Hi,
I do a very tiny DynamoScript in Revit 2024 to set the top and bottom location frpm structural columns. So i used Element.GetActualLocation and all works fine, but since Revit 2026 and the change of analytic workflow, this module is no longer available?
Is it possible to include it in Revit 2026?
Thanks Michael
Hello @michael.pelz and welcome to the forum 
guess you are right with that…anyway you could try this one here for now, should work in 26…
yeah havent tried myself, but a friend told me, she couldnt find that one as well in 26, maybe it have change the name, not sure
Thanks, it’s working correct. But now I know, that my solution was wrong because the analytic top coordinates are different to the geometrical ones.
The analytic line go in the middle of the slab, which is correct for an structural engineer but not for an technical drawer. Is there a way to fix this or have i go the complex way to work with bounding boxes and references?
Thanks
allright, did you find the node ?
The node appears to have been depreciated / removed. It’s part of the AnalyticalAutomation library for Dynamo. Which is unfortunately closed source.
Library is located here
C:\Program Files\Autodesk\Revit <year>\AddIns\DynamoForRevit\Revit\nodes\analytical-automation-pkg\bin\AnalyticalAutomation.dll
Now to the good bit - A very comprehensive graph can be pulled up via the menu ‘Analyze > Analytical Automation > Automation Customization’. Up pops Dynamo Player and now you can edit the Physical to Analytical for Buildings graph which has all the latest nodes. I would note that this is probably not the best way to get a column ‘actual’ height.
yeah Mike…agree
Thanks to both, so I have to do the long way and reconstruct the structural columns depending on their reference levels.
New Issue
So I have done a new solution which is workling correct but perhaps i found another issue “bug” in Revit. My workflow to get the z-values and write it back as an instance value is this →
The problem is, that in revit don’t recognize collisions between slab and colums. So if you don’t model correct you get an false value.
I can’t see where the issue is as where you are extracting the value and what you are receiving isn’t clear. However this statement reads a bit like ‘we didn’t do part 1 correctly or to the standard, and so we need a way to account for it.’ The right approach is to not model things incorrectly.
If you provide a ‘getting this, need this’ sketch there might be a work-around, though it certainly sounds like flagging the issues and resolving them should be an preliminary graph before running the one you are writing.
In all cases this sounds like a new topic, so consider such rather than progressing this thread away from the problem statement + solution which already closes the loop.
