Publish Linked Revit Models

Is it only the whole linked model? I have a model from an MEP engineer and I would prefer not to ask them to change their setup. I would rather use the link to only send some Revit categories of things. For example just Ducts & Pipes.

How can this be achieved?

Hi @teocomi , has the new release been sent out yet? Or is that coming later?

Bowen

Yes, we just released 2.5 a couple of days ago!
Nevertheless @Jedd and I noticed that linked modes that have been moved around after having been placed are not coming throughout properly (see this issue).

We’ll work to improve this functionality over the next weeks, in the meantime any feedback is appreciated!

If you select only Duct and Pipe categories in the selection filters, then only items from these categories will be sent from the linked models. :wink:

3 Likes

You can see in my image that there are ducts in the linked model, and ducts is one of the categories I have selected. When I try to send Speckle says there are zero objects.

Am I doing something wrong?

Support for linked files has been added to 2.5, please update to that version and try again :slight_smile:

I’m not getting an upgrade notification

Searching the net for “speckle manager download 2.5” also doesn’t give me any hits.

This download page isn’t giving me 2.5. I suggest also that it say in the text on the page or the name of the .exe what version it is.

Hi @DuncanNZ aren’t you able to download the 2.5.2 Revit installer directly from the releases page linked above?

image

If you do not see the update from Manager and are not getting a notification it might be that your network is blocking something. Here is a list of domains that should be let through your proxy/vpn/firewall: FAQs | Speckle Docs

Okay, we were talking about the Speckle Connector (I was looking for an updated Manager). Update now complete.

That’s getting better!
Revit:


Rhino:

I guess I shouldn’t pester you for the categories that are missing … all things in their time.

3 Likes

Awesome!

Sorry I didn’t clarify what needed an update hehe, it was late here :wink:

Feel free to suggest what categories to add, missing features, or other bugs.
We’d be happy to look at them! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Done for the three most noticeable unsupported categories for this particular project.

1 Like

We’re planning to add a setting to configure whether linked models should be sent to Speckle or not.

Quick poll:

What should be the default behaviour?
  • Send linked models
  • Do not send linked models

0 voters

cc @bcall @DuncanNZ @Dickels112

how do you plan to tackle duplicate elementId’s coming from the linked models, when receiving the stream?

Good point @Dickels112 !
I think the most logical behavior would be to expand on what we currently do already when working on a single document:

  • element 123 is being received
  • we loop through the current document to see if an element with the same id already exists
    • if not, we loop through all the linked documents as well
  • if found, we update/create/skip it based on the selected Receive Behaviour

It would probably also make sense to add a new Advanced Setting to always skip elements that belong to linked files… What do you think?

interesting question, apart from @teocomi’s answer.

I think you were also referring to the possibility of 2 completely different elements having the same element id in two different linked models. i.e.:

  • A wall in the architectural model with id 12345
  • A beam in the linked structural model with id 12345

Is this right? If so, not sure if just checking in order as Matteo proposed will solve all edge-cases…

If you receive the beam in the architectural model… would we overwrite the wall? :thinking:

PS: Sorry for the edits, I pressed send to fast.

I think the safest thing would be to ignore linked files by default, so when sending and receiving. It can become quite problematic and risky when (new) users are not aware they modify linked files (for obvious reasons) or send data from linked files to another platform (Speckle server). Unintentionally sending linked models to the Speckle server could be an issue, for example, when you collaborate with external parties who might not want their model and data to be stored on a different platform.

2 Likes

This is anyway a great idea, then we can maintain origin of information

2 Likes

I think you were also referring to the possibility of 2 completely different elements having the same element id in two different linked models. i.e.:

  • A wall in the architectural model with id 12345
  • A beam in the linked structural model with id 12345

IFC UID and Navis internals hashes File and Element ID to handle these.

Also, we’re not relying on the elementId, but on the longer guid-like internal id… I know that is not unique either but there are fewer chances for duplicates :wink:

2 Likes

Could you create a parameter for each of these linked elements that states the internal element id for the linked Revit file they are coming from? Then you could concatenate the two values to create a truly unique value and wouldn’t have to have anything overwrite.

For example:

Internal ID for Wall #1: 67890
Host Model Internal ID for Wall #1: 34567

Internal ID for Wall #2: 67890
Host Model Internal ID for Wall #2 65783

Then, when you need to have unique identifiers, you can concatenate like this 67890-34567 and 67890-65783

1 Like

Blockquote IFC UID and Navis internals hashes File and Element ID to handle these. <

this is the exact problem indeed.
the hash might be an interesting approach, then we can be sure it is unique, hashing based on uniqueId of project + uniqueId of element?