IFC for you and me.

[Baldwin_4-6-0]

Ok,
I am attempting the IFC import export to and from Microstation Triforma.
Not only does it take 20-40 minutes for Benltey to Import it, it took 3 solid minutes for it to regen every time you move the your view of the model in hidden line mode, wireframe is faster but, one has a hard time looking at such a wirey mess.

1. The IFC export/import moved some of my plumbing fixtures to new & strange locations.

2. Deleted casework.

3. Changed wall configurations & deleted some walls entirely (and that's just the stuff I found at first glance).

I am now trying to import an IFC from Bentley into Revit and so far it has been almost 1 hour and it's still not done and it appears I missing lots of stuff and it seems to be giving me lots of review warnings.

Why would I do the IFC thing you might ask? Because our firm thinks this is a good idea to go with Bentley MEP even though we are using Revit for Architectural & Structural.

Has anyone had this IFC work for them?
Or does anyone have any horror stories?

[hand471037]

Has anyone had this IFC work for them?

Really depends on your definition of 'work'. ;-)

I've never gotten much out of it. Maybe at best I've gotten a framework in which to re-draw and/or trace a BIM model over the top of the mess from the IFC. And that was just going from ADT to Revit. Never really got ArchiCAD to Revit working ever. Same thing you experienced, missing things, messy models. This is why when folks get shrill about IFC being so important I just think that they haven't really worked with it much yet.

I think that the concept of IFC is very important. We should be able to intelligently move our information between applications. However the implementation of IFC is horribly broken, and frankly, I feel that it's the IAI's fault for making a horribly flawed and broken system, for it simply doesn't work for anyone as far as I know (so it's not like Autodesk is breaking it or something).

What you might want to look into is exporting solid models from the Bentley system, and then linking those into Revit. Then at least you'll be able to do collision detection (but not a whole lot else). Either that or start looking into Navvisworks.

What information are you looking at swapping back and forth between the two systems?

[Baldwin_4-6-0]

What information are you looking at swapping back and forth between the two systems?

Revit Architectural & Structural and Bentley MEP.

This looks like a mess to me. I wonder how well Bentley exports to IFC?
but who has time to create a detailed model in Benltey Architecture?

[gordie_v]

Because our firm thinks this is a good idea to go with Bentley MEP even though we are using Revit for Architectural & Structural.


I would run as fast as I could to the project manager and ask them why they want the project to fail.

Stick to 1 platform for BIM, you would be better off using Autocad Building systems or autocad MEP whatever they call it now

if you are having this amount of trouble now, Imaging doing this every week.
Revit MEP has some drawbacks, But not as many drawbacks as trying to sync 2 separate BIM platforms.

I would rather use Revit MEP and Hire a consultant to build Content

But it is important to get this before the PM as soon as possible
the longer you spend going down the wayward track the less time you have to get the project done

[Baldwin_4-6-0]

I am trying to find solid evidence about IFC to support my case.

[Mencken]

I feel your pain.

At last Fall's IAI meeting in DC, I recall Chuck Eastman (Georgia Tech) showed a few examples of wacky results such as what appeared to be trees growing out of a structural frame after IFC translation. At least that what it seemed to me. He, kindly, suggested these and other examples indicate the translation needs work. I believe I'm correct, but double-check this with Dr. Eastman if you want hard evidence.

[hand471037]

Revit Architectural & Structural and Bentley MEP.

No, I mean what information and at what level of smarts.

Is the intent for the MEP team to be able to place a Bentley defuser into a Revit wall intelligently? Is the intent for the models to be shared between the teams, and for all actual documentation (CD's) for it to come from the various packages and become one whole smart set in the end? Is the intent for these three teams to share and edit the same information about the project (i.e. the MEP team could move an Architectural wall or Ceiling height directly)? If so, then having all three teams on Revit is the only thing I know of that can work.

If all you want is a 3D model from one team to be used as an 'underlayment' and for collision detection in another team's work, and for that to be the extent of the coordination, then it could work. Maybe not via IFC, you might need to use DWGs or Navvisworks instead.

[cphubb]

Go to the IAI website to see the Schema for IFC.
I have never been a big fan of IFC and even less of a fan of how Revit exports and imports. However we exported an IFC model from '08 using 2x3 and import that into Solibri to test its abilities. The results were really good. We had some problems with rooms and boundaries overlapping fractions of an inch and the same with adjacent walls, but when one filters out obvious accuracy problems the results were actually pretty good.

Now that being said, we then imported the model back to an empty Revit model and the results were not much better that the last time I tried that which was 8.1 and IFC 2. Revit still had geometry problems and the objects will all need to be cleaned extensively, to the point that I do not think the model can be trusted. I cannot speak for Bentley but the mission of IAI and IFC is full interoperability. I hope that can be achieved. Keep trying

[LRaiz]

... the mission of IAI and IFC is full interoperability. I hope that can be achieved. Keep trying
Right. This will probably happen soon after Santa Claus marries Tooth Fairy.

IFC effort is decades old but have not brought practical results yet. I'd be quite surprised if it ever will. That would be the first example of a standard developed by pure academic researchers and promoted by bureaucrats to take hold in commercial market place. All other existing standards took a different route. They typically were first developed by an established vendor and then this vendor while pursuing its own commercial interests opened up the technology and actively promoted it for a wider market. This was the history for adoption of i386 architecture, Ethernet, HTTP, SQL, ODBC, etc. I think there are some fundamental laws of technology adoption life cycle that IAI is ignoring.

No software vendor really has deep commercial reasons to seek success of IFC. Thus they are bound to pay it lip service but have no carrot/stick incentives to go though substantial difficulties to have their software adequately tested. Besides, technically IFC has put a carriage in front of a horse. Typically standards organizations wait till commercial vendors duke it out in a market place, only later a standard is developed based on a leader technology. IAI instead aimed too high, specified too much of a schema too early and at the same time left too much schema flexibility. Thus each vendor implements its own schema interpretation, does limited amount of testing and declares standard compliance.

My pessimistic view is that IFC is a utopia and it has as many chances of becoming a practical tool as Esperanto becoming a widely used international language.

[Baldwin_4-6-0]

Has anyone used IFC successfully?