is there a possibility to overwrite the IFC parameters IfcExportAs and IfcExportType which are created as type parameters with an instance parameter?
I think the export parameters make the most sense as a type parameter and i created them as project parameters (shared) for all categories. If I now want to have a certain element exported differently then is there the possibility to overwrite the type parameter with an instance parameter or do I have to duplicate the type and change the values there?
What should i do with Provision for Voids generated as generic models? For them the parameters must be created as instance parameters.
Do you have any tipps and best practices?
Greetings
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
It is possible to have both parameters as Instance and as Type parameter, but you have to edit the shared parameter text file to make the magic happening.
So you will have the choice to add the parameter as Instance or as Type parameter for different categories.
See attached example.
Thank you Dirk. Do you know what happens if in both parameters different parameters are set? Will the exporter always prefer one? Do you work like this with the "double-parameter"?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I think the instance will override the type parameter, but I should test it (because I also have a vague memory that "the strongest" was depending on which parameter was added at first: it is indeed also a thingy on my todo-list).
I don't do production work myself, I only try to figure out what should work best (and to really test it also). So I agree with you that in most cases its making more sense to have the IfcExportAs parameter as Type parameter, so that you only have to use the Instance parameter for the few abnormalities.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
For testing purposes: I did my best to get it messed up, but luckely the exporter is doing the correct expected behaviour (as far as I tested).
Instance > Type
Project Parameter (on Categories) > Parameter within Family
So, if you have the IFCExportAs(=IfcFurniture) as Type parameter within the Loadable Family (f.i. Generic Model),
and the IFCExportAs as Instance parameter in the Project Parameters on the Category Generic Models, and for a particual occurence the value is set on IfcDoor,
it will result for that occurence as an IfcDoor in the IFC-model, and for all others as IfcFurniture, which is the expected behaviour.
Trials to get it messed up: although you can't add parameters that are completely identical (case sensitive), you can allways add them with a mix of lower and uppercase (f.i. ifcexportas, IFCExportAs, IFCEXPORTAS)
In that way you can have at least 4 "IfcExportAs" parameters on 1 object (on Instance/Type Level, within the Family and on Project Level). By filling in values and deleting them, deleting the parameters and adding them again,
the only thing I noticed, is that sometimes it looks like that suddenly the instance value isn't dominant anymore, but after applying the value again, it is again "fixed".
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hello,
is there a possibility to overwrite the IFC parameters IfcExportAs and IfcExportType which are created as type parameters with an instance parameter?
I think the export parameters make the most sense as a type parameter and i created them as project parameters (shared) for all categories. If I now want to have a certain element exported differently then is there the possibility to overwrite the type parameter with an instance parameter or do I have to duplicate the type and change the values there?
What should i do with Provision for Voids generated as generic models? For them the parameters must be created as instance parameters.
Do you have any tipps and best practices?
Greetings
It is possible to have both parameters as Instance and as Type parameter, but you have to edit the shared parameter text file to make the magic happening.
So you will have the choice to add the parameter as Instance or as Type parameter for different categories.
See attached example.
Thank you Dirk. Do you know what happens if in both parameters different parameters are set? Will the exporter always prefer one? Do you work like this with the "double-parameter"?
I think the instance will override the type parameter, but I should test it (because I also have a vague memory that "the strongest" was depending on which parameter was added at first: it is indeed also a thingy on my todo-list).
I don't do production work myself, I only try to figure out what should work best (and to really test it also). So I agree with you that in most cases its making more sense to have the IfcExportAs parameter as Type parameter, so that you only have to use the Instance parameter for the few abnormalities.
R2018.3
18.4.0 IFC2x3CV2
For testing purposes: I did my best to get it messed up, but luckely the exporter is doing the correct expected behaviour (as far as I tested).
Instance > Type
Project Parameter (on Categories) > Parameter within Family
So, if you have the IFCExportAs(=IfcFurniture) as Type parameter within the Loadable Family (f.i. Generic Model),
and the IFCExportAs as Instance parameter in the Project Parameters on the Category Generic Models, and for a particual occurence the value is set on IfcDoor,
it will result for that occurence as an IfcDoor in the IFC-model, and for all others as IfcFurniture, which is the expected behaviour.
Trials to get it messed up: although you can't add parameters that are completely identical (case sensitive), you can allways add them with a mix of lower and uppercase (f.i. ifcexportas, IFCExportAs, IFCEXPORTAS)
In that way you can have at least 4 "IfcExportAs" parameters on 1 object (on Instance/Type Level, within the Family and on Project Level). By filling in values and deleting them, deleting the parameters and adding them again,
the only thing I noticed, is that sometimes it looks like that suddenly the instance value isn't dominant anymore, but after applying the value again, it is again "fixed".
Hello Dirk,
thank you for testing :)