Parameter limitations in Interactive Schedules

[Anonymous]

Hello all,
I'm attempting to create some library parts that report their XY locations and calculated Volume in the I.S. Unfortunately I've run across some limitations:

XY COORDINATE ISSUE:
The pieces need to report their XY coordinates but I can't get the values to return anything but zero...

!!!parameters xloc & yloc are "text" type parameters
xlocation=str("%-10.2df",symb_pos_x)
parameters xloc=xlocation

ylocation=str("%-10.2df",symb_pos_y)
parameters yloc=ylocation

I've even tried using "Length" parameters for xloc without any luck.

xloc=symb_pos_x

The text strings display graphically with their proper coordinates in plan but not in I.S....Any ideas why the interactive schedule doesn't recognize the values???


PRECISION CALC ISSUE:
I have a simple formula to return a precise (10 decimal places) calculation for concrete volume...I know, I know who needs that much precision? Actually nobody, but I'm trying to prove a point. If I place the value for the calculation into a "Real Number - PVOL" parameter the precision is "rounded" to 2 decimal places - not enough precision!

pvol=(pi*((pdia/2)**2))*pht
parameters pvol=pvol


The only work around I can find is to place the value into a "Text - PVOL2" parameter and the report will show the correct values. The obvious problem, however, is that these text values don't sum

pvol=(pi*((pdia/2)**2))*pht
parameters pvol2=str("%.10cuy",pvol)


At least I can output to MS Excel and sum there, but i'd rather do it in the I.S. Any ideas???

Thanks,
Dan K

[Karl Ottenstein]

Dan wrote:
If I place the value for the calculation into a "Real Number - PVOL" parameter the precision is "rounded" to 2 decimal places - not enough precision!

There are a number of inconsistencies / bugs (depends on your view what you want to call them!) in I.S. numeric formatting. The I.S. does use all of the available internal precision AFAIK. The problem is the display of the result.

Some results are displayed with the accuracy you have entered under Preferences for Calculation Units. Some use Dimension Units, and some use Working Units. It's a bit of a mess. Try changing the number of decimals to display under Calc Units Prefs and see what you get. (Of course, you are limited to 4 digits there.)

When I.S. does a sum, it uses all internal precision, and then displays the result with the Pref number of digits. Because of this, if you take the numbers into Excel and add them, the sum will not be the same. The AC sum is always the more accurate ... but it will make no sense to anyone who looks at the numbers and checks the math.

HTH,
Karl

[Anonymous]

Karl wrote:
Try changing the number of decimals to display under Calc Units Prefs and see what you get. (Of course, you are limited to 4 digits there.)

Karl,
Please refer to the attached image. I have adjusted all the "Calc unit Prefs" to the maximum 4 digit precision, but anything that refers to a "real number" type parameter is always 2 decimal precision. I'm not sure why this is??? Any time you create a parameter to report an area or volume it will have to be a "real number" type parameter. What if you need 3 or 4 decimal places for these parameters? Even though the "Calc Unit Prefs" indicate, or can be set to 4 places, they will only display 2 decimal places.

Why are "real number" type parameters limited to only 2 decimal place precision?

Any more ideas?
Thanks,
Dan K

[Karl Ottenstein]

Well, I did say that it was inconsistent / buggy. 😉

You have to play with all three preference pages, not just calc units: (1) working units, (2) dim units and (3) calc units. You will still not get what you want, but you may get close most of the time.

The number of digits displayed for real numbers in object settings is determined (apparently) by changing the setting shown in the screenshot below (Angle & Text Size Decimals in Dialog Boxes) ... even though the text prompt doesn't suggest that it would also change the digits for real number display.

Do note: this only affects display formatting. All of the digits that you enter or compute are in there behind the scenes ... you just can't see them. Test it: with the 2 digit display, enter 3.14159 You'll see 3.14 Change to 4 digit display - you'll see 3.1416. It isn't changing anything about internal precision; it is just a formatting problem.

IMHO, the preference dialogs need serious revision and augmentation and the I.S. functionality needs updating with independent and per-schedule formatting options for all types of numbers (perhaps initially set, for a new schedule, to the current global settings). As useful as the I.S. is, if you need more digits of accuracy displayed, you will probably have to use a Calc List Scheme instead. At least, I think you have more control there. Maybe not.

Karl

[Anonymous]

Karl wrote:
...The number of digits displayed for real numbers in object settings is determined (apparently) by changing the setting shown in the screenshot below (Angle & Text Size Decimals in Dialog Boxes) ... even though the text prompt doesn't suggest that it would also change the digits for real number display...

Karl,
Thanks! that's exactly what I needed...who would've ever thought that real number display would be effected by a change to Angle & Text Size Decimals in Dialog Boxes???

I'm still a little confused about my "XY Coordinate Issue" at the beginning of the original post - please also let me know if you have any comments regarding the "zero display" problem.
Thanks again for the speedy reply
Dan K

[James Murray]

...my "XY Coordinate Issue"...

It's a bug, a discussed here. I haven't tried the tip in the last reply.

[Anonymous]

James wrote:

...my "XY Coordinate Issue"...

It's a bug, a discussed here. I haven't tried the tip in the last reply.

James,
Thanks for the link to the previous related thread. I've tried anything and everything to make the symbol positions report and have come up with nothing...at least I'm not alone. It seems like you and others have been down this road limited or no success as well.

In the thread you mentioned,"...they're working on it..." Do you have any idea when Graphisoft might finish working on it? Is this something we'll all have to wait for version 10 to be able to do???

Hope Not

thanks again,
Dan K