Content Builder - Make everything visible

[nestly]

When modifying an existing part, visibility is turned off by default for everything (workplanes, geometry, dimensions, profile, paths, connectors etc) and it's a tedious process to click through each item and turn it on. Is there a way to make everything visible globally?

 

also, I don't understand why Slip on flanges don't have a deflection value since they're pretty much the ultimate solution for misalignment in the realm of steel pipe.

 

Thanks

 

[tzframpton]

Nestly, I have never found a way to globally enable the non-visible items in the Content Builder. Most MEP guys have often said this editor seems ancient needs a fair amount of updating. In functionality it's not very ancient, since it fundamentally works exactly like Revit with Work Planes, Profiles, Geometry Modifiers, Connectors and Parameters/Constraints. The interface of these tools, however, do seem a bit redundant and simplified.

 

As for deflection... is this a parameter you are inquiring in how you can add yourself? Or were you just generally commenting on the OOTB content?

[nestly]

Thanks for the reply Tannar. I sort of figured there was no way to turn the visibility on independent of how it was saved, but I was still hoping....

 

Re: Deflection, the latter. The main reason to use SOF is to correct minor misalignment, so it seems odd that OOTB SOF's do not have a deflection tolerance, especially considering OOTB Socket Weld flanges do. I also don't understand why OOTB Slip On has a CEL2 = 0. In real life, SOF's are intended to slip onto the pipe/fitting, and you can normally slip a LR elbow at least half way into a SOF and still maintain 90 degrees. It seems that having the CEL=0 and indexed off the hub side causes SOF's to insert flush with the hub face, and prevents an elbow from being inserted more than 1/4" (the length of the straight section of the path on an elbow). I'm trying to figure out if SOF's are built like that for a reason, or if they're just built carelessly?

[tzframpton]

You must have fitted pipe for a good while.

 

That is a great catch. I cannot comment on the motivation behind the content being built that way, especially if the Socket Welded fittings have it. When I was in contracting, our fitters always asked me to give them face-to-center, or face-to-face so I never had to really get that deep into it, since they would calculate the cut lengths and cut-backs of the pipe. This is the main assumption in you commenting on this... true "cut lengths", and also more realistic pipe fitting scenarios (such as LR elbows being inserted into a slip-on).

[nestly]

You must have fitted pipe for a good while

 

lol.... roughly as long as you've been alive.

 

Re: cut lengths For complete fabricated parts, yes, face to face, or face to center is how I normally dimension, but when you have to field fit into existing conditions, you often have to leave at least one or two field welds to account for misalignment (linear and rotational) and the easiest way to do that is to leave a SOF to be field welded in place. In such cases, you have to allow a min/max distance the end-of-pipe will slip into the flange and the max deflection the SOF will account for.

 

My first job offer out of school was designing/drawing fire protection systems. I was really happy with the offer, but I turned it down because they wanted me in the office right away, and I thought I should spend a couple months as an installer first.

 

I have another technical question. Is it possible to make a parametric flange... with bolt holes, and if so, is it practical? I can extrude/path the "holes" but I need them to be voids in the valve body. File size is a big consideration for me, and think a block based flange may be smaller, but the main reason I wanted to use AMEP vs AutoCAD is auto-routing.

[tzframpton]

Yeah it's possible, I've seen other guys do it. I never felt the need, personally... but I can surely guide you along.

 

Well, on second thought... I remember other guys placing bolts and nuts, but not necessarily void geometry for the holes. Hmm... I may have to look into it. Revit is excellent for having parametric void geometry but never tried in AMEP... I'll do some quick testing today and see if I can find something that works. If so, setting a Workplane and some simple profiles and constraints should do the trick, no problem.

 

Valves, different story. You can make parametric valves, but they're nowhere near as detailed as a solid modeled block-based part unless a mathematical genius gets involved. Even then I think there's limitations because of the natural complexity.

[nestly]

valve body

 

oops, I meant to say flange body. As you said, the valves I want to use will be too complex to be parametric

[hertz hound]

I have another technical question. Is it possible to make a parametric flange... with bolt holes, and if so, is it practical? I can extrude/path the "holes" but I need them to be voids in the valve body. File size is a big consideration for me, and think a block based flange may be smaller, but the main reason I wanted to use AMEP vs AutoCAD is auto-routing.

 

If you right click the modifier and use Add Boolean subtract, will that get the result you are after?

 

I don't know why I can't post a jpeg anymore. I checked the image size and the file size. Them seem to be correct. I only have four jpegs stored in my manage folder from previous posts. So here Is a link to a jpeg screenshot.

 

https://dc1.safesync.com/LMFjDWth/Tom%27s%20Custom%20Parts/Flange.jpg?a=lSe6YPS3TUM

[nestly]

Thanks for the suggestion hertz hound. I decided to start learning to build parts with something easier first (threaded and socket weld elbow/tees) before trying to put holes in stuff.

I ran into another snag however. Once a parametric part is inserted into a drawing, I can't get the changes made in Content builder to update the part. I've tried Regen'ing the catalog, open/close the drawing, and using OBJRELUPDATE, but the part will not update unless I purge it out of the drawing and re-insert. Any ideas?

[hertz hound]

I know exactly what you mean, but I don't have any ideas.

I am very used to trying out the part in a new drawing and closing the drawing without saving changes. Modifying the part and trying it again in a new drawing. The same thing happens with block based parts for me. Until the old one is purged it keeps inserting the old block definition.

The real weird thing is, (unless it is me) sometimes the part will show the update without a purge.

[nestly]

I got some help on updating parts at the Autodesk forums

 

REDEFINEFROMCATALOG (also on the Ribbon > Manage > MEP Content pull-down menu)

[tzframpton]

Good find Nestly, and glad you found the solution.