Railing by path - how to change length/position afterwards?

When you have a railing placed by selecting a path, how can you change (extend, shorten...position) it after you placed it?

The 'modify railing' menu doesn't seem to allow me to change more then the appearance of the railing...

Parents
  • Hi Stefan,
    I don't think you're missing anything - Length is currently not a property of Railings. The only workaround I've found is to retain the original path element, modify that to suit, then delete/replace the Railing. I think all other dimensional aspects are covered thru the Railing Construction Settings dialog.

    I just did a quick search but (surprisingly) did not see any Enhancement requests for Railing length, so if you were to log a Service Request we can get this added to the database.



    Answer Verified By: StefanC 

  • Thanks Steve. So the safest thing should be to keep the path as a construction class line.
    I'll add this to the Service Requests.

    Windows 10 pro

    OpenBuildings Designer Connect Edition Update 10.10.01.151

  • Using MS as a base won't change, that's the core of the different software packages Bentley offers.
    I don't think that's a problem, but a strong revision of the way tools are used and which tools are interesting. For example we need only 1 parametric tool, but a good one, which also offers fast creating of standard building elements: doors, windows... by offering a standard to build on.

    Windows 10 pro

    OpenBuildings Designer Connect Edition Update 10.10.01.151

  • Another day another complaint about Aecosim. I hope that someone is listening at the strategic management level.

    It seems like Aecosim's development history is full of strategic mistakes, which it can't afford keep making. The market share for Bentley in the UK has fallen to Windows Phone levels for BIM. Some think it is probably more Blackberry like.

    Personally, I think that it is all down to top management. Bentley now has 100's of verticals . Where to focus and resource? What to drop?

    Mjan would rather see a total reboot and independent app. I think that this would be interesting and viable in the right context. I that this is what auto desk labs is trying to do. An incubator for startups funded by auto desk. I suppose there will need to be the startup geek culture and IBM corporate suit agent smiths to be successful.

    I suppose that the big bang model is where a key coder with a super algorithm builds a killer app with a small team. These days CAD being fat and mature, the risks and amount of dev will be huge.. like Onshape with millions and multiple funding rounds. Big untried concepts like cloud browser based working, iPhone style mass market pricing etc.

    Middle risk- model like Renga is probably more like it. Take an MCAD engine and coder team and adapt it to target another market, helped along by Putin's restrictions on foreign software. Less upfront investment, appropriate to the target market size.

    Or take a slow big bang model like grasshopper. Identify a cool approach like GC and add a much more user friendly UI. Limit team to mall size and grow ecosystem that will fill in gaps in capability. Staying in endless beta also means you don,t have to pay for licencing all that underlying code libraries until you know for sure your market revenue is likely to be.

    Or buy a startup that already uses your platform like Bentley did with Triforma 30 years ago. The problem is they fell out with each other. Why did they do it when there was also MicroStation Modeler? I guess Triforma was out of the box and had also drawing extractions and quantities, info tagging pret-a-porter.

    You would say yea but all of that is ancient history. Triforma DEM is being superseded by DV \BV and I suppose Triforma solids by parasolids. Looking back, it's not that these decisions were faulty or not but the speed that the transitions were made. The moment you fall behind you get blackberried and hit by vicious circle of falling revenues > less resources >more bugs>less market cachet more marketing overheads> less cool more difficulty attracting 10x coders> falling market share etc

    Aecosim's dgs is not a database in the same why that Revitz is, not by a long shot. Not to say Bentley can provide one. It probably could by leveraging Openplant or Design++. Revitz is based from the ground up on a change management system. www.google.co.uk/.../US8040358"Irwin+Jungreis"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Oo1fUq23EfOV7AbAg4G4Cw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAQ

    Dgs had zero change management. It just stores stuff. You can link one parameter to another, even.

    Will ABD get something similar one day? Who knows? It would be good to incorporate in to ABD CE, but they are probably tearing their hair out at the moment trying to add Telerik UI to AbD's ancient code written in C or worse.

    I hope that platforms PS team will take a year out and dev PCM for ABD and prostructures and maybe Openplant. As mentioned above, one of the problems with ABD is the fragmented 1000 ways of almost doing something. Looks good on the data sheet but disappointing on the ground. Revit on the other hand has a unified framework for all its tools, and a global change management framework that allows parametric propagation.

    Like the rebel fleet at the battle of Endorsement, ABD needs to get close to the large ships... and piggy back and collaborate and share resources to much higher degree than ever before.. or risk getting picked off by the death star rebooted.
  • It IS NOT the right way but the original answer was to give a better workaround. Everything is a workaround and so finding the better one for the current use. You have use one workaround for one thing on a project and another solution for the same task on the other part of the project. sometimes no way around it.

    Ustn since 1988
    SS4 - i7-3.45Ghz-16 Gb-250/1Tb/1Tb-Win8.1-64b

    Eric D. Milberger
    Architect + Master Planner + BIM

    Senior  Master Planner NASA - Marshall Space Flight Center

    The Milberger Architectural Group, llc

  • I also hope it becomes user friendly. I work with a very large client of Bentley and they are looking elsewhere. All work that comes to them is either Autocad or Revit created and then a bad translated model is accepted as BIM. the product is just not a viable design product.

    Ustn since 1988
    SS4 - i7-3.45Ghz-16 Gb-250/1Tb/1Tb-Win8.1-64b

    Eric D. Milberger
    Architect + Master Planner + BIM

    Senior  Master Planner NASA - Marshall Space Flight Center

    The Milberger Architectural Group, llc

  • I don't have time for workarounds and nor for finding workarounds, that is all waste of time to me. Trying to figure out a way to do something can consume a lot of time and especially when you find out after hours that it is either a defect or not possible!
    It should just work or not, in this case you will not be wasting time to find out a way to make it work.
Reply Children
No Data