Good morning colleagues. I would like your help again. I need a solution where I can convert several walls into one after the project is complete.
Or transform the model line, used as a reference to automatically create walls, into a single constant line.
In other words, when I’m going to do a project, I use an automatic walls script and give model lines as a reference, but with the lines, to make the curves, the script understands each one as a wall, and I need the entire project to be a single wall, as if you were drawing with the wall tool or with extrusion in family creation.
I tried this script with python below, but it only joins the walls but does not convert them into one.
Does anyone have any ideas how I can do this?
Parede única.dyn (6.0 KB)
@jacob.small , @Alban_de_Chasteigner , @Nick_Boyts , Can you help me?
1 Like
You would have to use the same approch.
there is no function to convert several walls into one.
what you would have to do is save the information (all model lines/walls) connected and then draw a model line the same distance and then create the wall.
1 Like
As I said, even with “continuous” lines it doesn’t work, since I need to turn the lines to make each curve of the walls, and so revit considers each curve to be a single wall.
I thought about a curtain wall too but I couldn’t do it.
I need a unique element for the project optimization process.
If anyone can help me
Dynamo cannot break the rules of Revit (well not if you want Revit to stay open anyway).
So before anyone begins thinking this through, can you explain how would you take two walls was shaped like an L, and create them as a single wall in Revit if you were working manually?
2 Likes
In fact, I believe that this possibility does not exist. However, I would like to hear your opinion, as you have much more knowledge. Suddenly there would be another way that would replace the wall tool and it would be possible to do it with any other tool. But thank you for your attention once again.
The only method I can think of would be to get the wall’s solids, union then into a single solid, and build a family from that which then is added to the model. You would not be able to host wall elements to this or edit the geometry in any way.
If the intent is just to make significant edits more difficult or allow treating the walls as one item, you could group the walls, create an assembly from them, or move them into a new file and link it into the active document.
It does seem like a solution, yes, and I will give it a try. Let me explain the real need more clearly. I work for a virtual reality company specializing in real estate projects. We create property designs to be showcased through VR headsets. As you may know, these devices have limited space and memory capacity, which means we are constantly constrained by document size. Previously, we used an extrusion-based approach for our projects because we needed a simple structure, with the main focus being on achieving realistic finishes in Unreal Engine rather than the technical design itself.
However, as we started automating some processes with Dynamo, I had to switch to using standard design tools. The issue arises after constructing the basic structure, particularly when using the wall tool. It generates numerous walls and, consequently, numerous faces, which increases the file size and compromises the user experience.
With that in mind, if I could create the walls as a single structure or group them together, that would be ideal. However, when I group them in the usual way, and then export the file to FBX as we usually do, they still remain separate. I’ve tried combining and grouping them, but even so, the FBX file opens with all of them separated.
One option here might be to ignore walls and use room/space geometry as the defining faces. The boundary curves and surface components won’t be simplified (they’re derived from the wall curves and have the same “issues” you’ve mentioned above) but it will reduce redundancy and some of the unnecessary geometry.
You could also attempt to work through “merging” and simplifying all the wall curves and then creating massing elements or DirectShape geometry.
1 Like
Instead of using the direct FBX exported geometry, why not gather the wall solids, union them into on solid, and write the exposed geometry to FBX natively?
The format isn’t open but enough has been exposed to be able to build your own that can get you started in Unity. FBX binary file format specification — Developer Blog
Alternatively you could union the solids in Unity (assuming there is a tool available there; shocked if not) or even build your own exporter to an intermediate format of some other method and automate the creation in Unity.
2 Likes
Good point. Native functionality in Unity may be the better fit here.
1 Like
Wow… you guys are awesome! They helped me a lot, once again! Thank you very much.
Not to mention that I don’t know the function of DirectShape, it will help me with several questions here.
Sensational!
Thank you colleagues!
@Nick_Boyts @jacob.small
1 Like
