RiR Components and Hops

Is Rhino Inside Revit supposed to work with Hops? I’m trying to make simple local Hops definition and putting single RiR component inside it is giving me an error.
1. GH - Missing Definition Objects

No, Revit Elements are particular to their projects. Hops has particular data types it can work with; text, int, etc.

That’s very unfortunate because Clusters are unreliable and they are not getting fixed since long time.

What’s the overall workflow look like? What problem are you trying to solve?

I just have one part of the definition which should be hidden in Hops or Cluster because it affects readibility of the whole definition.

By the way, is there any chance that Hops function will work with RiR at some point in time?

The goal is to hide components in the current document?

Note that hops passthroughs need to serialized/deserialized, which isn’t going to be possible with Revit Elements.

1 Like

In that case, yes that’s all I need.


Further to this discussion, would this be possible within standard GH to call a Hops definition which has RIR components in it?

What I am trying to do it get the geometry of various Revit family types into ‘standard’ Grasshopper (not RIR). However, I get the error ‘1. GH - Missing Definition Objects’ which I assume is that Hops is using standard Grasshopper, not RIR Grasshopper. Is there a way to control this?

Hi Paul,

GHData is a good solution for transferring GH Breps/Geometry to other definitions.

Perhaps @AndyPayne can fill us in on the particulars of the Hops casting error.

Paul is this how you are getting your geometry?

Hops def…

Nice work Japhy! is it possible to add a Rhino Inside Revit component inside Hops? I am thinking of creating a Hops with RIR components inside it, cheers.

Revit documents and transactions are an entirely different ballgame.

What problem would a Rhino.Inside.Revit with hops workflow solve for you?

I been thinking using Hops rather than clustering my multiple RIR definitions, but if this is not possible because of complexity, that will be fine :), thank you Japhy.