Interactive Schedules

[Anonymous]

My door schedule is rounding the door thickness dimension to the nearest 1/4". Ex. 1 3/8" to 1 1/2". I tried changing the dimensioning tolerance for doors but that did not seem to work. Any idea where I can adjust the tolerance.

[Laszlo Nagy]

I moved your topic to the Schedules group.

Can you post a screenshot of where you tried to adjust those settings?

[Anonymous]

I am not sure, but may be your problem has root in calculation accuracy. Try to check Options->Project Preferences->Calculation Units.

[Anonymous]

I adjusted the accuracy under the project preferences>dimensions window/door dimensions

[Anonymous]

Brad wrote:
I adjusted the accuracy under the project preferences>dimensions window/door dimensions

It's accuracy of windows/doors dimensions on your plans. You have to adjust calculation accuracy.

[Laszlo Nagy]

It is a tricky thing: the Linear Dimensions accuracy setting controls this field.
I guess the reason for this is that this is not really the Height of Width of Sill of the Door, which have their respective accuracy setting in this same page.
This Panel thickness is a parameter of the Door. Its type if a Length parameter and this is why the Linear Dimension accuracy setting controls it in schedules.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, Laszlo is right, of course. Calculation units relate List Schemas, not interactive schedules . And, as I understood, W/D Dimensions Preferences regard Dimension Markers only.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Leo wrote:
Sorry, Laszlo is right, of course. Calculation units relate List Schemas, not interactive schedules . And, as I understood, W/D Dimensions Preferences regard Dimension Markers only.

Don't feel too badly, Leo - there is a bit of a mess between calculation units and dimension units as far as schedules go...

Ever since interactive schedules were introduced, some of the display formatting was determined by dimension units and some was determined by calculation units, without any real logic and making it hard to format different schedules in different ways.

It is still impossible, for example, to have certain volume fields be in cubic feet and others be in cubic yards, for example. (In the US, we often measure concrete and construction fill in cubic yards, and heating volume in cubic feet.) Calculation Units, which would select between the two, are not memorized with a view - they do not have 'named' standards like dimensions that are view-associative.

Thus, it is completely impossible to have some live (interactive) schedules show fills as cu yards and others as cu feet. It has been this way for far too many years. (You can find many old threads here discussing this and other Calc-unit frustrations - as I recall, Duane Valencia was one of the most outspoken critics.)

I cannot remember offhand which other fields are formatted based on the Calculation Units. And, maybe this isn't something that affects the rest of the world (do you measure all volumes in cubic meters?). But, it has been a killer issue for the US for many years.

...By the way, welcome to the forums, I'm sure I am not the only one who has been appreciating your participation here so far...

Cheers,
Karl

PS Also notice another problem we have: the UNITS are not displayed for individual records - only for totals. So, it is essential to include a total line in any schedule that includes volumes just so you know what the units are.

[Anonymous]

Karl wrote:
...By the way, welcome to the forums, I'm sure I am not the only one who has been appreciating your participation here so far...

Thank you very much, Karl. I'll try to make myself useful .

I need to explain that I am not an architect. I am solving various problems (as strange behavior, crashes, noneffective usage of software and hardware, etc.) which Russian architects experienced in their computer work.

Now I have to build my knowledge of western architectural practice (so, I am very happy with your kindly explanations), improve skills in remote support, and develop my English. This forums can help me a lot. And I hope that I'll help some members to solve their problems.

Cheers,
Leo

[Erika Epstein]

Leo,
Your posts have been insightful and stimulating. When Karl, Tom Waltz and many other non-architects joined the forum the quality of the forum, IMHO grew tremendously. The way you approach the program has taught at least this architect so much about how to use it and how to think about problems. It's very refreshing and challenging. So welcome. And I look forward to learning more about Russian architecture.