As far as #2 goes, check your system tray for this icon, it should start the update manager app.
Can also log in to manage.autodesk.com and get the update there.
1 Like
The methods you’re getting this from is doing an export of the geometry to SAT, and then imports the SAT into Revit. The import method attempts to keep the geometry as a solid, but if it is too complex the geometry converts to a mesh, which isn’t valid for subsequent operations.
You have a few options.
- Simplify the geometry before importing. This may require rebuilding the content in another way, or dividing the geometry into smaller parts which work and processing things in chunks.
- Go directly into the Revit API and use a brep builder to maintain a solid, circumventing yhr export.
- Skip the dynamo entirely as you already have beams in Revit, so you can export them to IFC and then import the resulting file to a new file.
- Just use the rvt content directly - shifting to individual loadable families leads to file bloat and performance issues.
Good morning.
Dear Jacob.
If, as you say, using the “FamilyInstance.ByGeometry” node generates the geometries as families and this causes the weight of the RVT file to increase, I understand what you suggest but I don’t know the process I can follow to export it as IFC from DYNAMO.
I think it is important to mention what my final objective is for the script.
1° I want to convert the Dynamo geometry to a Revit MASS and then from this created MASS to be able to select the faces that I want to use in order to create my WALLS BY FACE. So far this “FamilyInstance.ByGeometry” node is the one that most closely meets my needs. I don’t know if there is any other node that allows me to create a MASS and that does not weigh my RVT file.
I would appreciate it if you could recommend me some node, method, process or Python code that can give me the MASS.
I look forward to your suggestions and comments. Thank you.
Hi @AM3D.BIM.STUDIO here i have tried your sample rvt in 2023 and seems to work with synthezise for mass with right version at least on the sample…not sure if it will work for you
You want to create walls on beam faces? I wouldn’t recommend that. Seems it will fail more often than not due to small dimensions…
arrhh thats the case…on the sample we can create a mass but will for sure fail if you try wall by face on that one…regards the size…as Jacob say 