As the title says, there seems to be a difference in geometry processing between Revit and Dyanamo.
Is there any document about this?
For reference, this is geometry generated by Dynamo and placed as a family in Revit using FamilyInstance.ByGeometry in the Springs package.
When I do this, some of the geometry is missing.
So, I would like to know the cause of this.
If there is a document I’ll be keen to know also, but Revit will commonly reject a variety of complex shapes when making direct shapes or freeforms in my experience.
The only common issue I know of is that if an edge if a face is 1mm or less, it cannot make it due to minimum tolerances built into Revit.
Well, the same thing happens when I use Rhino.Inside Revit to transfer geometry to Revit, so I’ve researched this issue before and got the following results…
Question: I created a DirectShape in Revit 2015 from a collection of faces using TessellatedShapeBuilder. The minimum length for edges accepted by Revit is 0.0026 feet. If I use 0.0025 feet Revit crashes. Can I change this tolerance? Or is any other way to construct DirectShape elements that accepts edges smaller than 0.0026 feet?
Answer: Unfortunately, the answer is no and no.
[DirectShape Performance and Minimum Size]
Another small scale requirement is that geometry cannot be less than approximately 1/32" (0.79 mm). This means that edges, widths, and radii of valid geometry must be greater than or equal to this length. In cutting, the resulting geometry must follow this requirement or it is considered invalid.
[Cut or Join Geometry Fails]
Maybe play with scaling up and double nested planting families to scale it down again.
Does this mean that the geometry will be loaded without corruption by taking such a flow?
But can I implement this in Dynamo?
You never know until you try. I have had some odd experiences before where a .sat file would not import into a family in Revit - but I was able to import the .sat into Autocad. I scaled the imported .sat in Autocad up by a factor of 1000 then scaled it again down by a factor of 0.001 (so effectively I should end up where I started). Then I re-exported out to a new .sat from Autocad and that .sat file would import to a Revit family just fine - leading me to believe there are some built-in cleanups that occur in the scaling process.
That said - if you scale up and bring into Revit as a direct shape - you are not going to be able to scale back down inside of Revit very easily.