Adventures in 3ds Max and Revit Massing [Archive]

Tafka

2006-01-26, 05:36 PM

Hi am new to this site, having it recommended from someone from Revitcity based on the wealth of technical knowledge that people in these forums have.

I have been working on massing models in 3ds max as I want to take advantage of its modelling ability over revits simple massing optoins. Basically I have created a model in max 8 which I have exported as a 2004 dwg so that I can import into a massing group so I can use the building maker tools on the object. When I finish it I get the following error:

"Mass contains only mesh geometry, which can’t be used to compute floor area faces, volume, or surface area"

I know that exported objects are seen by Revit (and ACAD) as mesh objects, however how can I then get this so that I can use it as a massing object and slice floors through it etc (esp as building maker only lets me select a small number of faces of the imported object)

I have attached the max file and the dwg if anyone is wanting to have a go

cosmickingpin

2006-01-26, 06:02 PM

Quick question before I wack at it, did you import the cad file into a mass family, which you then loaded into a revit project to apply walls and roof to?

Tafka

2006-01-26, 06:07 PM

No I didn't. I created a new massing object in the revit project and then imported the dwg file into the massing object. I didnt make a new family (ie from file -> new family object).

cosmickingpin

2006-01-26, 06:15 PM

I have a feeling if you create a new massing family, and then import the cad file into that, and then load that into a revit project you will see something you can use, without having tried yet, if that doesn't work I will see what i come up with.

Ahh yes I see your point. Give me a socond here. I will reexport it to cad I suspect the export setting to Cad are the culprit.

Tafka

2006-01-26, 06:43 PM

I have just given that a shot... making a new mass family, importing the dwg into this, saving it and inserting it into a project. It makes no difference as I get the message that it contains no solid geometry (fair point as it was created in max) and again it only likes to select two rear polygons for doing absolutely anything with. For interest have attached the family file.

cosmickingpin

2006-01-26, 07:09 PM

Yeah you are right I am seeing the same thing, I tried exporting it as a *.3ds and then importing that into cad and then using the familiy... You stumped me, now how did you create this object on max? I can see your modifier stack in your file before you collapsed it and converted to a edible mesh. i take it you extruded a poly line? Try keeping it the simple object without converting it to a editble mesh and see what that does, or give me the base object before you convert it to a edible mesh.

Any 3DMax gurus have any gray matter to lend here?

Tafka

2006-01-26, 08:07 PM

Its not that special a 3D mesh(!) In fact I tried exporting a simple cube from max too and got the same results (I had to check!) It was originally a nurbs object which I then simplified and converted to an editible poly (may have converted it then to a mesh but cant remember and should make little difference to the object).

From the revit help files, it seems revit has issues if what it imports is not an ACIS mesh which it sees as a "solid" object which it can then cut up, analyse etc. AutoCAD can deal with these two but it may be in the converting the mesh to an ACIS solid which is an issue. I have tried importing to ACAD but cannot find a way of converting the object into a solid object (like what ACAD likes to boolean). And before anyone asks, I really want to keep working in max for modelling and document it in Revit as the massing modelling in revit cannot easily get the forms I am expreimenting with.

Whilst revit can see the mesh geometry it doesnt want to acknowledge it as being slicable etc. Any Max/ACAD super gurus know how to get this to work?

cosmickingpin

2006-01-26, 09:18 PM

I GOT IT!
inport your cad filine into a revit project, export that back to cad (making the whole thing a solid), then import that file into your mass family and the whole thing should work.

Err wait that didn't work either...

Chirag Mistry

2006-01-26, 09:26 PM

Just a thought....
I have seen this done using RHINO and exporting our to a .sat file. I can't find a way to export a .sat using MAX/VIZ.

cosmickingpin

2006-01-26, 09:32 PM

Tried that, his object is not exporting as a *.sat.

Just a thought....
I have seen this done using RHINO and exporting our to a .sat file. I can't find a way to export a .sat using MAX/VIZ.

Tafka

2006-01-26, 09:52 PM

Have been playing with exporting from revit as a dwg which can convert the solid geometry to an ACIS solid but as the geometry is seen as a mesh it doesnt convert it. In theory the object is a closed mesh and I guess if you booleaned it all you'd see would be the edges of the mesh rather than a solid so....How do you make this a "solid" object? as this will happen to anything in max as it exports as mesh objects.

Teresa.Martin

2006-01-27, 12:00 AM

I have tried a few different options with converting max files in various formats to get them into Revit (Polytrans, NuGraf, Intellicad's 3dmesh to solid converter). The answer to your original question is currently you cannot convert 3d Max files into a format whereby it would be a usable object in Revit (Building Maker/Massing, etc). Rhino does this to a certain degree because it supports Nurbs to a very high level (it was built on Nurbs). My suggestion at this point is to switch to Rhino for the type of modeling you do in 3d Max. You want a package that exports seemlessly to the .SAT file format. 3D Max and Autocad do not currently do this. I realize this is not a great answer, but the two packages (Revit and Max) do not currently support each other in that way.

Best regards,
Teresa Martin
Application Specialist
Ideate Inc

cosmickingpin

2006-01-27, 12:08 AM

And the Autodesk factory response is.... <crickets chirping> Thanks guys, knock up job...

I have tried a few different options with converting max files in various formats to get them into Revit (Polytrans, NuGraf, Intellicad's 3dmesh to solid converter). The answer to your original question is currently you cannot convert 3d Max files into a format whereby it would be a usable object in Revit (Building Maker/Massing, etc). Rhino does this to a certain degree because it supports Nurbs to a very high level (it was built on Nurbs). My suggestion at this point is to switch to Rhino for the type of modeling you do in 3d Max. You want a package that exports seemlessly to the .SAT file format. 3D Max and Autocad do not currently do this. I realize this is not a great answer, but the two packages (Revit and Max) do not currently support each other in that way.

Best regards,
Teresa Martin
Application Specialist
Ideate Inc

beegee

2006-01-27, 03:11 AM

It's not Autodesk's staff job to monitor and respond to everything posted in AUGI. I'm amazed that they cover as much as they already do and still mange to do the work that they're paid for.

If the issue is important enough to the user and the response received here is insufficient, then it should be filed with Autodesk support and they will respond.

And the Autodesk factory response is.... <crickets chirping> Thanks guys, knock up job...

Martin P

2006-01-27, 08:23 AM

The problem is that it is a mesh and not a solid right? You need to import a solid object not a mesh by the sounds of the error message.......

welI...... drum roll...... I have here a lisp routine that converts a mesh to a solid..

one problem, just tried it - the mesh you have created is "closed" it needs to be an open mesh for this routine to work - like the topography in Revit.. Can you make it into a skin rather than a closed mesh then export it? or there may be (almost certainly will be..) another lisp routine out there that will let you explode the mesh, delete the closing faces then combine it back into an open mesh (maybe autocad can do this??)......

It also doesnt like stuff that "overhangs" but with a little work in autocad with changing the ucs etc and using this routine - you should easily be able to do this (the soild is extracted down the Z axis - if you have an overhang, which you do - it gets filled in) - just use the 3d polys to trace your mesh - then edgesurf those, then use the routine....it works very well - we used to use it for doing 3D sites in Autocad.

Tafka

2006-01-27, 09:22 AM

Thats a great way to sort it although it does mean modelling all over again in acad! Certainly its the way that I can get a mass object workflow from max to revit and more detailed objects can just get a standard import (where massing tools are not needed).

It does seem annoying that two of the major autodesk apps dont talk to each other here. All I can hope is that max 9 and revit 9 will support this link together as it has tremendous impact on the building maker function as you would be able to combine max's modelling with revit's documentation system. Especially with x-reffing/linking the max file, you really could start to move towards smartgeometry ideas and concepts...

Martin P

2006-01-27, 10:20 AM

I am sure its in the post and they will all be talking to each other soon.... You could remodel that object in autocad into solids using 3dpolys, edgesurf and the lisp routine in less than 20 minutes I bet!

Though it is really quite a workaround I agree, but at least its not impossible. This is just such a great lips routine - I was delighted the day I came across it....

Maybe there is somebody out there or somebody at Autodesk that can take it a bit further and make it simply change surfaces into solids.....

Let me know how long it really takes you to redo it in autocad ;)

cheers,
Martin.

cosmickingpin

2006-01-27, 01:38 PM

dude I know that... Can't have no fun round some kinds... In certain emergency situations I can be a reasonable person. We have been told though that Viz and Max can be used to supplement the modeling limitations of Revit, yet here it seems it can't. My post was more intended to point out how we revit users have been left high and dry with regard to revit's modeling abilities, and I know I am not nearly the only one who feels that way.
Edit: I have worked with a design architect who modeled in Sketchup, I took his sketchup model and through cad was able to generate multi-object style solid model components (walls, doors) with various sectional material properties (hatch pattrens and colors), that rendered out and detailed out great. Perhaps Rhino and sketchup are what we should be using to supplement our Revit modeling. Seems like certain ADesk products just aren't measuring up to consumer demand, hazzards of being the biggest right?

It's not Autodesk's staff job to monitor and respond to everything posted in AUGI. I'm amazed that they cover as much as they already do and still mange to do the work that they're paid for.

If the issue is important enough to the user and the response received here is insufficient, then it should be filed with Autodesk support and they will respond.

AP23

2006-01-27, 03:03 PM

dude I know that... Can't have no fun round some kinds... We have been told though that Viz and Max can be used to supplement the modeling limitations of Revit, yet here it seems it can't. My post was more intended to point out how we revit users have been left high and dry with regard to revit's modeling abilities, and I know I am not nearly the only one who feels that way.
Edit: I have worked with a design architect who modeled in Sketchup, I took his sketchup model and through cad was able to generatemulti-object style solid model components with various sectional material properties. It wored great. Perhaps Rhino and sketchup are what we should be using to supplement our Revit modeling. Seems like certain ADesk products just aren't measuring up to consumer demand, hazzards of being the biggest right?

This is the reason why many many many autodesk customers leave and use other software. Anytime autodesk announces that they are going to buy an external software, panic breaks out. Most of those people used to be autodesk costumers and know what autodesk is all about. Autodesk just don't listen to their customers and seams to put a halt on software development for some reasons. How many have people complained about 3ds max/viz accurate modeling capabilities and interoperability and left when more accurate and intuitive solutions like FormZ, Rhino came on the market. How many customers are using autosketch opposed to SketchUp? The success of these softwares is that they listen to their customers take the wishlist very serious. Not that autodesk don't take their customers serious, but it is pretty odd that wishes are left untouched versions after versions. Isn't the first thing you do as a software company like autodesk is to make all your OWN softwares interact with each other to at leats prevent customers to use external applications?

Martin P

2006-01-27, 03:13 PM

Just too busy trying to get us all to give up on PDF's I suppose ;) - and making all the boxes the software comes in look the same..... the boxes are a start I suppose LOL...

Tafka

2006-01-27, 04:15 PM

kk so it took me all of 5 mins to model it as I knew just about how to model it in max, although it did resort to triangulating my geometry (I know it likes planar faces but I did convert them to "virtually" planar faces in max to create the quadrilateral faces. I think that the scrip is very cool and definitely will be of immense use.

I guess then you can take the model conceptually from max to revit through remodelling, however you do lose the clean model from max in the process and then you are limited to how you model in ACAD... I really have shifted from acad to max for modelling due to it being far more intuitive and flexible (parametric and all).

If you look at how ArchiCAD is working with sketchup and Cinema 4D this is how max and revit should be operating together so that data is shared and users of both can produce more than the sum of their parts. All you are really looking bare minimum is to add an export script to max and at most ideal a file link so that your mass model could be parametrically controlled in max and linked and automatically updated in revit.

This is really why Fosters and Gehry have their own specialist modelling groups etc as they bridge the gap between what industry software can do and the designer's intent (it means if the softawre wont do it then they will "make" it do it. But then we are talking about Bentley and the interoperability alliance who want to make packages freely exchange information.

Phil Read

2006-01-27, 04:44 PM

Hey guys -

Don't make it more complex than it needs to be. ;) I don't like importing big chunks from other modeling apps because it can result in big chunks of unmanageable stuff in Revit.

Here's another option.

1) Create form in Max/Rhino/Whatever
2) Determine likely horizontal or vertical construction module (3 meters/10 meters/etc).
3) Slice the model up according to the module
4) Export **just the slices** to DWG. Not the face. Just the edges of the slices. So you'll have a series of edges that would outline the whole shape from top to bottom.
5) Import the slices and then use these as guides to pick lines for creating the top and bottom blends.

Now you'll have a meaningful, pre-rational building for - rather than a bunch of triangulated spidery web things.

Think about it. If you do this, you can create ***any*** form in Revit. It's just a series of slices.

-Phil

cosmickingpin

2006-01-27, 05:52 PM

jkrager

2006-01-27, 06:00 PM

Edit: I have worked with a design architect who modeled in Sketchup, I took his sketchup model and through cad was able to generate multi-object style solid model components (walls, doors) with various sectional material properties (hatch pattrens and colors), that rendered out and detailed out great. Perhaps Rhino and sketchup are what we should be using to supplement our Revit modeling.

I was just going to mention that sketchy program. I just finished a quick model in Sketchup that I imported to MAX via dwg. Turned out pretty nice, though I had to reapply the materials. I would think that going the other way would be just as easy - Max to Sketch to Revit. I haven't tried it, but from what I hear Revit seems to enjoy Sketchup's faces. Nowadays, I only use my lingering Max liscence for rendering.

Phil Read

2006-01-27, 09:45 PM

Not the kind of solution you get a birthday cake for. It was avoiding a remodel in revit which was (I think) the whole point and allowing for a free flow of ideas from concept to realization. Shame to see revit fall short like this.When a fellow student started a design critique with, "well, this isn't really what I had in mind...." the blood was already in the water and the professors could smell it like sharks.

The "free flow of ideas from concept to realization" never happens. Not in Film, Music, Law, Engineering, Life, Art, Dating, Work, Marriage, Solar Power, Kids, Medicine, School, Politics, Religion, Whatever. So let's stop dreaming about the day we'll be able to dance and wave our hands in the air and will perfect buildings into our computers. It's impossible to turn ideas into Buildings any more than you can turn feelings into decisions. If Revit could do this it wouldn't be called Revit. It be called HappyArchitectHolodeckCADv1.0 and it'd be free, never crash and when you used it birds would chirp happy tunes while children in the distance flew magic kites and wore peppermint gumdrop smiles...

More specifically: if Max/SketchUp/etc.understood the intent of what you were modeling, I suspect the translation to Revit would be far more rational. But this isn't the case. Those tools produce generic geometry. But geometry alone isn't enough; you have to be able to embed intent. Creating morphic forms is an interesting exercise in design iteration. But making blobs isn't the same thing as making decisions about construction (or constructibility). Blobs don't have the same rules as buildings.

So explore pure form making in whatever tool suits you (even a pencil). Once the intent of the design is understood starting in Revit isn't falling short. It means you're ready to add meaning to your design. It's not automatic or perfect. If it were I suspect we'll just get ugly buildings fast.

-P

SkiSouth

2006-01-27, 09:58 PM

wow. I think I'm gonna pull a chair and watch this one.....:)

Tafka

2006-01-27, 10:42 PM

The whole idea of the building maker is to rationalise a building from a conceptual model therefore your design intent is the massing model that you have created in max etc. You want revit rationalise this rather than to have to change it before it goes into revit.

We are not talking about converting feelings into decisions, rather to use tools to bridge the gap between the design and the systems like revit and ACAD. Of course free flows of ideas do not happen from concept to realization and it would be naive to suggest otherwise. It is the software not prohibiting the flow of a conceptual model (created with parametric controls) to the system that you use for documenting a building that is the real issue. It is through the rationalisation and documentation that is the testing of both the concept and the designer's skill.

Whilst blobs may not have the same rules as buildings, are we saying that cubes or massing objects do? I think not therefore it is at the point of the massing object that the design is still (if you think of design as purely linear) conceptual.

In addition I think that if it was possible to get buildings closer to the ones we have in our heads then in fact they would not be ugly as often it is through the realisation process that our ideas get watered down, lost and fragmented. A program which can help us regain control of this is definitetly a plus for us.

When a fellow student started a design critique with, "well, this isn't really what I had in mind...." the blood was already in the water and the professors could smell it like sharks.

The "free flow of ideas from concept to realization" never happens. Not in Film, Music, Law, Engineering, Life, Art, Dating, Work, Marriage, Solar Power, Kids, Medicine, School, Politics, Religion, Whatever. So let's stop dreaming about the day we'll be able to dance and wave our hands in the air and will perfect buildings into our computers. It's impossible to turn ideas into Buildings any more than you can turn feelings into decisions. If Revit could do this it wouldn't be called Revit. It be called HappyArchitectHolodeckCADv1.0 and it'd be free, never crash and when you used it birds would chirp happy tunes while children in the distance flew magic kites and wore peppermint gumdrop smiles...

More specifically: if Max/SketchUp/etc.understood the intent of what you were modeling, I suspect the translation to Revit would be far more rational. But this isn't the case. Those tools produce generic geometry. But geometry alone isn't enough; you have to be able to embed intent. Creating morphic forms is an interesting exercise in design iteration. But making blobs isn't the same thing as making decisions about construction (or constructibility). Blobs don't have the same rules as buildings.

So explore pure form making in whatever tool suits you (even a pencil). Once the intent of the design is understood starting in Revit isn't falling short. It means you're ready to add meaning to your design. It's not automatic or perfect. If it were I suspect we'll just get ugly buildings fast.

-P

cosmickingpin

2006-01-27, 10:44 PM

Esoteric Bu llshit asside, I was talking specifically about the massing tool as it relates to this specific problem, of creating a "form" in another software, importing it into a mass family, then applying architectural elements as the mass features allows, without re-modeling that "form" into revit objects, which is somewhat silly and seems a gaint waste of time. See I work for living, and each step you add is money, and if all conceptual modeling has to be recreated with revit sweeps and blends, well that sorta makes the massing feature useless by creating additional steps. I am talking about keeping Revit competitive in the marketplace, and playing nice with the other programs is key, especially when the two programs are 1. owned by the same company, and 2. Revit can't create complex poly-morphic shapes itself. So not only won't it create them, but we are extremely limited about the source of form generation to begin with, which pretty much leaves us all screwed if you ask me.
I appreciated the cleverness of your sugestion, however it really doesn't solve the key problem.
I am a revit user and I am demending better modeling tools, and a lot of us are. As for all that I. Ching Shiit you're selling, you can save that for freshman girls at school there.

The "free flow of ideas from concept to realization"
-P

Tafka

2006-01-27, 10:49 PM

Agreed fundamentally what you need are better modelling facilities in Revit massing. I was hoping that because of 3dsMax being under the autodesk umbrealla more technically more officially than previously, it should not complain about modelled objects in max not importing.

It is like autocad and max or autocad and revit not opening each others dwgs.

Phil Read

2006-01-27, 11:50 PM

1. This geometry could be created natively in Revit.
2. The wireframe geometry is not clean; the edges don't all meet. While it looks like mirrored form, they actually overlap. Look closely at the seam between the center elements.
3. How would you propose Revit resolve the intent of unintended form?

This is my key point. If the geometry isn't created with the appropriate intent, it'll be difficult to associate the appropriate meaning.

PS. Here's the mass from using the above described method. Total time 12 minutes.

-P

Andre Baros

2006-01-27, 11:59 PM

Ok, this is just too great a topic not to get involved. In the grand scheme of things, the 20 or 30 minutes that it would take move a mass into Revit, or the 20 ro 30 days that you spend on the conceptual elements of a building are small compared to the 20 or 30 months you'll spend making it real. Personally, slicing a mass up along each column line, if it enables me to keep working on the mass as I evolve the details is much more valuable. As a matter of fact, my experience so far is that by taking even more time with how I create that mass directly in Revit, the shorter and more automated the production time is.

It's really easy to make lots of great shapes in Max (if you have great shapes in your head... or luck) but the key is to make them so that they can endure the process to reality. Going back to Max (or Rhino, or Cobalt, or Form Z) every time that you need to make a bathroom bigger gets old really fast.

Tafka

2006-01-28, 12:12 AM

You've a good point there as it came about when I collapsed the stack as the object was created using the symmetry modifier and collapsing the stack created 2 vertexs there.

Have imported it again into revit and it still sees the form as a mesh therefore it cannot use building maker. Revit does not recognise the object from max as an object which it can slice up (and it doesnt either on cubes) which is the issue which the program cannot resolve. The issue therefore is of revit importing the file rather than solving any intent and on import simply collapsing vertices which have the same xyz values (possibly incorporating a fuzz factor to catch ones slightly off) would sort that out.

How would you go about creating this geometry then from revit as I'd be very interested how you would see smoothing the workflow between max and revit to create these complex solid objects. Is there a less tedious way than creating slices and building it up in layers (or at least a way of automating it inside of max/revit?)

1. This geometry could be created natively in Revit.
2. The wireframe geometry is not clean; the edges don't all meet. While it looks like mirrored form, they actually overlap. Look closely at the seam between the center elements.
3. How would you propose Revit resolve the intent of unintended form?

-P

Scott D Davis

2006-01-28, 12:19 AM

2. Revit can't create complex poly-morphic shapes itself. Really? This is a 100% Revit generated shape, using parametric generated forms. Courtesy of Matt J and Phil R, not sure exactly who the credit goes to... ;-)

Tafka

2006-01-28, 12:21 AM

Cool! How was it made and can you control it parametrically at all (ie change diamater, height etc) and how does it work as a massing object?

Scott D Davis

2006-01-28, 12:38 AM

It was made (Matt/Phil, feel free to jump in here at any time!) as a single Mass shape, that is "Level Aware" meaning that there is a parameter called Level Number. This single parameter controls the "blob." At level one, it knows to be a certain size and shape. At level two, its shrinks a portion, and begins to rotate slightly. It's actaully a blend, so the top and bottom profile for the blend each changes depending on the level one assigns to the mass.

It functions as a mass like any other mass. I can use the Massing toos, and pick Wall by face, and apply walls to the "segments" of the mass.

Phil Read

2006-01-28, 12:40 AM

It's just a series of blends created horizontally rather than vertically. So you have to reset your workplane. Using the pick tool to create the top and bottom profiles is very fast.

Process: Create the first blend. Then copy/paste same place to create the second blend. Pull the second blend through the first. One edge already matches - so you'll only have to edit the second profile. Repeat for the first half of the form - then mirror to get the other half.

Here's the file that created the above image. Parametrically controlled.

-Phil

cosmickingpin

2006-01-28, 01:53 AM

Now I drive this Revit BIM hot rod down the highway week after week, and although the revit pimps and preachers disagree, I think its time we revit users demand either better multi-vector form generation in revit, or give us a platform that will on a relaible basis. The mass feature that allows for fast and streamlined production is key to revit's long term survivability. Revit will either get this feature intergrated with blob creation or die. Revit will get this or it will not compete with the next generation of BIM products and become a terradactyl, a beautiful creature, but not one to last.

Agreed fundamentally what you need are better modelling facilities in Revit massing. I was hoping that because of 3dsMax being under the autodesk umbrealla more technically more officially than previously, it should not complain about modelled objects in max not importing.
It is like autocad and max or autocad and revit not opening each others dwgs.

luigi

2006-01-28, 02:55 PM

Some goodies.....check both pages!

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=32387&page=2&pp=10

Tafka

2006-01-28, 03:21 PM

luigi

2006-01-28, 03:26 PM

Thanks for the link. From checking this, I have been able to find the handouts for this however there seems to be reference to a recording of this available. Is this the case and if so where is this located?
If you are a subscription holder, or have access to a subscription account, then you can access the AU Online and find the recording section, and the class is this one below:

BD34-4James VandezandeYou Can't Do That with Autodesk® Revit® Building!
(http://auonline.mentorware.net/servlet/mware.servlets.StudentServlet?mwaction=showDescr&subsys_id=12082&fromFile=show_records&class_code=AU-BD34-4(USA,2005)&include_all_metadata=true&file=show_descr&isAddedToMysession=true&avail_frame=true)An informative look at what many thought impossible to accomplish with Autodesk Revit. Learn what it takes to manage change within a large organizat more... (http://auonline.mentorware.net/servlet/mware.servlets.StudentServlet?mwaction=showDescr&subsys_id=12082&fromFile=show_records&class_code=AU-BD34-4(USA,2005)&include_all_metadata=true&file=show_descr&isAddedToMysession=true&avail_frame=true)

In this video, a small part of it will be using the blends to achieve the various shapes...

All you do with the file you have, is select all the blends at once. Change the instance settings, and the form will warp accordingly. That's the only trick!
Select all, then modify.

Peace,

AP23

2006-01-28, 05:18 PM

So, it is safe to conclude (lets hope) that Revit can model anything as long as you know what your doing.

How would you model this. http://forgemind.net/xoops/modules/news/article.php?storyid=650 (scroll down to the second price winner Zaha Hadid, the black building)

1. Model the skin in an external applications, import in Revit and pick faces
2. Model the whole building in and external applications and trace over in Revit
3. Model the whole building in and external applications, slice it up and bring them into different families.
4. Model the building from scratch in Revit using formulas to deform the surfaces.

luigi

2006-01-28, 05:28 PM

Scott D Davis

2006-01-28, 05:36 PM

How do you think Hadid modeled this building? I would guess that a physical model was created first, out of foam or clay or some other moldable medium. Once the shape was derived, the model was digitized into a 3D form (much like Gerhy has done on many projects, starting with starched handkerchief models). That 3D 'solid' digital form was then brought into some 3D cad/modeling program to create the design.

With that said, I still think that with a series of sweeps and blends, you could come up with a similair form in Revit without the use of a parametrically driven form.

cosmickingpin

2006-01-28, 05:39 PM

So I saw this thing on 60 minutes, or some morning show, on CBS for sure where she was in her office and screaming, and yelling at people and throwing temper tantrums. Then when the interviewer asked her about she acted like it was funny, "Oh I am hard on myself too". she does nice work but I have no respect for people who pisss and **** all over their employees all for some imagined aesthetic experience. Seems like a fat ill-tempered person with a good design eye albeit. Now I know plently of men do it too out there, and one can say to "make it in a male dominated profession she has to be tough." That's fine, if you need to yell at someone, that should be done in private not shouted across the office floor. No dignity is possible working for someone like that.

luigi

2006-01-28, 05:40 PM

..No dignity is possible working for someone like that.
What about for the people that work for her for free?

Tafka

2006-01-29, 10:21 AM

1. Model the skin in an external applications, import in Revit and pick faces
2. Model the whole building in and external applications and trace over in Revit
3. Model the whole building in and external applications, slice it up and bring them into different families.
4. Model the building from scratch in Revit using formulas to deform the surfaces.

The issue with revit modelling is that you cannot actually very successfully achieve 1, 2 or 3 with Revit and 3DS Max as it stands as even when you import a mesh you cannot directly select faces and the geometry that you can import into Revit from Max is always seen as a mesh not a solid (as it only supports ACIS solids which Max can't create).

Therefore either Revit should allow import of other objects and allow for them to be made into solids or Max should be able to export solids for Revit to import (personally I expanding Revit's import would be the better option)

Whilst you can model with Revit given time and effort with learning how to manipulate its tools, the reality is people design concepts in different ways from different angles with different packages and at the least Revit should not exclude products from its own Autodesk family from this.

lucadesign.104000

2006-02-26, 02:47 AM

I have a question regarding all of this. Autodesk itself states that Revit can import nurbs and turn them into curtain walls and roof planes...Just search in the help file for nurbs in the index and they will give you a nice clean pretty picture of a nurbs roof and a nurbs created curtain wall. I can do nurbs modeling in Viz 2006 however i dont know how to get it out. Is there ANY other Autodesk application that can export nurbs ? They are very unclear about where you get the nurbs or how you get them in the help file.

beegee

2006-02-26, 02:56 AM

>>however i dont know how to get it out. Is there ANY other Autodesk application that can export nurbs ? They are very unclear about where you get the nurbs or how you get them in the help file.
You can import analytic nurb surfaces into Revit 8.1 if they are contained in an SAT or DWG file.

Using the Mass tools, you can then create Revit surfaces by face.

lucadesign.104000

2006-02-26, 07:47 AM

I did all that...attached are my results. I have the original viz file with a quick demo nurbs surface and i have the import in the mass family. I also tried importing it in a simple mass. It told me that it was a mesh and that it was not a solid. From the picture form Revit you can see how it triangulated most of the surface surface. The examples I've seen both on the site and also in the help file seem to be much cleaner. If i cant clean up the surface is there a way i can clean up my final product so that id does not have all those creases in it.

I also attached 2 pictures i found on the forum of nurbs results. I just dont seem to be getting these results from ANY nurbs surface not just the example i posted.

Tafka

2006-02-26, 11:27 AM

This is exactly the problem I have been having, although my nurbs surfaces have been "cleaner" as they have come from 3ds max where you can have some control on the nurb subdivisions. However it still seems subject to Revit's interpretation of it, hence I have surfaces with rectangular nurbs faces (like in Autodesk's example) coming out triangulated when Revit imports the mesh.

Irregardless of the buildability of these forms, it is the fact that Revit does not seem to support them really which is frustrating. This has been causing me headaches in a project where I have had to import a nurbs surface forming a roof into Revit as a mass family and live with it just being a mass family as I cannot convert it into a roof and hence am having to "bodge" getting the walls to line up with the roofing.