Sites w/ Revit models instead of IFC

[digitalcarbon]

just ran across another site featuring Revit models. do not companies understand that if they make their products as IFC they would have a much larger customer base?

just for interest.. how many seats of IFC reading software is out there vs Revit?

this would be a good number to flash around to companies. might make a video so when i run into this problem i can send them the youtube link to quell my frustration.

before we start to slam IFC, it would be good to read the article

"IFC in Design" by a HOK rep on page 22 of the June 2014 issue of Journal of the National Institute of Building Sciences.

found here

http://www.wbdg.org/references/jnibs.php

[Jeffrey W Ouellette]

I think we'll see more progress on this over then next couple of years.

The work that NBS is doing with their National BIM Library project definitely helps. The quality of their IFC models are pretty good. I've only reported a couple of bugs when spot checking some objects.

Right now, vendors belonging to buildingSMART International, and actually supporting IFC, are talking about supporting IFC-based product libraries, not just on an object-by-object basis. The technical part of this has been figured out and demonstrated, but now progress on IFC4 implementation needs to be made.... and convincing manufacturers to provide the IFC format of their data. It's all about user demand....

[digitalcarbon]

ok so the "National BIM Library" is like the equivalent to google warehouse?

there seems to be a bunch of places offering bim content and i assume they are all separate? needs to be a google warehouse approach

[GoodBye]

what do you mean by IFC in this case, are you using the data information for scheduling in your file, or do you just want the 3D model?. Many did and do have DXF/DWG 2D and 3D files which can be imported by most softwares.

Manufacturers are creating Revit files because there is significant demand for native Revit file modeling. I doubt you will see IFC files until there is a significant ground shift toward IFC.

[M5d]

I think we'll see more progress on this over then next couple of years.

It's all about user demand....

Your second comment appears to cancel out the first, unless there's something in IFC 4 that takes it beyond being a generic exchange / reference format?

I think GoodBye is correct, Jeffery's ?user demand? caveat seems more like a catch 22.

Companies have to author their products somewhere first and logic dictates which format to use. IFC files by default, are secondary to the native format they're authored in and the inherent limitations of IFC makes the native version the superior option to Revit users. Where's the user demand going to come from?

[JoshW]

I view IFC content the same way I do 3d dwg/dxf components from manufacturers, and that is as a far worse off second option to native-ly created created content on whichever CAD/BIM platform I happen to be using.

The concept behind IFC is great, however, none of these platforms handles the information nearly as close as native components. There is always some glitch or clean up that needs to be done prior to use by my standards.

I believe that the manufacturers understand this and thus create their content in the format that has the greatest single user base.

[Jeffrey W Ouellette]

Most manufacturers don't even know that IFC exists or how it can be used.

[Benson Shaw]

The centralized warehouse of ifc, vwx and other formats is a fine idea. Maybe it will happen, but I think it needs some serious push from ground up. Eg Jeffrey's work.

It may also be worthwhile to push a bit harder on making vwx and ifc models available directly from the manufacturers and distributors.

Sometimes I consider offering to a manufacturer my vwx model derived from their published info (pdf, dwg, whatever). Free. For their use and distribution from their download portfolio. But have not done so yet.

Not sure a mfg would accept or post such files, considering it unnecessary, or fearing accuracy or intellectual property issues. While many dwg downloads are spot on, others are generalized or inaccurate. Intentionally dumbed down to prevent copycat manufacturing? More likely sloppy drafting or not very concerned about providing every detail.

I doubt that Vectorworks is on the hard drive of very many manufacturers, or that they have skilled in-house drafters to create Vectorworks models or even check vwx models by others. Do they have time, budget or inclination to acquire additional software, or to create, edit and place additional formats in the download folders? Dunno, probably never crossed their minds. They believe that everyone uses that other software. If we all just started sending our vwx and ifc models, along with a link to the current vwx viewer, there might be a response to include 'em in the downloads, thereby showing a marketing reason to start creating them in-house and adding to a global vwx or ifc library.

(It's OK to flame me for pipe dreaming)

-B

[digitalcarbon]

i just downloaded the 2013.08.22 LOD Specification (attached) which was also featured in the June 2014 issue of Journal of the National Institute of Building Sciences. page 25 again found here

http://www.wbdg.org/references/jnibs.php

if you notice on the cover it has 5 representations of the same thing. manufactures will need provide models that fit this LOD system. granted LOD 100 i could model with ease BUT it still requires me to have some idea of a size so why model off a pdf when i should be able to just grab a 3d LOD 100 model and drop it in.

a few years ago i said that vw needs to work in line with this LOD. when we open the stair tool we should get tabs that say 100,200,300,350 & 400. then we only add the information that we need depending on where we are in the project.

[digitalcarbon]

so it would seem that a BIM warehouse would also be broken up into this LOD system

[digitalcarbon]

ok correction to my above comment

since LOD 100 may not be a 3d object (see example below)

a BIM IFC warehouse could still have a LOD 100 tab but all you would get is a comment like this "cost/sf attached to floor slabs"

then the LOD 200 would be the "light fixture, generic/approximate size/shape/location"

then 300 would be content by anyone like you or me (like as in Google warehouse)

then 350 & 400 would only be by manufacture. that is tabs of 350 & 400 would offer you IFC for actual manufactured products

from page 10 of the 2013.08.22 LOD Specification

Example ? light fixture:

100 cost/sf attached to floor slabs

200 light fixture, generic/approximate size/shape/location

300 Design specified 2x4 troffer, specific size/shape/location

350 Actual model, Lightolier DPA2G12LS232, specific size/shape/location

400 As 350, plus special mounting details, as in a decorative soffit

[JoshW]

Manufacturers most likely wouldn't need to deal with 100-300. That would be something that the BIM Platform should take care of. Manufacturers would get involved from 350 to 400, where specific data is required.

[gester]

i can get the manufacturers' intention to model once, not many times (and as it remains contrary to the designers' intention, based on lod stages) but i can't get the insertion point schedule for those workouts. from what i understand the manufacturers' contribution happens in the final phase of the design / ipd process. generally there is no need of that exact modelling, as it was the case of 2d references.

what i am interested most is the possibility to reproduce the modelling principles of revit families in vectorworks. is there a possibility to export parametric (symbols?) for the construction industry market?

or go you think we can get away with the ifc standard alone?

rob