X Force X32 Exe Revit Live 2005 Portable
Alhueche Orton
I got a solution to my post How can I flip a section using the Revit 2017 API on the Revit API forum. It turns out that I overlooked the plural ElementTransformUtils.MirrorElements function which I assumed was almost exactly the same as the singular ElementTransformUtils.MirrorElement except for doing multiple element mirrors instead of a single mirror. The plural ElementTransformUtils.MirrorElements has a bool mirrorCopies parameter that you can set to false which will force the original section to be mirrored instead of just making mirrored copy of the original. Here are the two function signatures side-by-side:
I'm sorry to hear about that - please definitely then also refer to my post above. As mentioned, the more Feedback reports the better! And just to reinforce this: You can always downgrade to 3.0 or preview 11 of 3.1. Even if you send us Feedback after installing those versions, we'll still get the logs from the current 3.1 release.
Way back in 2016 I posted about my dislike of Windows 10 (not to mention 8 and 8.1 which I thought were diabolical). I resisted upgrading from Windows 7 for several more years - even after Microsoft ceased support for that version. Many IT Managers around the world followed the same strategy until official support stopped - whereupon they were forced to move to Windows 10.
My reasons for disliking Windows 10 were nothing to do with "resisting change" - after all I have been an avid beta tester of Revit for many years, and usually installed new versions within hours of release (well, maybe not for use on live projects . . . , as that might be considered foolhardy). I had genuine reasons for criticising Windows 10 - which I won't describe here, as it is now past history.
I'm trying to follow the column forces in RAM Concrete. I have the model built in SS and each level is designed in Concept. All loads are specified in Concept and column design forces are specified to be pulled from Concept within RAM Concrete.
I'm trying to follow the design forces within SS to see how those talk to the forces pulled from Concept and I'm not quite seeing them match up. For example, at one column here are Concept Design Forces at Level 8. The row indicating total are factored forces for the controlling load combination for this column (1.2D + B + 1.6L + 0.5LLR). The green boxes match well with the Column Design Forces from SS. The yellow boxes show significant deviations from Column Design Forces and Concept Design Forces.
Below is a snapshot of the reaction plan from Concept for the controlling load combination. These forces seem to align well with the TOP forces shown in Column Design Forces and Concept Design Forces:
Largely, I'm wondering if there's a recommended process or a simple method to correlate forces columns are designed for between SS and Concept, especially for nonsway, non-slender columns. I realize for certain slender columns, there may be minimum moments and/or magnification at play which complicates matters. But neither of those items should apply in this case.
The exchange is for the column forces of a single story and for the column below - top end moments (the moments at the slab in question). Far end moments (bottom moments) don't get updated by Concept.
Slenderness effects should not affect the design forces report, only the combined forces in the Column Design Report. Likewise, minimum eccentric moments do not affect the forces report, only the design report. See: -staad/w/structural_analysis_and_design__wiki/25803/concrete-column-minimum-eccentric-moment
Thanks, Seth. Just uploaded my file. I was focusing on trying to follow the forces down the center, circular column. I'm having some issues correlating minor axis top-end moments between SS and Concept.
As I was reviewing your model today I saw that there are no live loads in the model. Apparently the live loads came only from Ram Concept. I've seen problems in this area before, so I always recommend that the RAM SS model have a complete set of live loads (surface loads) even if they are going to be adjusted in Ram Concept. The load cases serve as place holders and are important for bi-directional reaction transfer. If your model actually does have live loads, let me know, it's possible that I clobbered them in my test.
This should be an interesting challenge! Those studycadcam drawings have, in my experience, an (intentional?) combination of missing dimensions and dimensions placed in confusing ways that force you to do deductions and math to figure them out. Struggles to understand the drawings are a whole different issue than managing to draw them in SketchUp.
I have a simple A-shaped horizontally orientated frame with several loads on it and three supports below, one in each 'corner'. Depending on magnitude of forces applied, I want to probe the resulting forces in Z-direction.
Why is that? It means that useres cannot set a probe say for reaction force in one place and another for v.M. Stress in another place and use them both at any one time to see how they interact. I feel that probes of different type should work independently from each other and at the same time. So, if a user should want to simulate displacement, why should he not want to see a reaction resultant at a certain face at the same time?
In the current version 19.2, i opened your file, added the fixed supports, left the solution result on Von Mises Stress, pressed the play button and DL provided me reaction forces without changing the current result.
Subscribe to the Ansys Blog to get great new content about the power of simulation delivered right to your email on a weekly basis. With content from Ansys experts, partners and customers you will learn about product development advances, thought leadership and trends and tips to better use Ansys tools. Sign up here.
It seems to me that the best way to leverage BIM is to have standard drafting view details such as door jambs and other things that should be the same in 90% of the conditions the details might occur drawn in basic 2D drafting views and use model geometry as a guide in live views to draw details where specific conditions exist. Drawing everything including enlarged sections in 2D views is more of a CAD way of thinking and drawing and causes problems when things move or shift in the 3D model or in linked consultant models.
I do both. Our first BIM project did details in drafting views only, but as we developed efficiency in the software, almost all details are from a live view. If pressed for time, I'll often overlay a detail group of something (like a reveal or post connection) with white-out fields on top of a live view. This only works if what ever I drew does not need to be shown in other views.
BIM in my experience should be about the process. Start with a live detail and cover pieces / connections with detail families as you develop the project. Standard details are not drafting views like the old cad days but detail families. Note ect. should be embeded in the detail families. One old cad detail may need to be broken into multiple Revit detail families for correct operation. Very few details, except boiler plate stand alone details should be simple drafting views. Wall assemblies as drafting views is dangerous for coordination. The more divisions you create between the model and the information displayed the more opportunities for errors. This conversation is really really hard to move upstream to the old guard who has their cad detail library they just want to copy and paste, It seems like the simple answer but becomes a big problem when down the road there are differences between the model and drafted details. Clash detection, consultant coordination, rendering, take offs, are all junk and nearly impossible if you are using primarily drafted details. The bulk of the information should be modeled. additional information is added through drafting.
Thanks for the insights, think my coworkers for the project I am on part time are just stuck in the old CAD ways of thinking. I always like to take a moment and ask how can I use the BIM Like master Yoda asking Luke to use the force, before starting in on a task. It is frustrating when you know how to make Revit do it but your team wants to do it the analog CAD way.
Microsoft Word is installed and used on almost every PC in our market. Specs are already available in Word format. Why force a change to convert documents into a limited editor to do part of the job and have to export back to Word to finish the job? A lot of time and money is wasted! VisiWord is a Microsoft Word add-in with enhancements for specification writing, publishing of manuals, navigating documents, and linking Word documents and other content to your BIM models. Since VisiSpecs is managing the server and data in the Cloud, you can immediately use your documents and your BIM models to see these exciting benefits TODAY!
I can do a Force Balance analysis to achieve the result I want at discrete linkage positions, but to generate that even at 10 degree intervals is somewhat tedious. I do this by setting the input force to 1, and the load cell is at the output on the linkage.
Ok, so I am going to assume you need the force balance in varying positions for some more complex linkage system, like a 4 bar mechanism for example. The snap that you show will have the same force ratio from output to input regardless of the angle.
The trick is to use the multi-objective Design study feature of CREO to vary the angle of the mechanism and record the force balance value as a function of the angle. You will need the behavioral modeling extension to use that feature.
Create a "motion analysis" where the definition is your force balance analysis and your parameter is your loadcell reaction measure. Be sure to highlight the parameters needed. Hit [RUN] to populate results, then [Add feature] to put it in your model tree.
aa06259810