Context:
I was sending a simple model from Revit to Rhino and from Rhino to Revit. In Rhino I had blocks with user text associated to the block. In Revit I have ootb parameters and custom parameters on the family instance and family type.
Problem:
When I sent the Rhino blocks to Revit the user text was not applied as parameters on the Revit instance. Would be great if it was placed in the project as a family instance but that is another topic post already.. When I sent the Revit instance to Rhino it did not apply any parameters as user text. It would be amazing if these would be instanced blocks but that is for another topic.
Additionally, when I check the web interface of the Revit instance, not all properties were extracted. A basic ootb parameter missing for example is Phase
Question:
Am I missing a step in the workflow to allow for all the parameters to come over.
Previously, we were only sending parameters with values, but afaik we recently implemented a solution. So now, it should be sending all the parameters from Revit, including those without any value.
If you can share a sample file and show the missing parameters, we can create an issue for this on Github (or you can create it ).
Great to see you here! In addition to what Bilal said:
Sending Rhino > Revit
Currently, we’re not applying user text on Rhino objects as Revit parameters, but I’d be curious to hear how you’re structuring it (using built in parameter names or other conventions?), so we might be able to implement this feature in a similar way.
Sending Revit > Rhino
All instance and type parameters of Revit elements are currently being sent, with the only exception of parameters whose value is an ElementId - since it’d be of little use inside of Speckle. For these we need to add some custom logic to handle conversion properly on receive, and actually support for Phase was just recently added (it should come out in 2.10).
Sending Rhino > Revit
Currently, we’re not applying user text on Rhino objects as Revit parameters, but I’d be curious to hear how you’re structuring it (using built in parameter names or other conventions?), so we might be able to implement this feature in a similar way.
,
).