Jump to content

gester

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    667

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by gester

    general ifc export troubles

    in Architecture

    Posted · Edited by gester

    troy,

    Is the chimney an object? I'd so, have you tried exporting the object on it's own?

    Or tried the base object without your settings.

    that's interesting. i've read about exporting particular objects to ifc, but i haven't found this functionality in the v2012. where's that exactly? if you mean assigning the ifc entities: yes, it has been done.

    I suspect there may be corruption in the file. Was the information cut and pasted in from an old file?

    no, it was a file from scratch. i'm just examining the items one by one. i suspect that the elements overlapping stories or layers may be the reason, but i must be sure of this.

    I don't know I'd it is related, but I have found issues preventing export to DWG. Deleting AutoCAD line types can help.

    Hope that helps.

    i must check this one. how can i recognize the autocad line type?

    thanks for your time.

    rob

    general ifc export troubles

    in Architecture

    Posted · Edited by gester

    hi,

    i've just encountered massive ifc export troubles, even with items that should cause none.

    the main issue are the ground story walls, the one writes and exports ok from vw, the other one gets strange features, although it seems to display ok in solibri. both walls are the same insertion in vw, and assigned to the same entity (ifcwallstandardcase).

    the false wall doesn't get recognized as a wall neither in archicad 16 nor in revit 2009 (archicad screenshots - the wall turns to library object).

    i would generally want to know how can i manage the ifc file generation from vw. from this one small project, where i was forced to do an architecture type i can't really be proud of, i'm additionally stuck in a mess of chaotic ifc appearances without any clue of what's going on.

    further issues: the chimneys don't export to ifc at all (although assigned to an ifc-entity), the top-plates and accessories as well, the rafters cause import errors in archicad, either as ifcroof or ifcmember (framing member) instances, the vertical balustrade elements export as unknown entities in ifc and many more.

    what are the rules, maybe i'm missing something significant? can anybody help?

    thx in advance,

    rob

    VW Architect vs Revit LT

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by gester

    Slightly offtopic, but interesting

    http://www.deelip.com/?p=8642

    Anthony Frausto comment from April 8 2013

    cit:

    Absolutely. Changing kernels can be big work for the developer and there is serious financial reasons also. Not just about legacy data. Nemetschek Vectorworks switched kernels (went to Parasolid) about 4 versions back and they have just now finished up converting all the elements of their application to the new kernel. They spread out the work over many years so they could reserve developer resources for new features.

    Perhaps that was a mistake. Perhaps they should have put all resources into kernel switch and optimisation and wrapped it all up in one release.

    then we probably wouldn't have push-pull until today...

    (..)will be interesting to see what happens in the new release in September......could finally be a make or break version on my part!?

    i'm curious, too :)

    rob

    VW Architect vs Revit LT

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by gester

    It?s unclear what you disagree with or think is being excluded, there?s already broad support and implementation of BuildingSMART?s IFC standard throughout the industry. You need to explain why you choose to ignore that IFC is very well supported, while you want a ?proprietary? interest trademarking and quarantining the same ?open standard? for its own ends to succeed? The openBIM V1.0 scheme was a ?proprietary? attempt to make a ?silo? out of IFC, it attempted to remove collaborative choice and impose a single approach under Nemetschek?s ?proprietary? owned trademark and control. How is that not sabotage of an ?open standard?? And what in Nemetschek?s scheme do you think promotes cooperative decision making around collaborative processes between collaborative parties? They?ve been selling their scheme to us as though it?s a weapon against the use of proprietary formats and selling it to their analysts as though their "proprietary" owned openBIM ?trademark? somehow controls or has the rights to exchanging BIM data via IFC, listen to this quote from the 2012 conference call (45:20) . . . ?the most important difference here is, we?re the only one . . compared to all the others . . we?re the one with the open system . . . if you decide to have your architecture firm running on an Autodesk system you can only participate in Autodesk projects . . .?. No shame whatsoever, Nemetschek proudly proclaims to analysts, ?we?re the only one with the open system?, a system built on trademarking the "open" IFC standard and a system that mysteriously excludes and prevents everyone else that has implemented the ?open" IFC standard from using that standard. Does that sound like cooperation to you?

    ok, so let me explain it in a more illustrative way. we have:

    1. the proprietary bim-authoring tools layer (revit, archicad, vw, bentley, digital project, allplan and the likes) with their databases

    2. the proprietary bim-analysis tools layer (ecodomus, ies ve a.s.o.)

    and there in the middle is the most important layer for the bim environment:

    3. the middleware one, enabling _any_ communication and thus collaboration and data exchange (ifc, ifcxml, gbxml, bimxml, xls, the xml itself, gst - geometry simplification tool and many others). speaking of 'silo'ing' of any of the standards under the #3 equals the misunderstanding of the whole evolution.

    adesk, as they are the topic here, too, after the initial energy input for the ifc development started to sabotage the format, and in the end excluded the export from the revit lt features. ifc is an unwanted child at adesk, and they don't even try hide it. the adesk ifc exporter has been made the open source, and eventually the users implemented this feature in revit lt themselves.

    the tool (which is the topic here) still lacks gbxml and point cloud exports and the workgroup capability.

    if it is not an ignoring of the open bim direction than i don't know what is this in the end.

    Do you really believe that Autodesk and all the other IFC certified software listed here are ?un-cooperative? BIM citizens Rob? And that a trademarked logo, owned by Nemetschek with an accompanying set of contractual obligations coined by Nemetschek, prevents all the other IFC compliant software out there from being cooperative or outputting BIM data via IFC? I guess that?s what Nemetschek wanted us to believe, but it?s patently wrong to imply that cooperation, exchange or the output of IFC files for collaboration, lifecycle analysis, or facilities management requires submitting to Nemetchek?s proprietary owned scheme and trademark. All that should be required for IFC exchange, is IFC certification. The confusion that now exists, is the result of marketing and statements intent on blurring the relationship between Nemetschek?s scheme and buildingSMART?s "open" IFC standard.

    i agree. nemetschek may have their own politics, but eventually they will have to contribute to the #3 layer in my above picture. otherwise they are the history on the bim-market.

    It?s a shame, particularly in the wake of openBIM V1.0?s withdrawal, that there?s been no attempt to clarify what buildingSMART?s relationship with Nemetschek is. However inert openBIM V2.0 is, the openBIM logo now associated with "open BIM" is still a proprietary owned trademark belonging to Nemetschek, while buildingSMART International is supposedly : A neutral, international and unique non for profit organisation supporting open BIM through the life cycle. How can a proprietary owned trademark get stamped all over the "open" IFC specification without the appearance of impropriety?

    ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=9092&filename=openBIM%20slide.png

    ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=9093&filename=Trademark.png

    PS. Don't miss the filing date on that trademark, just eight weeks prior to Ernst Homolka's resignation.

    agreed again. all i expect from nemetschek is to develop the full bim-authoring capability, and to contribute to the bim middleware.

    rob

    p.s. i write this on the fly, sorry if i miss any point from your post.

    VW Architect vs Revit LT

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    It's not just about art.

    The art only gets you into the front door..then the rest is up to you and the team of consultants.

    It's also about choosing from a large set of possible solutions to any given problem.

    And who better than ENGINEERS to Analyse and Optimise D&C

    Computing and BIM is set to help this process immensely, not replace it.

    IMO,MATE, not your BIM, your BIM is now being replaced on large projects.

    Clients are now realising, its far better to have the entire team on the same program.

    Sketched in VWs and D&C in Revit to me is a personal insult/shame and what's NAG doing about it?

    My2c

    bim is about cooperation, not unification.

    i (do/will) always regard the proprietary and 'in silo' developments as couterproductive, even a sabotage of the bim idea implementation.

    bim in architectural practice

    rob

    All "doors-in wall" suddenly became only "doors"

    in Architecture

    Posted · Edited by gester

    lidia,

    there's a strange grouping in the 3d view: the wall between the corridor to the bottom bedrooms is glued to the piece of furniture in the bottom-right bedroom. the selection shows it in the 3d view, in the top plan view it's ok.

    the ungrouping divides the furniture and the wall into simple lines. something is really strange with the walls.

    rob

    VW Architect vs Revit LT

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    everybody tries more or less to catch up but the best professionals will lead the bim processes. and it's ok so, as long as nobody's role is ignored.

    what i disagree is the excluding of the open bim principle. the deliverables' standards must be vendor and authoring software independent.

    the o&m processes may last for a few decades, probably much longer than the proprietary generated file formats.

    the bim interconnecting 'communication middleware' must be accessible to anybody, no matter what tools they use.

    rob

    Design Options - procedure?

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by gester

    i make much use of the colours for the design layers organization in order to differentiate between the design options. the enclosed screenshot shows one set of the layers for the final delivery, but if i have many design options there are more colours.

    in this way i see instantly which layers and when are to be displayed.

    rob

    edit:

    the project is a pre-stories one...

    VW Architect vs Revit LT

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by gester

    (..)

    OpenBIM was where, an argument for change likely transformed into a ?irreconcilable? conflict. BIM isolation was the ingredient that went into the pressure cooker and BIM isolation came back out, except now, it was renamed openBIM soup, and everyone had to rub their belly and exclaim yum-yum! With no change to Nemetschek?s existing ?strategy?, the openBIM scheme was structured and marketed, with ?intent?, to convince us, it was a mechanism for leveling the competitive disadvantage of the non-integrated solutions, against the monopolistic ravages of vertically integrated BIMs like Revit and Allplan (oops). OpenBIM?s ?intent? was to bolster the patronage and confidence in the non-integrated brands as fully competitive BIM solutions under openBIM ?contracts?, which of course, had no hope of ever being implemented because a structurally corrupt scheme attempting to exercise a level of ownership over IFC was never going to fly in practice. The CEOs simply could not standby and be associated with the ?intent? of the openBIM scheme so they acted in accordance with their ethical judgment and responsibilities as CEOs to oppose the scheme. It will be interesting to see how the openBIM scheme is ?reorganized? and repackaged now that it potentially carries the odour of a cynical exploit by Nemetschek at the expense of it?s own customers.

    The future is motivated by one word, ?efficiency?. Industry wants it, governments want it, the planet wants it, Nemetschek knows it, Autodesk and Bentley know it. The difference between Nemetschek and the other players is Nemetschek can?t sell efficiency the same way they can, because it has trapped itself behind a strategic history and ?strategic? use of the holdings company structure that it?s not willing to surrender. So one anti-competitive strategy led to another anti-competitive strategy in the form of openBIM. Nemetschek wants the revenue but not the responsibility all corporations have to their customers, to act appropriately in everyone?s best interest while doing business.

    i can't follow why open bim should negatively affect efficiency.

    the inefficiency of the construction industry lies in the lacking communication while performing the processes. the owners communicated separately with the designers and the contractors via contracts, and that was it. further communication was not present because there were neither the incentives nor the mandatory necessities.

    in order to change this state (causing, according to the surveys, up to 35% waste in the material, time and money) the three-tier contracts with goal profits for every stakeholder, enabling the collaboration from the earliest possible phase and the open standards for better information exchange have been conceived.

    the efficiency in selling the proprietary software and formats is really built on sand, and not what healthy free market (if it was existing, which it isn't) wants.

    the efficiency must be sustainable and green, even if the contribution to it may mean lower selling rate in the first place. autodesk, for instance, are developing two simultaneous ways of interoperability: the ifc in/output and their own revit api for handling formats.

    being an open bim advocate i am aware i'm not very objective, but i'd like to hear counterarguments.

    rob

    VW Architect vs Revit LT

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Interesting to read that NAGs flagship product is lagging behind VWs in certain areas:

    ...what Allplan also loses out on with the distributed rather than the centralized approach is the intelligence, associativity, and automated change management capabilities that centralized model applications provide. So, for instance, if you move a wall using the Move tool, the walls connected to it do not automatically adjust to maintain the connectivity and the room element too does not automatically fill out to the new boundary.

    but the allplan is here ahead:

    ifc 2x3 v2.0 certification

    rob

    title block as a symbol issue

    in Architecture

    Posted · Edited by gester

    hi,

    i've just tried to make a custom title block for my projects, according to the vw resource 'Creating a Custom Title Block in Vectorworks Fundamentals' and a video (of the vw2008 version):

    custom title block (video)

    the trouble is that after the creation of the texts, outlines and data record, the created symbol loses all line geometry, only text blocks remain. even if i edit the 2d component of the symbol, adding the missing lines, the result is the same, all outlines are gone, either.

    the 2d geometry is all screen objects, i've tried with single lines and the grouped outlines, but to no avail.

    does anybody have a clue what's going on?

    thx,

    rob

×
×
  • Create New...