Complex Geometry

[JamesVan]

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death by now, however, I'd like to officially start a thread.

At the last Advisory Board it was agreed that Revit would not be developed as an 'advanced' shapes modeler, rather it would have the ability to import geometry from other applications such as 3D Studio, FormZ or Rhino.

It is my belief that in the Family editor when addind a Solid, along with Extrude, Sweep, Blend and Revolve there should be an "Import" option as well. Let's see what you think.

[trent59822]

I agree with this. Another thought would be to have the complex geometry to have compound structure also. I know I'm dreaming, but it sure would have made life a ot easier with complicated wall type geometries in my last job.

[PeterJ]

What is the Advisory Board?

Why is it appropriate that modelling capability in a design tool not be extended further? I don't have a copy of Rhino or 3DS so does this mean that my use of Revit is to be limited in terms of complex family creation? I don't know that I necessarily have the time to want to get into making lots of complex families, however, when it comes to sanitary ware for example there is a dearth of good 3D families in the set available from Revit and I do want to create better familes for my own use - that means complex geometry.

Peter

[gregcashen]

Why is it appropriate that modelling capability in a design tool not be extended further? I don't have a copy of Rhino or 3DS so does this mean that my use of Revit is to be limited in terms of complex family creation?

I agree. It would be nice to at least be able to do ellipses, standard polygons, cones, etc...i.e. primitive shapes.

[JamesVan]

What is the Advisory Board?

The Advisory Board or Customer Advisory Board is a meeting held by the folks at Revit which, at least I assume, all Revit users are invited to. They host one annually to get feedback for items to be developed for the next major release. I had the privilege of attending this year's pre-6.0 meeting and it was a wonderful experience. The Revit developers are a great bunch of human beings!

I am straddling the line on this one. :? I've seen other software try and fail to do what FormZ and Rhino already can. On the other hand, I agree with your reluctance to shell out more money for additional software. Perhaps there is a point of equilibrium we haven't yet reached.

[PeterJ]

Gotcha James. I think I attended something similar prior to the release of 4 or maybe 4.5 and yes, the developers were there and they spoke impressively.

As to the modelling thing, there is a fine balance. I hav eno intention of spending my life modelling sanitary ware but I really could do with something that looks better than the range currently available. We do a lot of high end residential and need to show room interiors accurately, so I nmeed to be able to model/represent things to some level of detail beyond that which I currently find Revit able to do and I don't want to be levered into getting a 3D modelling package - the argument is two-fold as I don't want to spend the monmey unnecessarily and I really don't want t suffer the learning curve.

P

[Martin P]

I need this very soon! The wavy walls thing I posted in the gallery, I am about to start the detailed drawings for this next week, and I need a sweep that follows a 3D spline to do a cope, I am not sure just how I am going to tackle that without one??

[J-G]

I think revit should at least have its modeling capabilities increases. It doesn't need to be as elaborate - that is true - but it should offer basic primitive shapes. Even AutoCAD does that. For instance I had a family that was a square masonry column with a stone cap. In any other program I could have created a standard pyramid primitive and been done, but in Revit I had to work around by creating a blend between the lower base and a tiny square at the top that was in pretending to be the point of the pyramid.

Bottom line is that Revit should be developed to offer at least basic primitives for modeling families. Revit needs to offer the capabilities that Acad has for years. Otherwise we are taking a small step back in the modeling/drafting areas.

[Bryan Sutton]

Although I chose the ability to import complex geometry, I believe Revits modeling abilities do need to be advanced. Of course we want it all ;0
I have requested primitive shapes (drag + drop) sweep along spline, array along spline, mulitple profile blends... before and remain hopeful that they will appear sooner than later in Revit. These tools are not only essential as design tools, but are also exceptional time savers.
As I design + draft for the film industry I realize that I am a very small voice in the Revit community and my needs are slightly different, but I think it essential that we be able to both import and export to a broder range of 3d geometry. DXF is really the lowest common denominator in the communication of 3d data.
While the architectural community is playing catch up in the use of 3d data in design, Revit could easily adopt some of the abilities of mechanical design software like Solidworks, Inventor, IronCad... to be able to exchange data and maintain or assign parametric info. The greater the communication tools - easier to get the job done.
Cheers
Bryan

[aaronrumple]

I don't think it is just a question of imorting. Revit needs to be smart enough to translate the imported geometry into usable data.

... I still need an ellipse.

[Andre Baros]

Imported Geometry sucks. Complex geometry isn't just about being able to draw toilets (but that's part of it) but about being able to extend Revit's intelligence to any situation. If I'm drawing a "complex" roof, I shouldn't have to go to another program... nor should I loose the ability to change that roofs properties, display properties, etc. On the other hand, most complex geometry in architecture is made up of simple parts so we don't really need all of Rhino's or Max's nurbs tools, just a bit more control of what we have... and a spline tool.

[Richard McCarthy]

I think not just Nurbs tool, but Polygon editing + sub Division tool, sketchup like modeling tool, and LOFTING (if you have lofting, you can do anything as my lecturerer had always taught us) tool!

I agree with PeterJ that why should we shell out money just to have ESSENTIAL modeling capability that other modeling package provide? Right now I still feel Revit is standing on 1 leg.... look at Autodesk Inventor...do you think anyone would buy that program if it only have the modeling capability like the one Revit provide??
BTW....I most certainly recommend Autodesk to integrate some if not all of Inventor's modeling capability...