Save DWG from Revit w/o blocks?

[ts.257224]

I am trying to refine my workflow between 3dsMax and Revit. Part of the struggle I am having is with blocks in DWG files. I am wondering if it is possible to write a DWG file out of Revit without any blocks in it?

My next option is to open the DWG in AutoCad or another DWG editor, and try to save it without blocks, or explode the blocks. Though I am a bit unsure that I actually want to explode the blocks.

I would like to keep the steps as few as possible so I am starting with my options to ditch block coming out of Revit first.

[dhurtubise]

Did you tried FBX?

[ts.257224]

Yes. We recently switched to Max2011, and we were hoping that the FBXFileLink was the solution to our problems. Unfortunately it is not.

I spent 3 days testing it, and trying to stream line the process, but when your project reaches a certain size, it seems to become to cumbersome for the FBX linking to handle.

I don't have a hard number on the amount of geometry, or rough square feet, but it seems to start to lag when your FBX file climbs over 30-40 megabytes. I am testing new workflows with the shell of one of our medium size buildings, and the FBX for the shell of that building comes in at 107 megabytes when saved to an FBX. This is without the environmental EXR file included.

If you have a chance, look at my attached image, There are some interesting stats from my testing... DWG -vs- LegacyDWG -vs- FBX. DWG is the way to go, and for that matter, LegacyDWG is really the way to go for speed and effeciency. The problem is that legacy does not support layers. It also does not support ObjectARX.

[dhurtubise]

Very interesting data.
When you export to FBX do you export to a single file? I've never used that because of the file size. What we usually do is setup several 3d views for max export. When then work on separate scenes and link them together.

[cliff collins]

ts,

It is a well know fact that FBX format will produce a larger file.
However, if you consider the advantages--MR Protein 2 Materials come into Max
seamlessly, etc. then it's worth it vs AutoCad and mapping all the materials again in Max.

What kind of hardware are you using? How about OS?

We have had good results with Windows 7 64 bit, new HP machines with 8-12 GB of RAM.

I suspect a lack of RAM could be the problem?

I also agree with the other comment about breaking up the FBX files into several pieces
and x-reffing together in Max.

cheers

[ts.257224]

I broke the file into 4 FBX's and tried that, but it ran even slower than it did as one entire FBX. The m,ajority of the time I am using Vray to render in Max, so I am really only concerend about the geometry.

I tried doing a workflow with the previous Pro Shaders and Mental Ray that Autodesk was using but was dissapointed with the lack of control of the Pro Shaders. They basically had glossy reflections on way to many materials which cause renderings to eak along at a snails pace. It was bad enough that as soon as we got the project into Max we converted everything to A&D shaders for a greater degree o control.

I should mention that my area of focus in Visualization focusing on depicting building use and character. This may make my needs slightly different than others.

I haven't investigated the Protien Shaders, but I am assuming that they are going to have a similar set of problems. Maybe I am being naive on dismissing the protein shaders so quickly? I have investigated some into the MetaSL shaders, but they seem to have the same problem as the Pro Shaders of limited functionality, and almost forced glossy reflections.

[ts.257224]

My machine is a Dell 5500 Dual Quad Xeon (E5520 at 2.27 ghz.) It has 12 gb of ram. The weakest area of the machine is in he video card. It is a Quadro 1800. Operating system is Windows7 Enterprise. All software is patched to the latest versions.

Basically I am looking for the fastest model I can get to work with in Max. This will allow me to focus on developing the visuals to a greater degree and not have to worry about the architecture. The architects will build the architecture.

But if the process of getting the geometry to the point where I need it is slow, then it wreaks havoc and frustration on the entire process. The LegacyDWG file is fast compared to the FBX. The DWG is better, but not as good. With the FBX I can hardly pan and rotate, which effects the overall quality of the product I am able to put out.

By using layer mapping and organizing by material I can get a smooth workflow coming into Max using DWG FIleLink. But for that workflow to be streamlined I need no blocks to be present in the DWG file. With no blocks present Max will treat each layer as 1 object. This improves the performance in Max a great deal.

[hehud]

Seems You made some test,

I wondering which year format for DWG you used ,?, 2007 ?
I used 2004.

About FBX export ,do you have any trouble with the named of the geometry
crasy name like ; FBXAWindows156151632156165AGEDGDEDFDEFDFDWindowsFBX...etc...
??
Make some dificulties to selected by materials the FBX format ??
Very Very heavy format and long time to import Big FBX format,
not able to used in Production (Silly idea to separate into piece :s ) waste of time and method...

Not able to used the rounded corners shaders with DWG import
Able to used to rounded corners shaders with FBX import

soo conclusion FBX sucked as hard as DWG.
maybe in 10 years they will have the best from the two export format

for now just used DWG FBX is useless
Keep FBX for very small object like table chair light ,assuming you have to rename all geometry.



Hope you will find a solution. :)

[ts.257224]

I wondering which year format for DWG you used ,?, 2007 ?
I used 2004.

About FBX export ,do you have any trouble with the named of the geometry
crasy name like ; FBXAWindows156151632156165AGEDGDEDFDEFDFDWindowsFBX...etc...
??
Make some dificulties to selected by materials the FBX format ??
Very Very heavy format and long time to import Big FBX format,
not able to used in Production (Silly idea to separate into piece :s ) waste of time and method...

Not able to used the rounded corners shaders with DWG import
Able to used to rounded corners shaders with FBX import

soo conclusion FBX sucked as hard as DWG.
maybe in 10 years they will have the best from the two export format

for now just used DWG FBX is useless
Keep FBX for very small object like table chair light ,assuming you have to rename all geometry.
)

I think I have mostly been experimenting with DWG 2004, but I could be inconsistent in some area.

I don't have trouble with odd naming conventions. Are you patched to the latest version? I think that fixed some of the naming issue that people were having.

As for the rounding... most of my DWG files do not come in welded, even if I tell them to weld on import. This will keep your geometry from being able to use the rounded corner feature on shaders. You can select the geometry, and manually weld the vertices, and then the rounded corner shader should work.

I agree with you that FBX seems a long way from being included in a production workflow.