to one method over the other, at all. It could/would only do that if there was a solid rubric for how to gauge the two methods, and one of them was clearly the winner. In that case, saying "fire is extra important" and pointing at the certifiably better method, would make sense. But (whether its them OR you) simply pointing out the importance of "fire in life safety" literally changes nothing about the debate.

    BTW, there are like... ten solid reasons why Type Parameters only, suck. But there is a crazy long thread on this in the forum already. I would start there, if someone in the org really has trouble understanding it. But its pretty basic, in terms of how it works. And the logic is pretty simple.

    I can build a 4-7/8" partition with metal studs and type X GWB, and it can have the "potential" to be 1 hour rated (hence thats a type parameter). But that doesnt mean everywhere i build a 4-7/8" wall with those materials it WILL be 1 hour rated. It may be unrated, smoke only rated, 30 minutes, or an hour. There is ZERO added "intelligence, smartness, data, BIMness, control, or whatever" simply because they are made in to different wall types. Anyone saying otherwise has a pretty entry level understanding of how Revit works with data.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2021-04-17_20-40-29.png  
    Last edited by Twiceroadsfool; April 18th, 2021 at 01:50 AM.

  7.    #7
    Moderator Robin Deurloo's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 7, 2011
    Location
    Rotterdam, Holland
    Posts
    1,938
    Current Local Time
    08:50 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    The only thing about this way of doing the fire rating is that I'm not sure how this all goes into my IFC and if people down the line understand the data and won't complain that the Fire Rating is not filled in correctly. We have a Basic Information Delivery Manual 'agreement' in Holland that more or less dictates what data needs to be where in the IFC (https://www.bimloket.nl//documents/B...S_v1_0_ENG.pdf)

    Have to look into if you can actually have the custom value end up in the FireRating property in the IFC.

  8.    #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    June 2, 2015
    Posts
    30
    Current Local Time
    07:50 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin Deurloo View Post
    The only thing about this way of doing the fire rating is that I'm not sure how this all goes into my IFC and if people down the line understand the data and won't complain that the Fire Rating is not filled in correctly. We have a Basic Information Delivery Manual 'agreement' in Holland that more or less dictates what data needs to be where in the IFC (https://www.bimloket.nl//documents/B...S_v1_0_ENG.pdf)

    Have to look into if you can actually have the custom value end up in the FireRating property in the IFC.
    Theres always dynamo to pull the value from new parameter and place it in the out of the box fire parameter Thats still another process and duplicate information in 2 parameters. Which doesnt sit right with me. Im pretty sure you could remove it by tinkering with system files but im reluctant to do that as you cant guarantee it wont mess up a future update or plugin. Other thing to pursue is the IFC mapping options. Might be able to make it work in there.

    Im planning on experimenting with this tonight before presenting it to our firm so will keep you posted if i hit any roadblocks.

  9.    #9
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    11,691
    Current Local Time
    01:50 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    You cant remove the OOTB Fire Rating parameter.

    Im betting IFC Mapping can handle it, and if it couldnt, i would live with the IFC being wrong, before i would change methods. Thank God i dont have to deal with that stuff over here.

  10.    #10
    Moderator Robin Deurloo's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 7, 2011
    Location
    Rotterdam, Holland
    Posts
    1,938
    Current Local Time
    08:50 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    You cant remove the OOTB Fire Rating parameter.

    Im betting IFC Mapping can handle it, and if it couldnt, i would live with the IFC being wrong, before i would change methods. Thank God i dont have to deal with that stuff over here.
    I tried that, but so far all I get is an extra parameter in the IFC with the data and the OOTB one not having any data in it. Will have to look at it some more as I believe you should be able to link any custom parameter to any IFC parameter with custom mapping.

Similar Threads

  1. K coefficient vs type-instance parameter
    By r12 in forum Architecture - Family Creation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 12th, 2016, 10:52 AM
  2. Cant get yes/no parameter to be instance based on tag family
    By byk3bep in forum Architecture - Family Creation
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 19th, 2014, 06:13 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 26th, 2013, 07:45 AM
  4. Including instance parameter in type parameter formula
    By sabari2504 in forum Architecture - Family Creation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 12th, 2013, 02:54 PM
  5. Parameter that works as a Type, not as an Instance
    By Stuntmonkee in forum Architecture - Family Creation
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 16th, 2011, 03:59 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
  •