Hi,
I am testing Revit 2025, it seems, the FamilyType.ByGeometry node is not working.
It is returning null with poping up an error about an elementId and its deleting.
Could someone please help?
Thanks a lot
Vladimir
curious what units you have set in your Revit project?
Meters, I have tried several projects, a few solid geometries, still the same.
There seems to be an interaction change in 2025, where imported stuff is pinned. So I think it is causing this line to fail?
4 Likes
So it might not be a 2025 change, but those imported SATs being pinned seem to be causing the issue.
3 Likes
any solution here? Thanks!
Was fixed in an update - make sure you’re fully patched.
FamilyType.ByGeometry is in the core nodes.
The fix for that not working is to update Revit.
The custom node in the springs package has not been fixed, and as the author isn’t very active may not ever be. Use the FamilyType.ByGeometry node and generate a family instance after that.
1 Like
ah!! that works, thanks a lot man.
1 Like
Hello,
It seems like for complex geometry is this node still returning a mesh intead of a solid geometry. Is that right?
So for me as a bridge modeller, after five years of development, showstopper…
Any suggestion?
Thanks a lot
Funny thing, if I am trying a custom node in Python written by my colleague, a created family is not empty, the geometry is there, just the volume parameter is empty…
Likely it’s a mesh (or a similar derivative thereof) then rather than a solid shape. There are limits on the importer (what the base method uses) as well as a few other aspects at play.
Not without seeing how you’re using the node and getting an outline of your workflow. It may be that sending the solid is the wrong path and you really want to send the base content as native Revit elements and build the subsequent geometry using the native tools (this way the bridge would be parametric as well). This is how I have seen the best results for bridges at many different scales.
1 Like
Thanks for a really quick reply 
I am using an adaptive component, which I am setting one next to each other by Dynamo. Than I need to merge those, so the quick way how to do it is to use the Solid.Union in Dynamo and than is the part of FamilyType.ByGeometry
Need more input? Thanks a lot
Vladimir
@vladimir.bazataUM7BH - Revit’s importer, as Jacob says, tries to import legal geometry into the Revit ecosystem (i.e. plays nicely with other Revit features), but in around ~5% of cases it has a fallback method to Mesh. This way you get to see the geometry, but Meshes don’t behave the same as Solids so you will not be able to derive things such as volume from them.
If you are willing to share, the Revit team are always interested in use cases that we can use to make improvements from, or validate bugs with Happy to have that done in a DM if private.
That the opposite of the quick way if you ask me. Plus it will require generating a new family every time you need to update something.
If you select all of those families you should be able to directly generate the form using the adaptive tools - Dynamo even has a node for this but the name escapes me (Form.ByLoft perhaps - not at my PC to check).
Of course all of that assumes you’re in the adaptive component environment (.rfa) - is that the case or are you in a project (.rvt)?
1 Like
Sure I can share, but a rvt file is a little huge to share it here, where can I upload?
Thanks a lot
If am I right, the node is called Form.ByLoftCrossSections, is it?
Looks quite promissing, but for more complex bridges (change of cross sections for prestressing anchors etc.) I can not imagine right now, how to success and not be driven crazy.
But It could be it.
Thanks a lot
It’s the method I’ve used. You do need to learn the adaptive environment though. But effectively you can draw the path in plan via a few control points, then use that as basically an alignment. Profiles get created by projecting up from control points on the path, and then sections are placed on the intersection of a vertical line on the path and the profile. Then loft. Now if you move one of the plan points your whole bridge updates without a static import.
As far as complex cross sections… well the best way to build those might vary. But you can also generate component parts of the profile by adding an offset into the mix for say framing members. The process there is more complex, but modeling complexity should be expected to scale with the design.
Yes, I do need to learn, but for me as an employee of a construction company, it is often better to have a stupid static model. Changes are not often expected, not very welcomed in the execution phase.
And in our small country, we also have to deliver the native data to the client. Sad but true, we like the non sharing our kitchen with other companies.
Nevertheless, I have tried to create a bridge according to your workflow. But if I try to change the height of the bridge along the stationing, a not a nice shape will be created. Again, this is probably the complex case - quite common…