Importing Something that's not a wall, floor, roof etc.

[3dway]

Revit likes to look at things as one of, wall, floor, roof etc.

We have assets in sketchup like pilon signs for car dealerships. I can only bring these into revit as a mass a family, and when I do that it renders white. No materials.

I tried painting the surfaces but to no avail.

Is there a proper method for bringing this stuff into revit without having to rebuild it from the mass family?

I liken this to 3dMax. If I imported 3d geometry from another software, I could apply materials to the faces, or components (pardon the confusion with the term component here).

If I don't need to schedule the quantity of materials for the pilon sign.... the dealership knows how much these cost per unit and have contracts to supply and maintain them... why would I want to rebuild it in revit?

What do you do here?

Thanks.

[twiceroadsfool]

Rebuild it in Revit, if you want to use it in Revit for rendering... Just rebuild it out of a family, and you can make all the pieces the right materials and youll only ever have to build each piece once.

[cliff collins]

Ah, the old "well, we already have it built in (insert software name here)" problem...

For imported models in Revit, the workflow is as you describe:

Bring into Mass Family, and convert faces to Revit walls, roofs, floors, curtainwalls, etc.

This is OK for fairly simple objects--but as soon as they become more intricate/detailed--
then converting thousands of small pieces to Revit objects is not desireable.

So--if you are doing a lot of "prototype" work--i.e. car dealerships, which all have similar
pylon signs, and probably other similar elements--it is worth it to just go ahead and model one such item in Revit--and for future jobs you can apply materials, do renderings, cut sections, produce details/plans/schedules, etc.

This is the difference between "other" modeling software programs, like Max, Rhino, FormZ, Sketchup, etc and a true BIM program such as Revit.

Hope that helps.

cheers.....

[3dway]

Rebuild it in Revit, if you want to use it in Revit for rendering... Just rebuild it out of a family, and you can make all the pieces the right materials and youll only ever have to build each piece once.

Except for the time that we already did it once.

This is a problem for Revit. Do we really all love it so much that we're willing to accept it's inability to make use of 3d geometry from other software?

*edit*let me put in an "...and I'm willing to accept the consequences of Revit not being able to BIM the imported model" (if you'll allow me to use BIM as an adjective)

If Revit can idendity the faces of a mass family in order to use them to make a Revit object, and Revit can render the untextured faces of a mass family as white, then why can revit not identify the faces of a mass object for use with the paint tool so that we can import and render geometry that doens't have to be scheduled or intelligent?

I do understand that Revit is a BIM package and it's not intended to be a rendering solution; that rendering is a secondary, value added function. But really, if I'm doing working drawings for a car dealership and part of the desirability of Revit is being able to use the modelling I do in DD for rendering AND later for working drawings, Should I not have the freedom to put things in the rendering that don't have to apear in our contract, on the working drawings? I want it in the "pretty picture" but it doesn't need to be detailed, scheduled, quantified... none of this in our contract, none of it are we getting paid for, but presenting the geshtalt (excuse my german spelling) of the building in it's context are our responsibility.

I think that this is a fundamental of architecture and it's suprising that it hasn't been addressed.

Off the cuff, does Revit schedule the BIM information of RPC trees and people? Are the genus and caliper size of the RPC trees scheduleable?

If we had 3dsMax at our disposal [though we don't because we (company and higher ups) were sold on the fact that Revit included a rendering engine] the answer might be to build these in 3dsMax and virtually green screen them to make them into RPC content. I don't know for a fact that you can do this for revit, but I know you can make custom, virtual, greenscreen stuff for RPC in Max for Max.

[twiceroadsfool]

Except the time you took to do it once was in another program. Sometimes when i meet with a client, its sitting in a restaurant hand writing notes in a pad or a napkin while they discuss their wants and desires. Should i fault autodesk that if i scan in my napkin it wont "let me BIM" the napkin (again presupposing that BIM can be used as a verb).

Do i enjoy using Revit for my job enough that im accepting this limitation? Absolutely, and without hesitation. FWIW, if its that important to you, DO the rendering in Max. You can still do documents in Revit and FBX or DWG it to Max, which is more speciailizing in what youre trying to do.

But personally, i find the viewpoint that *weve already built it once* to be a little shortsighted, but i know thats probably just my opinion. It sounds like youre planning on sticking with Revit awhile, so even if you took the time to build it once (in what program, might i add? Sketchup? Then how long could it have taken??) then taking the time to build it once for GOOD, would actually save your hours in the long run.

Youve got it built now, and you want the ability to paint bucket it.... EVERY time you bring it in a project. Why not build it once in Revit, embed the materials in to it so its good to render, and call it a day?

Just my two cents, but this is a no brainer to me. I dont import DWG details, and i dont import third party modeled 3D models, unless im REALLY not planning on getting much out of it. It ALWAYS turns out to be worth it to redo it in revit, with exception of complex NURBS, IMHO...

[muttlieb]

We have assets in sketchup like pilon signs for car dealerships. I can only bring these into revit as a mass a family, and when I do that it renders white. No materials.
See this thread for how to assign materials to an imported SU model.

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=82552&highlight=sketchup

[sbrown]

If you can put the items on their own layers then they can have material assignments via Object Styles>Imported> select the layer and then the material you want.

[dpasa]

So, another guy who understands that if you mess with Revit, you can only use Revit.... because Revit is a building modeler and nothing, nothing more.... Every other modeling app, from MoI that costs less than 200$, to Cinema4D and Max, can accept various model file formats.... Strange that Autodesk doesn't give Revit some of Max's importers.... Because Revit is a BIM software, everything has to become a component.... even if this means that it cannot be modeled in Revit.
So, what we always wanted from an architectural modeler is gone.... Architecture has to do with the freedom of creating forms so at least a working set of modeling tools are necessary... What is not a cube or sphere or cone or pyramid or.... something that simple, is almost impossible with Revit's modeling tools.... Mass to walls or floors is a joke and new Mental Ray is a bad joke, comparing to Max's rendering capabilities or even freeware renderers like Indigo and Kerkythea. But, even with these apps, Revit is almost useless since there is no way to export 3ds or obj files.... Just huge FBX working only with Max2009 and simple Dwg files.
It is easy for me to show what I mean, just by attaching some of my simple Revit models rendered with Kerkythea or Maxwell.....

[twiceroadsfool]

How does that guy get that mercedes of the curb? Good grief!

[3dway]

My gripe is the result of being frustrated with a few things; some of which are not Revit's fault.


-I'm not the owner of the firm. I'm not an architect. I'm a CAD monkey.
-the higher ups think we have a rendering solution
-the higher ups are the ones who think we've already done it once, albeit in another software
-We don't have Max and it was like pulling teeth to get our firm to upgrade from AutoCAD 2000, this year... eight years later.
-there is always pressure to be done faster and cheaper and nobody want's to listen to why I'm building it again. Then I have to answer for why I'm detailing something that isn't even going to appear on the working drawings.

I don't understand the napkin analogy. I can already import, manipulate, render the 3d data. It's there. I can make new geometry based on it. It just feels like, why take it that far but not take the last little step that would empower the software package furhter. And why would I not apply the materials in the family for the pilon sign and save it somewhere that I know it's only a dumb mass (like me) with materials applied to it? So there it sits ready to go every time I want it, ready to render.

Not only do I save the time every time in the future as if I modelled it in Revit, I also save the time of not building it in Revit because everything I need is sitting right there.

Thanks for the discussion. I hope everyone is reading it with the tone of a free exchange of ideas in a calm voice and not a screaming flame war.

I'm going to look into those threads on applying materials to SU models and I hope I don't have to to it every time I want to use it.

[twiceroadsfool]

Well, i guess its doable, as others have pointed out- with the layers of the imported model, assuming it has layers.

But- and this may come off as me taking a hard stance of this- it sounds like your higher ups need an education in the workflow. If the office isnt educated from the top down, youll be having fights like this forever.

They think you have a rendering solution- You do. Just not one that lets you do whatever you want with shapes, planes, and objects. Revit isnt plane based, and as such importing things that it doesnt recognize as "objects" doesnt work very well. Do they understand that? If they dont, id explain it. You may find once they grasp the concept theyll just tell you to build it in Revit next time.

I went through that. Had a designer on a job who built a whole mall in sketch up, complex facades and all. They wanted me to *leverage* the sketchup model, so i did. Import to mass family, load in project, wall by face wall by face wall by face.

Then it had to change size by an inch here and there. What a pain. It was FASTER and more well done, the next time, when i just built it from scratch in Revit. Do i consider this a limitation of the software? Not at all. It isnt realistic for me to expect Revit to anticipate every other piece of software on the marketplace, and be able to work with it.

Yes, ive heard the arguments. "Cheap software XXX does it, and its only 200 dollars!" But is that software an Object Oriented database that is documenting your project for you? If its not, than i dont personally care what it does.

As for the pressure to be done faster and cheaper? Its all about planning. if i know someone is going to want ME to render it, in REVIT, it gets built in revit the moment it touches my desk. For instance:

Now you know you can do it with import layers, so in the interests of saving time, you may try that. Then you might have to re-edit the sketchup files. Then import. Then you realize you want two signs to be different colors, but its by object style. Back to sketchup, save as, change layers, reimport. Object style change, etc. It always LOOKS faster on the front end, but it never is. If you want to do it faster and cheaper, and you have to render with Revit, rebuilt it with material parameters, and call it a day. If your bosses dont like it, explain the reasons and the workfloe calmly, and let them evaluate the options. They dont have to know how a Swiss Watch works to tell time, but if they dont have a basic understand, they may not understand why it wont give them a digital readout when they ask.

As for the napkin anology- its the same thing. ive already drawn it once, on a napkin. But i still expect to have to draw it again tomorrow when i come to work. :)

[3dway]

I see where the rift between our thinking has happned.

I'm new to Revit and can't explain much of anything myself.

We probably need more training than we got and trial and error coupled with forum spamming is getting the job done, but probably 10x more slowly.

Top down training is unlikely here. The outlook is good, but non committal. The last quote I heard was "I should get my act together and stop using the mayline, and learn AutoCAD".

[3dway]

I see where the rift between our thinking has happned.

I'm new to Revit and can't explain much of anything myself.

We probably need more training than we got and trial and error coupled with forum spamming is getting the job done, but probably 10x more slowly.

Top down training is unlikely here. The outlook is good, but non committal. The last quote I heard was "I should get my act together and stop using the mayline, and learn AutoCAD".

[twiceroadsfool]

I gave up my Mayline years ago..... But i got a gorgeous Vemco Left Handed swingarm to replace it.

Revit is fun, but i heart hand drafting... :)

[Calvn_Swing]

Aaron,

Here I thought you were a Revit nut all along, but you're secretly having an affair with a lead holder and Vemco... The shame!

As for the discussion at hand, I think you should listen to Aaron on this one. I'd just copy and paste his response but it would take way longer to read.

You NEED to explain things to your principals, even if they don't use it. You can still tell them why certain things need to happen without them being able to do it. Just because they're still hand drafting doesn't mean they can't conceptually get why Revit is different. They must have gotten something or they wouldn't have upgraded to it at all...

A quick re-build of the sign should take 30 minutes max assuming you're learning as you do it. Do it when no one's looking and move along...

Good luck!