Any alternative nodes to this? last update was 2017.
doesn’t seem to work anymore 
Look into the synthesize package, it has lots of geometry creation nodes. No idea what bake++ is but I assume it makes geometry in revit.
1 Like
I have this code wherein I need to create a floor (SlopeGlazing which acts as floor) in rooms.
I need to select multiple rooms and the code should create the “floor”
But once I select, say room 1 and 2 and done with creating the floor, then I toggle the Boolean to select new rooms, the “floors” from 1 and 2 are gone and created in the new selected rooms.
While reading thru the forums, I read about “baking” the element which unfortunately doesn’t work anymore.
Am not sure if transaction nodes can help on this…coz I am not really familiar with that node.
That’s how Dynamo works from the graph environment.
You can run the script, close and re-open, then run again. You can run it from Dynamo Player instead. Or you can set the script up in such a way that you run all of your inputs at once so you don’t have to reset/restart the script multiple times.
even if i use Dynamo Player, i get the same results.
This is element binding. Whatever you were seeing about “bake” was a false flag.
Read this post, check out the AU session linked from it, clear the bindings you’ve got in the file, and only run from player going forward.
1 Like
I must say bindings seem to cause more confusion than they solve. We sure do get a lot of threads with confusion caused by them. I appreciate lots of things don’t work without them, but also feel like a ‘don’t flush findings on graph close’ setting set to off would be a handy feature in Dynamo - if it’s a practical request let me know and I’ll drop it over on the git.
Usually my preferred method to avoid them these days is just to use heaps of Python nodes as they don’t seem to be capable of storing bindings for created elements.
2 Likes
Try to create group from floors. It’s possible by Dynamo too. Floors won’t be deleted.
Function passing will avoid the bindings as well, which will save some inevitable Python conversion headaches down the line.
I have heard a few ‘we used element binding on this complex creation graph as we knew the results would have to update and it saved us a lot of time’ stories, but they aren’t as frequent as the painful ones for newer users (a cohort I would prefer had no pain whatsoever, as the root of pain points for the previous generation of users ought to lead to improvements and fixes).
I do think that is a reasonable and functional request, and a good one. Dynamo for Civil has a similar which could also serve as a template of sort for the Revit team to review. The Civil 3D bindings tool also allows (or disallows) the use of Bindings in Dynamo player. The frequency of the requests have gotten less since it was released, which is nice.
So all of that said, if you’d like to submit a feature for revisiting it on the roadmap it would be welcome by me. I’ll advocate internally. My guess is not likely to see anything till at least the 2025 release if it were a go though, so in the meantime I’ll keep educating as many as I can as well as I can. 
3 Likes
Done!
4 Likes