FBX export from Revit doesn't work with FBX Converter (for me)

[hand471037]

Hey, has anyone gotten this to work?

I export an FBX from Revit 2009, and then try to use the free FBX converter from Autodesk to turn it into anything else. And it doesn't work.

With the Windows-based converter, FBX exports from Revit simply fail, no matter what format you try to convert them to.

With the OS X-based converter, FBX exports from Revit can only be turned into OBJ, and even then I'm only getting half the model.

I'd really like a workflow of getting a Revit model out for rendering that doesn't involve import into Max first. So far in my experience the FBX files Revit produces have had a lot of issues even within Max, and honestly I was expecting a lot more out of this and feel that Autodesk really dropped the ball here.

[Andre Baros]

Has the FBX converter been updated? I heard that it was still a generation behind and couldn't handle the latest version of FBX from Revit and Max.

[hand471037]

Has the FBX converter been updated? I heard that it was still a generation behind and couldn't handle the latest version of FBX from Revit and Max.

When I go to the website it says that the latest version is called '2009.1', which I just assumed was the updated version. Maybe it's still behind.

[Scott D Davis]

So far in my experience the FBX files Revit produces have had a lot of issues even within Max.

Examples of some of these issues?

[hand471037]

Here's the issues with the converter:

If I export an FBX from RAC2009 WU1 running on Windows XP, and then try to convert it with Autodesk's FBX Windows version converter tool, all I get is an error (‘Unknown Exit Code’) no matter what sort of file I try to have it output.

If I export an FBX from RAC2009 WU1 running on Windows XP, and then try to convert it with Autodesk's FBX OS X version converter tool, It will only produce zero-bite files for all formats other than .OBJ, and with .OBJ a good portion of the model is missing. Tends to be all the same elements as well, for example, all of the glazing within the model.

I posted them to 'the Area' (http://area.autodesk.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/14118/) as well, on the FBX forum, and I've also submitted it as a support request too.

I'm trying to get a practical workflow for exporting a model with materials intact to a 3D software other than 3D Studio without having to buy an expensive third party converter, so that I can make use of my Revit models within Blender, Radiance, and other software. Currently, the only way I know how to make this work, is to export out of Revit, import into Max, and then re-Export to something neutral like .OBJ (which tends to work most of the time).

I'm not using Max, but a fellow I'm working with is, and I'll talk to him about the specific issues he's having there.

[hand471037]

Examples of some of these issues?

Hey Scott, talked more to my client, and he's gonna put together some screenshots of his biggest problems. But more or less they amount to:

1. When importing the FBX files we're still getting some amount of crashing. On his primary machine, a 4-core monster with dual nVidia cards, about four steps into the recommended workflow for going from Revit to Max it chokes and quits Max without saving. He's going to put together screenshots of that, so that we can submit it and stuff, but that's one of the biggest ones.

2. Why doesn't FBX import in Max understand Watts from Revit? We have to 'fix' a lot of our lighting families now because of this. They render fine in Revit mind you. But when we import our FBX files we typically get errors on this.

3. Why can't we Link an FBX into Max, so that we can auto-update changes from Revit? I know that the DXF workflow before wasn't ideal either, but wasn't this supposed to be better? How are we supposed to quickly update our Max model when our Revit model changes? Is there something we're missing here?

4. The multi-sub-object materials aren't as easy or quick to work with as the 'global' materials that we got with DXF exporting. This is a minor point, but unless we're missing something in the import settings, we don't see a way to get this back to the way it was.

5. If FBX is supposed to be a 'standard' way to move high-level info from one 3D application to another, why is it that only the latest version of Max understands the FBX files from Revit?

[hand471037]

Got word back from my support request. It doesn't work at this time, but it will in the future.

Why is it that my tools from Adobe, Apple, and even Microsoft all talk to each other pretty well, yet my tools from Autodesk don't?

[Andre Baros]

It's just that your expectations form those other tools are much lower. I mean, Photoshop, I can get about a hunder programs to edit a JPG. Word, at least a dozen, and Apple, well I don't do any work on my Mac so I can't comment, but it pretty much stays in safe territory.

I'm also baffeled by the FBX issue... why bother adding it... but it's a start.

[tobias.hathorn]

Hello Jeffrey, Andre, Scott -

I worked on integrating Mental Ray rendering into Revit for 2009 - I was forwarded this thread and in turn forwarded it to a colleague who handles FBX issues. The following is his answer to some of the concerns brought up in this thread -

"The FBX converter is a tool that is designed to allow users to convert FBX files to older versions of FBX, ASCII format, or other formats as OBJ, DXF, 3DS and Collada. Admittedly, there are some bugs that we’re working on right now. The link below that brings me to a thread concerning problems converting Revit 2009 exported FBX files to other formats (amongst other things). This was quickly tested on our part and considering the limited workflow (Revit to 3ds Max 2009 only), we didn’t concern ourselves very much regarding the effectiveness of the conversion process; we just made sure that the conversion wouldn’t crash the converter and that the resulting files were at least usable. This tool was designed for 3ds Max, MotionBuilder and Maya users and no extra development work was done to support Revit-exported FBX files."

"I just did a few tests and everything works as I expected it to. Converting Revit FBX files to Collada results in a geometry-only scene (no Protein information) when importing to 3ds Max. The same occurred for 3DS and OBJ formats; no crashing, just geometry-only imports. Converting the FBX file to a 200611 FBX version or earlier resulted in the same geometry-only result in 3ds Max or Maya. Clients seem to expect that this converter will bring along the Protein information (materials, lighting) to other formats, which of course would be impossible. The converter was not at all designed to allow users to bring the FBX files exported from Revit into other programs, including older versions of 3ds Max (without all the extra Protein work we did), retaining all Protein data."

"In the thread, Jeffrey mentions: “I'd really like a workflow of getting a Revit model out for rendering that doesn't involve import into Max first.” Well … unfortunately that’s the only workflow we’ve developed for our users. This is highlighted in all Revit, 3ds Max 2009 and FBX documentation, white papers, ads, etc. He then mentions later: “I'm trying to get a practical workflow for exporting a model with materials intact to a 3D software other than 3D Studio without having to buy an expensive third party converter, so that I can make use of my Revit models within Blender, Radiance, and other software. Currently, the only way I know how to make this work, is to export out of Revit, import into Max, and then re-Export to something neutral like .OBJ (which tends to work most of the time).” Again, if this client wants to work with his models within other programs like Blender and Radiance, those companies would have to develop their own FBX plug-ins using our latest FBX SDK. Our Protein materials can and will currently only go into 3ds Max 2009. I would suggest the client use DXF, maybe?"

"His final point: “If FBX is supposed to be a 'standard' way to move high-level info from one 3D application to another, why is it that only the latest version of Max understands the FBX files from Revit?” … This is perhaps simple to us, and not so obvious to this user. He doesn’t know that we had to do quite a bit of development work in the latest version of 3ds Max to get all of this to work as well as it does. Additionally, the files import fine into 3ds Max 2008 and version 9, if he installed the latest plug-ins for them … but again, the Protein data is obviously going to be lost. All in all, everything this guy is upset about is exactly what we intended to do from the get-go."

Sorry for the length of the post - if this doesn't answer the questions feel free to ask more and I can try to answer or relay the message to the FBX team. Thanks for investigating the FBX converter tool - and apologies that it isn't useful in your workflow!

Tobias

[hand471037]

Again, if this client wants to work with his models within other programs like Blender and Radiance, those companies would have to develop their own FBX plug-ins using our latest FBX SDK.

Those are both open source programs, which make using the FBX SDK not an option from what I understand due to licencing issues with FBX and Autodesk. They don't have companies behind them, and I'm beginning to feel a huge disconnect here.

The Blender folks would love to add an FBX importer (there is currently an exporter, which is an easier target to hit), but can't easily add an importer without licensing the FBX SDK, which is something they really can't do.

Many other softwares do have an FBX importer, however, from what you state below, we're not going to be able to use FBX files from Revit at the current time.


"His final point: “If FBX is supposed to be a 'standard' way to move high-level info from one 3D application to another, why is it that only the latest version of Max understands the FBX files from Revit?” … This is perhaps simple to us, and not so obvious to this user. He doesn’t know that we had to do quite a bit of development work in the latest version of 3ds Max to get all of this to work as well as it does.

Frankly I simply don't care about how much work you had to do. You're the fourth largest software company in the world, and so your responce that it's "a lot of work" doesn't honestly seem very fitting to me if you're really a 'world class' software provider. I've heard this explanation from Autodesk before. We know it's hard to make software like this. That's why we're willing to spend the money on it we do, and why there aren't too many folks out there that can do it.

It would be like me complaining that my client's don't understand how much work went into my space planning when the roof is leaking.

Sorry to be so harsh, and I do honestly really apprecate Autodesk's tools and have a long history of supporting and even advocating their use in many, many situations. I wouldn't have my own business now if not for Revit. However, saying that "it's hard" is a cop-out.

And this is a corner you yourself painted yourselves into. If by design of the FBX format, which you make, it's hard to have it talk to certain other products you also develop, well doesn't that by definition mean that this 'standard' isn't really that much of a standard?


Additionally, the files import fine into 3ds Max 2008 and version 9, if he installed the latest plug-ins for them … but again, the Protein data is obviously going to be lost. All in all, everything this guy is upset about is exactly what we intended to do from the get-go."

They don't import fine, we do have some issues actually. They are minor for me, major for a client of mine. But again, I'm feeling a disconnect here. No offense meant, but how many users have you talked to about the FBX implementation in Revit prior to doing it?

I guess that my expectation was that an FBX file would be an FBX, and not so proprietary. From what you're saying here the FBX files from Revit only work with Max, and not even the other products that Autodesk makes such as Maya. That's fine if that's the case, I was just confirming that it was. It doesn't matter that also is what's been outlined within the help files and such, it's still lame in my humble opinion.

I'm looking for is a simple model, with materials, out of Revit, in a neutral format that's useful to more than just 3D Studio Max. I was hoping with the announcement of FBX to Revit that this would be the case, however, it's not at this time.

It really doesn't matter that what I'm upset about is what you intended to do if I don't agree with what you intended to do, and feel that it's not an ideal solution for what we intend to do. If this works at some point in the future that will be great, and I look forward to that.

Thanks for the direct response, and all I can hope for is that you and your team will
actually try to understand where we users are coming from, so that you can meet our needs, and to continue at least some level of communication from us 'upset users' who pay for your product and advocate it's use.

[karl.189915]

Tobias-

Thanks for getting us some info from your friends at ADSK FBX group. It seems that the promise of fbx advertised on the ADSK website has not been realized yet. But I'm glad their working on it. I'm still confused on what should work at this time.

I have tried exporting an .fbx from RAC2009 and importing it into 3dsMax 2008 with the FBX 2009.1 plug-in installed. Your friend said this should work...


Hello Jeffrey, Andre, Scott -

the files import fine into 3ds Max 2008 and version 9, if he installed the latest plug-ins for them … but again, the Protein data is obviously going to be lost.

Tobias

But I get an error saying "cannot read this file version." Which seems counter-intuitive since they are both 2009 versions.

Also the part about "Protein data obviously being lost." What is protein data? Is it the mental ray ProMaterials? I thought 3dsMax 2008 used ProMaterials too.

Could you maybe ask your friends for clarification?

Thanks,
Karl

[Stephen.Smiroldo]

Many other softwares do have an FBX importer, however, from what you state below, we're not going to be able to use FBX files from Revit at the current time.

Frankly I simply don't care about how much work you had to do. You're the fourth largest software company in the world, and so your responce that it's "a lot of work" doesn't honestly seem very fitting to me if you're really a 'world class' software provider. I've heard this explanation from Autodesk before. We know it's hard to make software like this. That's why we're willing to spend the money on it we do, and why there aren't too many folks out there that can do it.

Jeffrey... Just wanted to say I applaud you standing up for users. Autodesk needs to be put at task for their monopolistic practices. That is truly what this issue boils down to. I don't believe for a second that it's just "too much work" for Autodesk to make the FBX format a stable and consistent industry standard (especially within their own product line). I think Autodesk leadership does not want to put forth the effort and give their software engineers the proper resources needed for FBX since it would cultivate less dependence on their own products (in the minds of AutoDesk leadership).

Working in the architectural visualization field for 10 years now, my coworkers and I have consistently hit barriers with the interoperability of file formats. AutoDesk, of course, is not completely to blame, but they sure could make life a lot easier for users around the globe if they focused on file interchange technology and interoperability between their own products as well as 3D software outside their own.

AutoDesk... PLEASE make this a priority.

[ron.sanpedro]

Jeffrey... Just wanted to say I applaud you standing up for users. Autodesk needs to be put at task for their monopolistic practices. That is truly what this issue boils down to. I don't believe for a second that it's just "too much work" for Autodesk to make the FBX format a stable and consistent industry standard (especially within their own product line). I think Autodesk leadership does not want to put forth the effort and give their software engineers the proper resources needed for FBX since it would cultivate less dependence on their own products (in the minds of AutoDesk leadership).

Working in the architectural visualization field for 10 years now, my coworkers and I have consistently hit barriers with the interoperability of file formats. AutoDesk, of course, is not completely to blame, but they sure could make life a lot easier for users around the globe if they focused on file interchange technology and interoperability between their own products as well as 3D software outside their own.

AutoDesk... PLEASE make this a priority.

The part I find funny is Autodesk making big PR noises about committing to interoperability with other companies, and they can't even get it right in their own stuff. FBX MIGHT get a little pass 'cause it is so new, but after all these years Revit still makes lousy use of the DWF format. DWG into other products is passable, but not excellent, and that is a format autodesk has been intimate with for 30 bloody years. There is still no useful direct interconnect between Inventor and Revit. I am hard pressed to find a SINGLE example of interoperability between autodesk products that even comes close to living up to A: autodesk's bloated marketing hype, or B: my actual daily needs.
I guess it is good that large stock holders don't actually know anything about autodesk products. They might be a little disillusioned with all the empty promises, and autodesk is fine with disillusioned users, but disillusioned stock holders would probably actually be a problem that needed to be addressed.

Gordon

[hand471037]

FBX MIGHT get a little pass 'cause it is so new,

FBX is only new to Autodesk. It came with Alias, who had developed it for Maya and had been working on it for several years now already.

The theory and core of it FBX is a very good idea and technology. I just wish that it's implementation in Revit and it's licensing for open source projects to use it were different. As it is now it's not very useful to me.


There is still no useful direct interconnect between Inventor and Revit.

If you're talking parametric assemblies, then no, there certainly isn't. Solids work well. However I think it's a difficult bridge to build there, for the two work so differently in such a fundamental way.

[ron.sanpedro]

FBX is only new to Autodesk. It came with Alias, who had developed it for Maya and had been working on it for several years now already.

The theory and core of it FBX is a very good idea and technology. I just wish that it's implementation in Revit and it's licensing for open source projects to use it were different. As it is now it's not very useful to me.
Funny how autodesk seems to be so very good at taking an already good idea, buying it, and then making it less good than it was before. If nothing else, I wish autodesk would stop shipping half baked dishes based on good recipes. If it ain't done, don't serve it, you know? ;) I mean, as far as I can tell FBX isn't actually of much use to anyone right now, but maybe I am just too Revit centric.


If you're talking parametric assemblies, then no, there certainly isn't. Solids work well. However I think it's a difficult bridge to build there, for the two work so differently in such a fundamental way.
And yet they have like three or four AU classes on using Inventor for making Revit content. From what I have played with, Inventor would be a GREAT content modeler, but if autodesk thinks export to DWG so I can have a bloated, meshed, static object in Revit is the way to go, then I have to question their sanity. ;) When I first read about FBX, and how it was supposed to span all autodesk products, I thought GREAT, here is the rosetta stone we need to get complex Inventor geometry into Revit. Even mentioned the idea to the Factory. Don't think they even bothered to say "Dream on, stoner boy". ;)

Gordon

[hand471037]

I mean, as far as I can tell FBX isn't actually of much use to anyone right now, but maybe I am just too Revit centric.

Oh no, it's certainly in use, and has been for a while in the animation and game industries. There are a lot of folks complaining about Blender not having full FBX support just due to this alone.

That's why when I read that Revit was gaining FBX support, I expected more out of Autodesk. For their other products talk to FBX just fine, so it was a surprise to find that Revit only produces FBX files that are legible to a single other application. That seems (very) broken to me, but Autodesk says that since they designed it that way it's not broken, so hey, who am I to complain. ;-)

Reminds me of that old joke: how many Microsoft Engineers does it take to change a lightbulb? A: none, they just change the standard to be darkness.


And yet they have like three or four AU classes on using Inventor for making Revit content. From what I have played with, Inventor would be a GREAT content modeler, but if autodesk thinks export to DWG so I can have a bloated, meshed, static object in Revit is the way to go, then I have to question their sanity. ;)

Yeah, Inventor is a nice modeler. But then so is Alibre, or Rhino, and they are significantly cheaper and produce models that import into Revit EXACTLY THE SAME as Inventor models do. So until there is some special magic to Inventor I frankly don't see what the big deal is in using it along with Revit.


When I first read about FBX, and how it was supposed to span all autodesk products, I thought GREAT, here is the rosetta stone we need to get complex Inventor geometry into Revit. Even mentioned the idea to the Factory. Don't think they even bothered to say "Dream on, stoner boy". ;)

Well honestly that wouldn't work the way you think it would. FBX doesn't support parametrics as far as I know. FBX is a parsed file format with special libraries for each application that allow the content to move intelligently from one application to another. Problem is that it was made for the animation and game industry, so while it understands things like rigging, mapping, and other animation-centric things it frankly was never made to understand something like solid assembly models made up from parametric parts. Honestly I think that if you want to move PARAMETRIC information from Inventor to Revit, or vise-versa, it's going to be done with some other format.

[AP23]

And yet they have like three or four AU classes on using Inventor for making Revit content. From what I have played with, Inventor would be a GREAT content modeler, but if autodesk thinks export to DWG so I can have a bloated, meshed, static object in Revit is the way to go, then I have to question their sanity. ;) When I first read about FBX, and how it was supposed to span all autodesk products, I thought GREAT, here is the rosetta stone we need to get complex Inventor geometry into Revit. Even mentioned the idea to the Factory. Don't think they even bothered to say "Dream on, stoner boy". ;)

Gordon


It’s not insanity, but just a desperate move to save Revit’s face.It’a hard for Autodesk to explain to people why their main architectural tool like has such limited and poor modeling tools and therefore have thrown a manufacturing tool like Inventor into the mix. Ironically, Autodesk never supported their software to be used for things other than what they were build for.

FBX should just be a file format to export files for rendering purposes. Parametric ensembles between Revit and Inventor should be done through shared parameters. A standard file format that retains parametric information between software packages isn’t going to work. Revit needs to get better modeling tools (equivalent to Alibre, Rhino, Inventor) to be able to read the shared parameters and recreate them.

[hand471037]

It’s not insanity, but just a desperate move to save Revit’s face.It’a hard for Autodesk to explain to people why their main architectural tool like has such limited and poor modeling tools and therefore have thrown a manufacturing tool like Inventor into the mix. Ironically, Autodesk never supported their software to be used for things other than what they were build for.

Honestly there are some things in Architecture that are better done with a manufacturing toolset. It has nothing to do with the modeling, I could model the same stuff in Revit. It has to do with the 'downstream' production and things like analysis that are just easier to do within a manufacturing tool. That's why we sometimes use Alibre instead.

I'm fine using industry-specific toolsets for things as long as I can move between them easily. I don't expect (or want!) all the funcationalty of one tool in another. I don't expect Photoshop to be Illustrator after all, why should I expect Revit to be Inventor?

I just think they are using Inventor to 'keep it in the family' if you will. Otherwise I think they would be showing off how to work with Rhino and Revit for the kind of modeling you're talking about (complex forms Revit can't do) and possibly Alibre or Solidworks for the kind of modeling I'm talking about (complex manufactured assemblies).

And I don't know where you get the idea that Autodesk never supports software when it's used in weird ways. AutoCAD itself was originally made to draw circuit boards. I think that if you actually talked to some Autodesk folks you'd likely have a different opinion than the standard AUGI "Autodesk is just trying to screw everyone over".


FBX should just be a file format to export files for rendering purposes. Parametric ensembles between Revit and Inventor should be done through shared parameters. A standard file format that retains parametric information between software packages isn’t going to work. Revit needs to get better modeling tools (equivalent to Alibre, Rhino, Inventor) to be able to read the shared parameters and recreate them.

OK, you sort of lost me here. Do you even know what Shared Parameters are? And how they work? I'm all for some way to move information from Revit to Inventor, and I agree that FBX isn't the solution, but Shared Parameters? Really?

[iankids]

Hi All,

Because of my frustrations with the limited materials and inability to add materials easily to the render, I have been looking at Kerkythea. Fantastic rendering program. In one of the forums a member described how to get from Revit to OBJ (using FBX Converter).

I downloaded the 2009.1 file installed it and converted an exported fbx file from Revit WU2.

For me, everything worked fine, the model exported completely and I am now happily rendering away in Kerkythea on another machine whilst I continue working on Revit at this one.

If anyone is interested the thread is

http://www.kerkythea.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=52796&highlight=revit#52796

it seems that with the next version of Kerkythea one will be able to import fbx directly!!

Cheers,

Ian

[hand471037]

I downloaded the 2009.1 file installed it and converted an exported fbx file from Revit WU2.

Hey maybe someone fixed something. That would be awesome. Where is Web Update 2 available? Do you mean Web Update 1, or 2009.1?

[iankids]

My Apologies, typo error late at night!? WU1 not WU2

Everything else as described.

The only things I did was to uncheck the two boxes in the OBJ tab of the fbx converter. I don't know if this had any impact or not. I will try converting with the two boxes checked and see what happens.

From what, very limited, time I have had with Kerkythea it seems to me (a novice renderer), to be very nice indeed.

Apologies again,

Cheers,

Ian

[hand471037]

No need to apologize, I'm excited if I can make this work. So I just wanted to be certain what you're running so that I could make it work on my end.

Which, sadly, I still can't. I'm still getting the same error I got last time I tried this.

I'll run some more tests. But boo! I was hoping to see this work. Are you on XP or Vista?

[iankids]

Hi Jeffery,

I am running a generic box with duo-core pentium processor, ati radeon x1650 video card, 4 gig ram and xp pro.

I have just run a couple of conversion tests.

1. obj with check buttons on - everything ok export fine and am able to open in Kerkythea
2. 3ds in std config - everything ok export fine and am able to open in Kerkythea (however the model seems a little stretched and is rotated 90 degrees.)

I can zip up the obj file if you are interested

Hope this helps

Ian

[hand471037]

I can zip up the obj file if you are interested

No, that's ok. The converter itself is what's failing on me consistently. The converter isn't even making the .OBJ to begin with. So I totally trust that you're getting usable .OBjs, I just wish I was on my end as well.

What's interesting here is that Autodesk pretty much told me in the support request, and then here as well, that this shouldn't work and that only Max is able to read .FBX from Revit. Why you're able to make this work baffles me, and I hope that together we can prove Autodesk wrong. ;-)

(edit) wooops... just did. Apparently if you take a 'pure' 2009 file, one that's only ever been a 2009 file, it works. Have an updated file from before, it doesn't. I'll test some more and see how this holds, but so far it looks like it works.

Sheesh. You'd think that one of the Autodesk techs would have tested this condition as per the support request instead of just saying 'no that don't work'...

(second edit) ok, so new file + old Families works, as long as old families used default rendering materials. Still working on what's making it fail, for updated projects started in 2008 don't work. Hmmmmm...

[iankids]

The file I used was indeed a file which was "pure 2009".

Given what I assume is the huge change in the software going Accurender to Mental Ray I guess(?) it makes sense that there might be some flakiness when converting an exported model to another format again. RVT to FBX to OBJ adding in a major upgrade as well must be stretching the friendship between the various codes.

Cheers,

Ian

[Steve_Stafford]

...(edit) wooops... just did. Apparently if you take a 'pure' 2009 file, one that's only ever been a 2009 file, it works. Have an updated file from before, it doesn't. I'll test some more and see how this holds, but so far it looks like it works....(second edit) ok, so new file + old Families works, as long as old families used default rendering materials. Still working on what's making it fail, for updated projects started in 2008 don't work. Hmmmmm...
Good intel Jeffrey, thanks for pushing! You too Ian!

[hand471037]

Given what I assume is the huge change in the software going Accurender to Mental Ray I guess(?) it makes sense that there might be some flakiness when converting an exported model to another format again. RVT to FBX to OBJ adding in a major upgrade as well must be stretching the friendship between the various codes.

I agree. I think it's a weakness somewhere in the Mental Ray materials & FBX. I think that Autodesk wanted a seamless transition between Revit & Max. To obtain that, they had to put quite a lot of the Mental Ray info into the export, and I guess the FBX exporter in Revit chokes when given a 'null' material that hasn't been fully updated to a Mental Ray material in Revit 2009.

I'll open up a very old file I keep around for testing (it was made in Revit 4 IIRC) and update all the materials and see if it works or not.

Just glad that there is some sort of solution available, for now this makes it really really easy to go from Revit to Blender, or Revit to Radiance for daylighting tests. Yay!

[tmaple.129634]

I'm confused. doesn't the help file say...

Exporting to 3ds Max

When you have completed the initial design, layout, and modelling of a project in Revit Architecture, you can use Autodesk® 3ds Max® or Autodesk® 3ds Max® Design to produce high-end renderings and add final details.

3ds Max is a professional 3D animation package that provides additional animation, modelling, and workflow functionality for the most complex problems in design visualization and visual effects.

3ds Max Design is a 3D design visualization solution for architects, engineers, designers, and visualization specialists. It is designed for interoperability with FBX® files from Revit Architecture, preserving model geometry, lights, materials, camera settings, and other metadata from a Revit project. With Revit Architecture and 3ds Max Design working together, designers can extend the building information modelling process to include design visualization.

NoteFor simplicity, the following topics refer to 3ds Max, but this information also applies to 3ds Max Design.

You can export a 3D view from a Revit project to an FBX file, and import the file into 3ds Max. In 3ds Max, you can then create sophisticated renderings of the design to share with clients. The FBX file format passes rendering information to 3ds Max, including lights, render appearances, sky settings, and material assignments for the 3D view. By preserving this information during the export process, Revit Architecture maintains a high degree of fidelity and reduces the amount of work required in 3ds Max.

Is this all marketing, and no actual workflow.

[hand471037]

I'm confused. doesn't the help file say...

Yes, and it (mostly) works that way. You can export FBX files to Max and it works (with a few minor issues along the way).

It's when you try to use those FBX files with anything but Max do you run into issues, and what spurred this thread.

Thankfully, it appears that if your Revit project is new or at least all the materials are updated and re-done as RAC 2009 materials then the FBX files Revit makes can be converted into other formats.

[AP23]

OK, you sort of lost me here. Do you even know what Shared Parameters are? And how they work? I'm all for some way to move information from Revit to Inventor, and I agree that FBX isn't the solution, but Shared Parameters? Really?

Shared parameters may not be the proper word for this. The idea is that when you create a piece of geometry in one application, you can export the dimensions and xyz coordinates to an excel sheet (or something that holds these ‘parameters’) and then import it into inventor or any other software that can read these parameters and recreate the exact same geometry. When a change is made in one application it can be updated in another application through the exported parameter data sheet

[hand471037]

Shared parameters may not be the proper word for this. The idea is that when you create a piece of geometry in one application, you can export the dimensions and xyz coordinates to an excel sheet (or something that holds these ‘parameters’) and then import it into inventor or any other software that can read these parameters and recreate the exact same geometry. When a change is made in one application it can be updated in another application through the exported parameter data sheet

Congratulations! You just reinvented OBJ, DXF, STL, and a thousand other plaintext CAD/3D formats, some of which are likely older than you. Hope you're proud!