I am just creating this thread to get opinions on importing geometries from dynamo into revit. I am aware of the ‘export to SAT’ and importing a linked SAT into revit. I am also aware you can directly import geometry from dynamo.
My current issue is that I am creating an SAT that exports around 9MB. It is an SAT of a brick pattern (to act in conjunction with a revit wall as a rain screen). The geometry (minus its size) is not complex, and I can image far heavier imports in the future. When exporting to SAT, the import into revit is taking an extremely long time (1% / 2 minutes or something).
What do people do when they have extremely heavy geometries they need to move from dynamo to revit?
I’ll attach the geometry I am attempting to import as an SAT.
Thanks (sorry for the long winded explanation)
By the looks of this, you should be using a family instance instead of building each geometry individually.
I was hoping those who respond to this thread could elaborate. I assume, if I use a family instance, that the workflow is not the most efficient. This is my assumption:
- create geometry in dynamo with main revit model
- enter family model
- import SAT
- use family in main revit model
the issue I’m finding is the inability to use dynamo in a family template, as well as the inability to link imports into a family. which means the workflow is not as automated as I would like it to be.
Correct me if I am wrong
Family instance by geometry will allow you to create a family with the given geometry. It’s in the sprigs package I believe. Do you think you can make one brick and then place it many times as your Revit file will be lighter and more responsive (one 12 faces in a family type placed 200 times vs 2400 faces).
1 Like
I see what you are saying. Create the brick as a family, and use that family in dynamo. That’s an interesting approach that I’ll try in the future.
What I ended up doing is convoluted:
- create screen, export as .SAT
- Import .SAT into a mass
- In dynamo, query the mass by name to delete and recreate.
So instead of linking, every time i update i would run the definition that deletes and recreates. Kind of a nuisance.
Maybe I should delete my specific example though. I was hoping for more of a discussion surrounding general workflow. Not specific to an example. For the sake of future, far more complex, geometries.
I think you’ll be surprised by what you can do in the family environment, which will allow you to make the change (look into direct shape) and push it into the project by loading into project. 
Just to clarify, Am I correct in saying that dynamo isn’t available for the family environment?
Dynamo is available in the Family Environment.
But what Jacob is suggesting is to use the FamilyInstance.ByGeometry node from Springs package. Just take all those little bricks, union them to one solid, then feed into FamilyInstance.ByGeometry along with a family template path and a desired material. This will load it into your project as well.
1 Like
Ah. That makes sense. what if the objects are all individually seperate. You can only union solids that touch each other no?
Or the best of both worlds - make the geometry of one single brick, create a family with that geometry using the FamilyType.ByGeometry (builtin) or the FamilyInstance.ByGeometry (springs) node. Then compute the placement location of the rest of the bricks and using the newly created family type, create new instances for the rest of the bricks.
4 Likes
You can union solids that do not touch. It’s counter-intuitive, but it can be done.
