*.3ds export

[juggergnat]

I think its really unfortunate that Adesk has not produced a *.3ds exporter for Revit in all these releases. There should be some way to easily get textured architectural models from Revit into 3rd party rendering systems. There are so many productive and cost-effective choices out there.

Let me give you an example of what's out there:
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/

Vue 5 Infinite costs $595 and gives you a simple means of creating high-end renderings without the massive complexity or overhead of that "other" render route you are most familiar with. For most architectural needs this system will BLOW that well known "other" rendering system completely out of the water. For that price you get:

-Workable network rendering (starting with 5 machines, and upgradable), including the ability to split single images between multiple machines. Unlike VIZ it is completely painless to set up for non-technical types.
-Stunning vegetation and ecosystem control, totally customizable. The quality is completely on par with the best 3dstudio VIZ plugins for plant creation. Yes, you can import mesh terrains and drop vegetation all over your models.... Or you can add rocks, cars, etc...anything you want. Its a fun, point-and-click kind of system.
-The BEST atmospheric generator for clouds, sunsets, storms, etc. Unlike the competition, no plugins are required and its utterly painless to use.
-Great renderer and useful lighting models (global radiosity, global illumination etc). These are integrated in with the atmosphere system...making it EASY on the user to create great imagery. If there is a sunset behind the model...no tweaking required...the lighting of the GI solution automatically matches the atmosphere. And the plants and terrain share the distributed lighting, too! Because of the atmospheric integration its a one click approach to great images. You don't need an advanced degree in rendering technology to produce images that are 95% as good as the best output from the highest-end systems. Mental Ray? Are you kidding? Why such overkill?
-Perfectly sufficient animation control for architects.
-Unlimited control of all the standard stuff, lights, textures, etc.
-Unlimited shader possibilities and customization for high-end users (i.e., the built-in equivalent of Darktree Textures)

Try to match this functionality with VIZ+plugins. Sure you can do it, if you buy 5 expensive plugins and master the use of each. Good luck!

Anyway this is just one alternative system. Note that I do not endorse or work for E-on Software. But its the best example of the kind of system architects can really use to better their businesses. And its utterly useless to Revit users without a common texture format to import models Like Adesk 3DS, Wavefront OBJ, LightWave LWO, Cinema 4D C4D.

Adesk should start empowering the end user, and stop focusing so much on leveraging their products collectively against the competition with their "monopoly approach." Do you think its a cooncidence that the only good rendering systems that support textured REVIT models are Adesk products? (at $1495, and $3495, respectively). What a disappointment.

Juggergnat

[SkiSouth]

Okay, I'll bite. Where were the architectural renderings that "blow" the other software away on that site. I'm open to anything, but honestly, saw great environments, but no "real" architecture.

[juggergnat]

I never said that the user galleries were saturated with architectural renderings that blow away the established base of MAX/VIZ users. After all, Vue D'espirit users can't use Adesk models with any ease whatsoever. Most of the users are in the animation industries, so you won't see a million great architectural renderings. But quite obviously the product is capable of it. Try it out and see for yourself.

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/Products/vue5infinite/

What I DID say was that the ease of use, and feature set of this product "smoke"...no, wait... annihilate!, the VIZ option in terms of price/performance and ease of output for architects. VIZ is a far more sophisticated option...great for Hollywood production studios, and that's why VIZ's twin; 3dsMAX has achieved such deserved success in that industry.

But do we need that complexity? Think about a feature in Vue as basic as flipboards. You drop in an image and it can be told to face the camera at all times. Wow, complicated! That's one of a myriad of utterly simple, useful features. But the power is there, too. Look closely.

VIZ is about as complicated as the controls of a 737, and that's without the plugins required to produce the same integrated renderings.

JG

[iru69]

You can argue forever what's the best rendering software for this or that, but I think the more important point is: why can't you easily export a Revit model into another rendering package while keeping some kind of material mapping (or translation)?

Not only does Archicad's out of the box rendering options blow Revit out of the water, but Archicad can export directly to 3ds, lightwave, and others. Why can't Revit?

I hope this isn't a conceptual debate about Revit versus other software, and I hope it's not a political debate about Autodesk versus other options - I'm hoping it's just a matter of time (and that would be in months, not years).

[tbarnesarc]

I agree it would be nice to have a 3ds export option. Not everyone uses or has Viz/Max. It would also be a good marketing strategy for ADSK. If people could use what they wanted to do renderings it would put Revit out in front od people's faces more. Just my opinion.

[juggergnat]

You guys are expressing my point perfectly. There's no conceptual discussion here, I'm not trying to sell any particular software or this approach vs that. But competition, flexibiility and choice are good, even for big Adesk. Their products have always held their own, there is no need to try to monopolize by excluding features.

Here's a shortlist of other 3d rendering systems out there:

Lightwave
Cinema 4d
Vue D'espirit
Truespace
Softimage
Maya
World Builder
World Construction Set
Carrara Studio
Electricimage
Nugraf Rendering System
POV-Ray
Bryce
Alladin 4D
Canoma
Realsoft 3D
RTSquare 1.0
Shade
Strata 3D

How about some choice, Adesk?

JG

[juggergnat]

I might add that the only way Adesk will add a *.3ds export format will be if we, the users...speak up, and LOUD.

Adesk will view this as unnecessarily feeding the competition, especially after all the effort they invested to create the advanced DWG importer/link for Viz and MAX. They could have achieved much of that functionality, more easily...with 3DS (their original object format of old 3dstudio files...i.e. the predecessor to Max and Viz!). Of course they didn't because that would mean other programs could also easily read Revit files. The DWG importer on the other hand...is an exclusive VIZ feature.

JG

[hand471037]

The DWG importer on the other hand...is an exclusive VIZ feature.

Actually, you could write your own 'importer' for almost ALL of those listed 3D systems.

All of the Material data from Revit is included within the DXF, which is a plain-text standardized format (if a rather poorly made one, IMHO). Export one sometime and open it with a text editor, and scroll to the end... that's how VIZ/MAX does it, it's not rocket science. :D

So, export a DXF out of Revit, and then via an importer that's aware of the extra data, bring it into whatever 3D system you want with materials intact.

If I ever find the time (ha! right! I don't even have time to post on AUGI much anymore!) I've slowly been working towards doing exactly this for the open source 3D tool Blender, which uses Python for an API.

Not that you should have too, mind you, let's be clear that I agree that a 3DS exporter should be included into Revit, but I've been asking for this for FIVE YEARS now to no avail. But I'm not bitter. ;-)

[juggergnat]

Jeffrey,

I applaud your resourcefulness, but most people have no knowledge of programming.

The only problem with DXF, in my experience, is that a Revit model of any complexity tends to output giant DXF files. These files are so big that they could crash any of the world's top supercomputers; instantly transforming them into a screeching, smoldering pile of worthless silicon.

(ok slight exaggeration)

JG

[hand471037]

I applaud your resourcefulness, but most people have no knowledge of programming.

oh, in no way was I saying that *everyone* or even *anyone* should have to resort to something like this. It's just that I really like Blender, and once I have an easy way to go from Revit -> Blender, I could then easily go to Yafray and/or Radiance as well (open source rendering engines I also like).

Just saying that VIZ is 'exclusive' in being able to read this info isn't quite accurate, and that if someone *really* wanted to get Revit files into, say, Maya, they could write their own little tool that would do so using the API's available for Maya.

It's not an ideal situation, but you know, 3DS kinda stinks as formats go too. And no matter how much you shout, and while I'd love to be wrong about this, I doubt that 3DS will be added any time soon to Revit. We've been asking for five years. I can either continue to whine about it, or I can make something that works with something else I like to use, and do that, and maybe get others to help out, and in the end 'raise all the boats' so to speak.

I just wish I had the time to focus on it, instead of working on it in fits and starts.


The only problem with DXF, in my experience, is that a Revit model of any complexity tends to output giant DXF files. These files are so big that they could crash any of the world's top supercomputers; instantly transforming them into a screeching, smoldering pile of worthless silicon.

Actually, while I know that you're kidding here, Revit does produce HUGE files in general. Lots of faces, lots more than a 3D artist typically puts into their model. You'll be facing this very same problem no matter what, it's just that DXF, being plaintext, isn't compressed the way a binary file (DWG & 3DS) are, so they tend to be... large.

[Andre Baros]

Can we add a poll to this thread, because I can't think of anyone who doesn't work for the man who wouldn't support this.

We were using Max since before Revit so it's less of an issue for us, but we would still use it for sending files to consultants for rendering.

[tbarnesarc]

I guess a work around to that issue is DWG export then open it in ACAD then 3ds out. That might work. Haven't done that in years though, so I could be wrong. I agree this should be added to a poll and a wishlist.

[SkiSouth]

I guess a work around to that issue is DWG export then open it in ACAD then 3ds out. That might work. Haven't done that in years though, so I could be wrong. I agree this should be added to a poll and a wishlist.

It does work but you loose the material definitions, UNLESS you use the link from Revit to Viz 2006/Max 7.5. (Thats all the factory has provided is a 3D dwg link into viz and max)

[hand471037]

I guess a work around to that issue is DWG export then open it in ACAD then 3ds out. That might work. Haven't done that in years though, so I could be wrong. I agree this should be added to a poll and a wishlist.

It works. It stinks. You loose all the materials, so while you get the model, you have to redefine everything.

If at least we got a 3DS file, with proper material names on proper surfaces, then that would be more than enough for most to work with, for most will be redefining the materials anyways, and at least if you didn't have to tell it where the materials are, but just that the Brick looks different/better now, then it would be a huge help...

[tbarnesarc]

It does work but you loose the material definitions, UNLESS you use the link from Revit to Viz 2006/Max 7.5. (Thats all the factory has provided is a 3D dwg link into viz and max)

I understand. I was talking about for other programs besides Viz/Max. You'd have to start over anyway with the materials in anything else besides Viz/Max.

[GuyR]

.3ds is a standard but old. I'd like to see .obj or .fbx as alternatives. There are signs the API is moving towards giving more direct exporting possibilities however. I still feel it's up to Autodesk to develop at least some options though. Throw in the status of accurender and you have a real can of worms.

I suspect the bottom line for ADESK is you have an alternative -VIZ/MAX. And it's up to rendering companies to provide other alternatives. Here's hoping...

Guy

[tbarnesarc]

.3ds is a standard but old. I'd like to see .obj or .fbx as alternatives. There are signs the API is moving towards giving more direct exporting possibilities however. I still feel it's up to Autodesk to develop at least some options though. Throw in the status of accurender and you have a real can of worms.

I suspect the bottom line for ADESK is you have an alternative -VIZ/MAX. And it's up to rendering companies to provide other alternatives. Here's hoping...

Guy

Guy are probably right on that one. Most companies do offer many exporting options, but it is ultimatley up to the rendering software companies to come up with importing options. Either way it would be nice to have the option in the case where you outsource to a rendering house.

[Arnel Aguel]

Would it be nice if instead of asking ADesk to provide some kind of different 3d format exporter why not ask for the enhancement of the built-in rendering. Say incorporate a much powerful viz renderer inside Revit or the full capabilities of AccuRender.

Just my two cents.

[Exar Kun]

Just going to add my voice to this one. Would love to see a .3ds export. Would certainly make things easier for me from time to time.

[Chirag Mistry]

YES .3ds export would be great...its got its own advantage of having all the material mapping coordinates set for one. 3DS is supported by a large number of 3D applications and the files are usually small, but it has a few drawbacks:

First all texture names are restricted to the old DOS 8.3 naming conventions, so long texture file names may be truncated on export. If you are going for a 3ds Export try to stick with 8 characters name and 3 characters extension for texture filenames.

Alpha Transparency will not get exported, since the file format does not allow the transparency channel to look up the transparency from the alpha channel of a texture image.

Only one texture coordinate is allowed per vertex. This leads to problems at the seam where cylindrical components (like Horn components) fold back on themselves.

The 3DS File Format has an limit of 65,000 points/polygons per object. Since this limit is so small it is advisable to put each component into a new Object and splits up components into more than one object if necessary. This splitting may result in seams in the interpolated normals similar to those created in the case of discontinous normals described here where the object has been split. To resolve this you'll have to manually merge objects that belong to the same component.

So considering all this..there will be some work involved and it will not be a smooth transition to MAX from REVIT. Please see the attached PDF file from Autodesk for using REVIT with VIZ

[juggergnat]

Everything said is true. But the point is not to exclusively export to Max/Viz. Why would I want to use Viz if it is: 1.)too expensive 2.)extremely complicated 3.)requires a myriad of plugins if you want to do atmospheres, terrains etc. Even after all that expenditure of money, and time...producing with it is too much work! There are great options out there at 1/3 the price, capable of high-end output, and more productive to boot.

Choice is the point. There are other great rendering systems floating around out there. Adesk's decision to allow you the ONLY choice of Max/Viz is shortsighted. It harms YOU, the user, by forcing you to spend too much money on a system which is absolutely overkill and actually pretty ill-suited to most of the rendering needs of your typical architect. Archicad doesn't have this problem...they export flawless 3d model formats with textures (including 3ds). You can even export a volumetric chunk of your model to these formats with textures perfectly intact. And *.3ds is an Adesk format! (smell, irony?)

Also when it comes to formats, old is generally good...and simple is good. That gives plenty of saturation-time...other developers have time to adopt the format. Obj is another option, but 3ds in my experience seems to be the format which works best among different systems. You can try 10 different programs and their 3ds importer will work fine. Try that with other formats, most hilariously, DWG. Most of us wouldn't need advanced transparency mapping, etc...in imported models. The goal is not perfect translation, just the basics. Any rendering system will allow you to tweak your textures later. All you need is to bring in good models, with mapping and basic textures applied. That's 2/3 of the work.

Competition is good for us and for Adesk, too. Someone in Adesk needs to grow up and figure that out. When you boss asks you "can you quickly render that out into a cool image?" the proper response (if you are not impressed by Accurender and you want to have a life), is "no."

Thanks, Adesk!

JG

[Alex Page]

I guess a work around to that issue is DWG export then open it in ACAD then 3ds out. That might work. Haven't done that in years though, so I could be wrong. I agree this should be added to a poll and a wishlist.

Has anyone noticed that the latest Version of AutoCAD (2007) doesnt have a 3ds out anymore....that is really really mean

[huygen47]

For those interested:

im currentyl trying-out the free Modelpress publisher. it can read DWG DXF and output them as 3ds or Stl.

ofcourse no material or textures converted. but to clean objects grouped per layer would be great. i think

greetz