ADT to Revit

[bgauthier]

I don't know if it's been discussed before.

Architects send me an ADT set of plan so we can work on the interior design. Is there a way to switch it to Revit so that the walls, doors and windows can be use as Revit models.

Thanks

[jeffh]

It is possible using IFC files. You can exchange wall, door, window information between Revit and ADT. Not super clean but.... "possible". Look into IFC export and import in both ADT and Revit for additional information.

[bgauthier]

My main problem is that I use AutoCAD 2008 while I receive drawing from ADT. Is there a way, for me, to save those files to be compatible with Revit?????

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Compatible, yes. Intelligent, I don't think so.
As soon as you save to Autocad any 3D'ness (?) that ADT might give you gets converted to planes and extruded lines.
As Jeff noted, IFC's coming from your architect's, via ADT are about the only option AFAIK.

Of course, you could always try to convice the architect to use Revit ;)

[bgauthier]

Nicely said Dimitri...But. Those architects where associated with our firm a few years ago. They splited up because...My boss switched to Revit and they wanted to stay with ADT.

In life, you don't need judgement AND intelligence. It's when you don't have either one that you have a serious problem.

I'll try to get the IFC drawings anyway

Thanks

[LRaiz]

I suspect that IFC is going to be a huge waste of your time. Despite all the hype I have yet to hear about anyone being able to put it to practical use in real life situations (beyond demos and toy examples).

Have people who suggested IFC had first hand experience using it? Can they attest that a reasonable level of success may be expected?

This thread (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=65624) asked for examples of success, but received none.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

I agree Leonid.
As Jeff and I both pointed out, it's possible but it probably won't be pretty. How useful the information is will be up to Ben to decide. All we were suggesting is to give it a try and I think it's at least worth the effort.

The limited experience I have had was on the giving end, not the receiving end. I exported from Revit to IFC for an architect using ArchiCAD (or VW?) and he was 'thrilled' with the time I saved him. I don't know what his workflow was or how his software handled what I gave him so I can't comment fairly on exactly what he ended up with.

At the end of the day Ben might end up better off just asking for dwg's of plans and elevations and using those to 'construct' the 3D model for his use. I'd still give the IFC a shot and see what you get.

[bgauthier]

That's exactly what I'll do. I'll give it a try and let you know as soon as I get results....Good or Bad.
I'm suppose to have my files on monday.

[dbaldacchino]

Take a look at these post...you can read about my ADT to Revit IFC experiences (scroll towards the last part of the second post):

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=3178

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=49389

I found Leonid's comments quite funny (especially the references to Esperanto!). I kinda feel the same way with regards to "BIM standards". What standards? We're no longer talking about layers, line colors and lineweights. I'm not so sure you can "standardize" things in a BIM world across different platforms. I'm currently a sceptic and don't see how this would work. Perhaps standardize what parameters should belong to what building components? Only time will tell I guess and I stand to be corrected.

[LRaiz]

I'm not so sure you can "standardize" things in a BIM world across different platforms. I'm currently a sceptic and don't see how this would work. Perhaps standardize what parameters should belong to what building components? Only time will tell I guess and I stand to be corrected.
It is clear that coming up with a common schema of parameters is the key to making a successful standard. And that is why IAI's IFC approach is/was flawed. First, software vendors need to make sufficient progress in innovating, developing and stabilizing their different parameterization schema. Then, IAI should have applied pressure to force vendors to negotiate an acceptable compromise schema. This was not the IAI approach. They did not let Autodesk, Bentley, Nemetzcheck, etc. take their time and first develop their own schemas and then negotiate a compromise. Instead IFC was developed by a bunch of independent researchers hired by IAI who had no direct industry involvement. They did not take much into account what worked or did not work in the market place. They just designed their own schema based mostly on academic considerations.

Besides, too much of IFC schema was specified too early. The industry is already well stabilized in regards to describing geometry of curves, surfaces and solids. Thus the standards for geometry interchange may be developed and be successful. However the approaches to component parametrization and object associativity are still very much in turmoil. Similarly there is a great variability to describing structural loads and stresses. Thus it is premature to expect successful standardization if these elements of the schema. However IFC specifies them nonetheless.

Now, good luck fitting square pegs of ADT, Revit, Archicad, etc. implementations into round holes of IFC specification. It is even worse, IFC specification is sufficiently flexible and IAI organization is sufficiently political that each implementor can claim formal compliance and pass certification but be different enough to have major issues reading other vendor files.

[dbaldacchino]

Now, good luck fitting square pegs of ADT, Revit, Archicad, etc. implementations into round holes of IFC specification. It is even worse, IFC specification is sufficiently flexible and IAI organization is sufficiently political that each implementor can claim formal compliance and pass certification but be different enough to have major issues reading other vendor files.

And here's where the major mess is I guess. We, the users, don't necessarily understand all that's under the hood. We look at a "sticker" that says the software is compliant to some established standard and we think it should work flawlessly. Seems to me that instead of IFC being a "universal language" (ie: Esperanto), perhaps it should be a "translator" that can interpret "dialects" too. Now each vendor can do whatever they want with their platform; the BIM standard specifies the "inputs" and "outputs" to the translator (IFC) and each platform plugs in at the "input" and "output" fields. Right now these input/output functions are not exposed on the platform's side and that's why we get unpredictable results. Kinda like those translated phrases on fortune cookies :shock:

[Scott D Davis]

With respect to Leonid's post, this is what happened in "CAD" days....the standard was set when one package became dominate: DWG. All others had to be able to read and write DWG to be part of the action. The standard wasn't "created", it was established then became standard.

I would expect the same to hold true for RVT...there will come a point where this will become the "standard" file format. All others will need to read and write RVT to be included. At over 250,000 seats and climbing rapidly, IMO this is inevitable.

[sonya]

how many of those seats actually use revit to produce full sets of construction docs is another matter....

[rjcrowther]

I think the idea of setting the standard when one package dominates is not the best course of action.

Although Revit may well dominate it does not mean it is the best (Beta/VHS is an example of where the market was wrong, another was Motorola/Intel uProcessor [Mac/PC]). I would seriously doubt if every aspect of Revit is better than its equivalent part of ArchiCAD or Bentley.

I would much prefer for a standards organisation to sit with industry and devise a thorough and workable standard for all to comply with. At least that way we can all talk to each other. The idea of each software being in isolation (or partial isolation) from each other is not going to get us anywhere. The idea of the market leader deciding just means the most unscupulous and devious marketing team has a large input in deciding techincal standards......and I am sure they know a lot about technical standards but I would really prefer to see a technical expert decide these.

Well.. that my two bobs worth.

[rjcrowther]

how many of those seats actually use revit to produce full sets of construction docs is another matter....

That is another matter but I wonder if in this instance it doesn't matter (does that make sense?) To become the defacto standard I think you would merely need to demonstrate you hold the lions share of the market. It seems the universal way of deciding this is the number of seats and not the number of 'working seats'.

Rob

[LRaiz]

With respect to Leonid's post, this is what happened in "CAD" days....the standard was set when one package became dominate: DWG. All others had to be able to read and write DWG to be part of the action. The standard wasn't "created", it was established then became standard.
I think Scott misinterprets my post and I did not intend to have my post relate directly to CAD days.

On one hand even though dwg is widely used it was never submitted or became recognized as formal standard endorsed by international standard bodies. As a matter of fact Autodesk guards dwg internals as proprietary and sues those who try to crack it. In the CAD arena true standards recognized by international community do exist. Examples of such standards are IGES and STEP but DWG is not in this category.

On the other hand I can point out many standards outside of CAD that were adopted following the pattern that I described. Those include Ethernet, ODBC, I386 architecture, HTTP, XML., etc.