topic Re: ArchiCAD10 vs Revit!! in Modeling

IFC interoperability

Anonymous — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:35:28 GMT

Hello All,

Thirty four pages of AC 10 vs Revit 9 discussion and no mention what-so-ever of *.ifc interoperability.

In the world of my experience, construction projects travel along a "road" that connects many players (each an inhabitant of a unique "hut" in the construction project "village").

I deeply believe that some of the focus of this lengthy discussion should involve the ability of the program (s) we use to shake hands with each other.

Riff Masteroff

Re: ArchiCAD10 vs Revit!!

TomWaltz — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:38:18 GMT

IFC comes up once in a while under the Data Exchange forum, but I believe most Archicad users are not dealing with clients or consultants that are using IFC.

Personally I'd love to see more discussion about it, but for most people it's like discussing the paperless office or an all open-source office, a far off idea of "someday".

Re: ArchiCAD10 vs Revit!!

Anonymous — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:49:46 GMT

Hello Tom Waltz,

I have imported a BIM model from SDS/2 (steel detailing software) into a Constructor 2005 BIM model of the same project. I have also imported a Tekla Structure BIM model (again, steel detailing software) and a Revit 9 architectural model into Constructor 2005. I did not, however, for the last two mentioned imports create any BIM geometry within Constructor 2005.

By the way, Constructor 2007 (aka archiCAD 10) is far more capable in this regards (is still in Beta).

Riff Masteroff

Re: ArchiCAD10 vs Revit!!

TomWaltz — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:22:37 GMT

Riff wrote:
Hello Tom Waltz,

I have imported a BIM model from SDS/2 (steel detailing software) into a Constructor 2005 BIM model of the same project. I have also imported a Tekla Structure BIM model (again, steel detailing software) and a Revit 9 architectural model into Constructor 2005. I did not, however, for the last two mentioned imports create any BIM geometry within Constructor 2005.

By the way, Constructor 2007 (aka archiCAD 10) is far more capable in this regards (is still in Beta).

Riff Masteroff

You're one of the lucky ones 🙂 You get to deal with Structural BIM AND Constructor! I'm kind of jealous.

I get to deal with structural consultants who ask me what paper space and Xrefs are.

Re: ArchiCAD10 vs Revit!! - We need an analytical model

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:33:31 GMT

We need the analytical model

GS at a min must create the interface to reduce the model to an analytical one. Without this one has to rebuild the model in the structural package.

I use RISA 3D and just start the structure from scratch.

Re: ArchiCAD10 vs Revit!! - We need an analytical model

Scott Davis — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:19:14 GMT

Adalbert wrote:
We need the analytical model

GS at a min must create the interface to reduce the model to an analytical one. Without this one has to rebuild the model in the structural package.

I use RISA 3D and just start the structure from scratch.

That is what is nice about a Revit Structures model. As the enginner builds the 3D physical model, the analytical stick model is automatically generated.

Re: IFC interoperability

Djordje — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:57:44 GMT

Ladies and gentlemen,

I do think that this deserves a new topic.

Bottom line: we VB/BIM users are one quarter of all the computerized building industry. Is it a time to quarrel? Hardly.

Therefore, personal preferences are personal preferences, and a particular vendor's ability to make or to sell software (not always at the same level ...) is another ballgame. What matters is that I can do the preliminary design in Archicad, IFC it to Scott for the interior design, and to Riff for structural, who will send it back to me for detailed design, that Scott will scream about as his spaces are changed, and someone with Bentley MEP will drill the holes where they should not be, but we will coordinate THE SAME SET OF DATA, that will be ultimately used in the actual building and its management.

Inventing the future? Or just stating the possible?

Now - what about the other 75%?

Re: IFC interoperability

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:40:58 GMT

Hello Djordje,

Thanks for your input. I think that we are in agreement.

Interoperability is a "hot" issue world-wide. Really!

Graphisoft does have strong support for the emerging non-proprietory standard of *.ifc. ArchiCAD 10/ Constructor 2007 (beta) is quite improved (ifc support) over the previous version! Its wonderful.
Note that the new program has only been available to me for about a month.

Its also complicated. I am guessing that Constructor 10's core code now takes into account IFC support. Is this true? I think modeling has to syncronize with *.ifc as the content is being created. Although *.ifc is a mere file format, its not a tail end addition to a program like *.jpeg (Joint Photographic Experts Group).

I do not believe that one single program, or one close-knit family of proprietory programs is desirable. If that becomes the case, I do believe that world will devolve into increasing mediocrity.

Thanks for listening,

Riff Masteroff

Re: IFC interoperability

Anonymous — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:39:43 GMT

Information exchange between different software is probably the most important issue nowadays. It might be not so important when you are designing residence, but when you are working on the hospital the most important part is not to protect each others turf but to deliver most of the value to the customer during whole life (from SD to FM) of the product (building, structure etc.). None of the software can do everything, so it is critical to be able to exchange information between all project parties. And here comes .ifc . Instead of creating exchange plugins between every software, lets concentrate on one that everybody is able to use. Unfortunately .ifc seems kind of on hold for some time already. And it does not work properly yet. Until we will have usable solution we will not use it on critical projects.

Re: IFC interoperability

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:59:50 GMT

Hello Miki Woodie,

Seems that we are basically in agreement. I would very much like to see discussion of the very details of our ifc conversions and exchanges. I hope that I am not alone in this big wide world.

You wrote: "Unfortunately .ifc seems kind of on hold for some time already . . . ".

Earlier this month I saw a demonstration using a single *.ifc file of a single project (european). Representatives of between ten and fifteen software companies (one of which being Graphisoft) each demonstrated particular results using their own diverse products. I was impressed!

For sure, the *.ifc exchange is not mature. However, I do believe that it can be used RIGHT NOW. And I do believe that it should be used right now. If a project is modeled in AC10 or CS2007 with *.ifc conversion in mind, then an amazing amount of info transported.

And for sure, there are particular holes, pitfalls and work-arounds that should be discussed in an open forum such as this for the benefit of all.

Why not?

Riff Masteroff

Re: IFC interoperability

Djordje — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:40:58 GMT

Riff wrote:
For sure, the *.ifc exchange is not mature. However, I do believe that it can be used RIGHT NOW. And I do believe that it should be used right now. If a project is modeled in AC10 or CS2007 with *.ifc conversion in mind, then an amazing amount of info transported.

It is definitely more than ANY file exchange today is ...

Archicad to AutoCAD - complete loss of all intelligence. Microstation - not worth the mention. Archicad to AutoCAD 3D - gazillions of polygons and what not.

In a word - unusable, prone to extreme errors and a HUGE percentage of rework.

So, however imperfect it is, it is definitely more than anything that we have now.

Re: IFC interoperability

Anonymous — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:11:48 GMT

Hello Djordje,

You wrote: "In a word - unusable, prone to extreme errors and a HUGE percentage of rework."

Harsh words. Only partly true from my experience. My first *.ifc model import into Constructor was a structural steel model (SDS/2) from our subcontractor. At the time only CS 2005 version 1-1 had the ifc addons working. I had modeled the rest of the project in CS version PR4. The two attached images reference an examination of the models superimposed and exported into lightwave. The exports came up positioned perfectly and the geometry was impressively accurate. Graphisoft has since fixed the addon problem. Btw, I had posted about the problem in these forums. Intelligence was only partly transferred.

Since then I have transported models from Tekla and Revit into Constructor. Geometry tended to be quite accurate, intelligence transfer was partial. Lately I have been doing partial exports round trip in only CS. Sometimes the imported *.ifc file had truely impressive results, and sometimes the opposite. Only within the past week was I surprised to view the distorted geometry that others have spoken of.

I would prefer to be able to discuss particular *.ifc issues in this forum.

Riff Masteroff

Re: IFC interoperability

Anonymous — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:13:28 GMT

Hello,

Additional attachment as follows:

Riff Masteroff

Re: IFC interoperability

KenMcN — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:28:46 GMT

Riff wrote:
Hello Djordje,

You wrote: "In a word - unusable, prone to extreme errors and a HUGE percentage of rework."

Harsh words. Only partly true from my experience...

I would prefer to be able to discuss particular *.ifc issues in this forum.

Riff Masteroff

I think Djordie was referring to the other systems he had just mentioned, rather than IFCs.

I would like to hear more about individual's experience with IFC as I've tried it but didn't have too much luck. I'll need to go through the process again in the near future and would like to be better prepared this time. I'll keep an eye on this thread to try to get some tips...

Kenny

Re: IFC interoperability

Djordje — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:53:58 GMT

Riff wrote:
You wrote: "In a word - unusable, prone to extreme errors and a HUGE percentage of rework."

I have referred to the current practice of mostly exchanging dumb 2D or dumb 3D, with problematic results.

Sorry if it was not clear!

Re: IFC interoperability

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:43:05 GMT

I'm using IFC 2x3 export to exchange 3D data with a concrete constructor (using Allplan). I must say I'm delighted with the good results, nevertheless :

1. all custom profiles used in ArchiCAD will appear mirrored / reflected in IFC ???
2. while some roofs are wrongly translated as objects, this means that all SEO on that roof are neglected?
3...
4...

I hope to be able to discuss particular *.ifc issues in this forum with others...

Re: IFC interoperability

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:44:04 GMT

IFC export...

Re: IFC interoperability

Anonymous — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:17:53 GMT

About six months ago I exchanged files with an architecture firm in Germany. The file was a complete 3D model of a 300m2 villa made from precast concrete modules. The project was designed completely in Allplan. I could readily open it in ArchiCAD 10 with a few small mistakes. Some half-height walls did not show in plan, even though the did show in 3D. A simple "find and change properties" made them visible in plan. Even the custom designed fasteners that connected the different concrete modules came across correctly as library objects along with doors and other special objects.

IFC runs circles around A-NY-THING else with respect to intelligent 3D data exchange (more than just geometry information) in the construction industry up until now. I am excited for this may finally liberate the construction industry from the dictatorship of "that one company". This is definitely the future.

Re: IFC interoperability

Anonymous — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:37:48 GMT

I have been doing a bit with IFC exchange between ArchiCAD & Revit lately (and will probably be doing much more soon). My preliminary observations are:

1. IFC is useful now. Not perfect, not even great, but definitely serviceable.

2. ArchiCAD does a very good job of importing IFC without any special tweaks or fancy footwork.

3. ArchiCAD while generally quite good at IFC export it has some systemic problems. For example the lack of a "ceiling" tool means most AC users make them with the floor/slab tool (with a few roofs thrown in for sloping sections). This results in the parts being exported as IFC floors.

4. Revit does very good IFC output from what I've seen so far. The trip out of Revit into ArchiCAD is very clean with most elements coming in fully editable.

5. Revit is not so good at import. If the model is too large it seems to choke on properly assigning the families (this is a bit quirky and I will be investigating further). It cares nothing for layers (not having them) so those ArchiCAD ceilings (floors) become floors. Most of the input seems to be ineditable (though I'll have to get to know Revit better before I can be sure of the true extent of this).

6. There are some strange quirks with SEOs and IFC openings, but they are not much trouble so far as I can see.

All this has been based on straight up, default settings with no special templates or property sets. There may be many fixes and improvements that can be accomplished with some customization of the process. I will be investigating these in coming months.

Has anyone out there been using any customized templates or property sets? I am also curious about direct intervention with the IFC file itself. It seems that the output could be post-processed to improve the translation value.

Re: IFC interoperability

Anonymous — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:50:33 GMT

florian wrote:
IFC runs circles around A-NY-THING else with respect to intelligent 3D data exchange (more than just geometry information) in the construction industry up until now. I am excited for this may finally liberate the construction industry from the dictatorship of "that one company". This is definitely the future.

To paraphrase Churchill: "IFC is the worst thing we have, aside from all the others."

I agree that IFC is far and away the best means to transfer building model data that we have ever had. Of course it is arguably the only means we have ever had.

The good news is that it works pretty well and is getting better. I would like to live to see the day when the reference data structure is in the form of an IFC model server and all the other software just checks out and updates the parts it needs (ala Teamwork). This way (in principle) an Architect using ArchiCAD can work interactively with a structural engineer using Tekla, an MEP contractor using Revit Systems, and so on. All while the owner/developer and contractor (in a design-build deal) can participate in the process with an IFC model viewer.