Speckle_Revit Export by Parameter Value_Mass Floors

I would like to control exported objects from Revit to Speckle by assigning a parameter value to objects.
It works in general but seem to fail on Mass Floor Category. Shared parameter is assigned to both Mass and corresponding Mass Floors but only Mass is exported.

If same objects are exported by category (Mass and Mass Floor category) both are exported.
If same objects are exported by selection (Manually Selected) both are exported.

Export by parameter gives more granular control over exported objects so would be nice to have this working well. Help would be appreciated.


Hey @Maciej_Sochacki , welcome to the forum!

The export by parameter option has been replaced in 2.14 by a more powerful alternative that uses the Revit filters, have you tried that?
You probably need to update your connectors :slight_smile: let me know how it goes!


Hi @teocomi ,
Thank you for your reply. I have now upgraded and tested new filter functionality. I might have to do few more tests but from what I see sadly the filter option does not seem to export mass/mass floors from links that satisfy filter condition.

All give a little bit more background to what I am trying to achieve.
We have a masterplan project with multiple buildings modelled as masses with mass floors.
We collaborate with other architects and some plots/buildings are modelled as links that we receive from them. Some buildings are as live mass (with multiple design options).
What I would like to achieve is to export mass and mass floors elements only. Some of those will come from links some of those will come from particular design option from live model.

The only option that seem to work for me is the selection where I can select both links and live masses.
But the slight issue with this method is that it exports entire content of a link rather than just mass and mass floors and ideally we would limit exported data to only those elements.


Thanks for the extra context @Maciej_Sochacki , we’ll investigate on our end a bit more then, it seems that maybe the connector is not converting Mass floors, but it sounds like a quick addition - we’ll keep you posted!

Cc @connor @Pavol

Hi Matteo,
I know there were few new releases to speckle / revit plugin since my post above.
Any progress done on the mass floor export issue?


I am trying whether it would be possible using dynamo plugin but having no luck in sending mass object to speckle via dynamo.

Hey @Maciej_Sochacki ,

Sorry we didn’t keep you in the loop, I just tried and Mass and Mass Floors are coming through now:

Our connectors are updated quite regularly, so make sure to install the latest available version :slight_smile:

Hi Matteo,
Thank you that is great news. I have now tested it and indeed it does work !
There is one improvement that I would very much welcome which is ability to send mass and mass floors from linked files. In my file I have both mass/mass floors modelled live and mass and mass floors in linked files which makes it slightly more complicated. I have tested few scenarios of exporting it to a single stream:

  • using “everything” as selection method with linked files enabled exports mass not mass floors
  • using selection - exports mass floors that are modelled live but not the one’s from linked file
  • category set to mass - exports only mass as expected - there is no mass floor under categories maybe this could be added?
  • using view as filtering method - exports only mass floors that are modelled live not from linked file

Please let me know if you do find a way of exporting mass floors from both live model and linked file that would help a lot. Maybe dynamo?
I think the only way now would be opening each individual link and exporting those separately and combining streams together in speckle (I think it is possible to combine streams together :thinking:). But it would be much longer process.


Hey @Maciej_Sochacki ,

have you tried turning on the “Send Linked Models” setting?

Hi Matteo,
Yes all the test /settings above were tested with advanced setting for linked models enabled:

Capture linked

But the result was no mass floor from linked file:

Hi @teocomi ,
Returning to this issue after being inspired by all fantastic stuff shown on the Specklecon.
Very motivated to make it work buy sadly more issues:
I have now explored option of exporting the linked models separately to different branches and than merging it all together in power bi to display all masterplan masses and mass floors in one visual.

Sadly encountered an issue with different base point coordinates and rotations.
Thought I will describe it as i think this would be good feedback. We have three options for export settings:

  • internal origin
  • project base point
  • survey
    Usually in Revit the project base point will be rotated in relation to survey point in order to draw model "straight " or not having to rotate views when placed on sheets. It would be great if there was an option for exporting model into speckle by internal origin or project base point but ignoring the rotation (or option to specify a rotation of exported model.)
    I could use survey point to ignore rotation but it is usually very far away from the model or not setup correctly.

Another issue with coordinates and linked models is sometimes there are scenarios where the same model is placed twice or more on the site. Repetitive housing schemes for example. (it can have two or more shared coordinates.) Seems like only one instance of link is being exported to Speckle currently.
See example link placed twice:

Only one exported:

I think in my case as a workaround of not being able to export mass floors from links i will convert them into actual floors. Would be great to hear if any progress is made on this in the future.

1 Like

Does this relate to the feature request I described here: Geolocation in Speckle stream - #14 by JdB?
Because we have a team who expressed the need to receive on the The project base point and have the incoming geometry rotated based on the True North.

@jonathon captured it as a defined user-case but I don’t think it made it into a sprint yet?

Not yet. There have many other such issues and we had a full workshop on geolocation / coordinate reference systems / base point et al. at the company retreat last month. (can you believe the passion it invoked?)

We want to tackle this in a very coordinated cross-concern fashion.

1 Like

Hi @jonathon ,
That is exactly it. I think your suggestion for the fourth option is good.
The Revit coordinates system is more complex that it needs to be :see_no_evil: