Timberline users please read

[david.kingham]

We need to get timberline in gear to support ifc files from revit, I thought IFC was supposed to be a standard format and any program could read any ifc file? Maybe it's a revit problem but I don't believe so because you can open it with ifc viewers

Please call here and request they fix their cad integrator to support revit ifc
800 551-8307
Only call if you are using timberline
I have sent them a small ifc file from revit for their testing, we just need more requests so they see there is a demand for this

[GuyR]

Have you tried playing around with the export configuration file.

Guy

[david.kingham]

*deer in headlights*

Where would that be located? :)

exportlayers-ifc-AIA.txt?

Not sure where to go with that

[D_Driver]

File menu > Export > Ifc

per Revit's own pop up when you export...
IFC Export in this version is not officially certified by IAI....


Look in menu File>Import/Export Settings > IFC options
what you see here is a list of Revit objects on the left. On the right are a corresponding list of types of objects that IFC understands (or has classes for)
so if there is not something that is equivalent in the IFC Categories, it will not be exported to the IFC file

but I don't see why this is an issue with timberline - either the object is represented or not, but this should not corrupt the file to be read by other softwares.

[GuyR]

Import-export settings -> IFC options

Have you got an example timberline IFC file to see how to map Revit objects and with what names. Or contact timberline and see if they can help.

HTH,

Guy

[david.kingham]

I don't have an ifc from timberline, I've been talking to timberline support but the ifc guy wont be in till next week

BTW I don't get a popup when I export...???

I will get this figured out, or die trying

[david.kingham]

I believe I have found the problem, Timberline uses ifc 2.0 and revit uses 2x2 which is the newest version of ifc. So timberline needs to update their software...put in your requests, the more the better

[david.kingham]

This is comfirmed and they will not be upgrading to 2x2 till next year, what a huge disapointment :(

[Jeffrey McGrew]

This is comfirmed and they will not be upgrading to 2x2 till next year, what a huge disapointment :(

I know that there are converters out there for IFC 1.whatever to IFC 2.whatever, could you find one for 2x2 -> 2.0? Maybe that would work. Better than just sitting around waiting for Timberline to fix things.

Big problem with IFC as I see it. They have had just the worst versioning issues, esp . for something that was supposed to be a 'universal' format. IIRC the ones that talk 2.0 can't understand the ones that speak 1.whatever eather, and there are whole problems around 2, 2.0, 2x2, and more. What fun.

[Steve_Stafford]

Big problem with IFC as I see it. They have had just the worst versioning issues, esp . for something that was supposed to be a 'universal' format. IIRC the ones that talk 2.0 can't understand the ones that speak 1.whatever eather, and there are whole problems around 2, 2.0, 2x2, and more. What fun.
Which is why, for me the whole IFC thing is "marketing foo", a distraction for Graphisoft to warn folks away from Revit. At least now it supports it...though depending on what version the folks you want to collaborate with use, may find it just as "useless" as not supporting it. Fun is right!

I know the potential for IFC's is profound, but the execution of it, well that's another matter...

[GuyR]

With an example timberline file it'd be interesting to see if it is possible. IFC2.2 and 2.0 might not be that different for a majority of elements you need.

IFC versioning is no different to what happens every year with DWG... At least IFC is an open standard.

For Revit I think IFC will find more traction performing the sort of tasks the initial release is aimed at. Code checking etc. For estimating, timberline would be better linking directly to the Db using the API.

Guy

[david.kingham]

Thanks for the help guys, I looked for a convertor for a couple hours to no avail.

I guess I will focus on the api, after spending the day looking at ifc I realize it has a long way to go before it's really usable (if ever)

So GuyR I assume a non programmer like myself stands no chance at figuring this out on my own....if you happen to figure out python would I?
We may have to hire someone to get this rolling

[GuyR]

So GuyR I assume a non programmer like myself stands no chance at figuring this out on my own....if you happen to figure out python would I?

Do you mean using IFC or the API. Certainly the goal of using a dynamically typed language is to make it easy as possible for non-programmers to access the API. I have 2 approaches I'm currently looking at. And yes it may need a real programmer to sort this out.

Guy

[david.kingham]

API...it is sounding like the better route to go. If I look for a programmer what should I look for?