Revit to MAX plugin

[Richard McCarthy]

Autodesk should make the VIZ 2005 plugin compatible with MAX 6/7.... a lot of arch firms have MAX instead of VIZ.. .since VIZ is really cut down version of MAX, a lot of them consider this issue and hence purchase MAX. Besides, both package are almost identical so making it compatible should be a breeze. (what I don't understand is why they take time in making sure it isn't compatible with MAX in the first?!)

While I am at it, I am also hoping to see it to be a true Bi-directional link to MAX. Revit entity to MAX / VIZ should be true MAX/VIZ entity. There shouldn't geometry tessellation / triangulation errors.

[BillyGrey]

Odd that a year or so ago, many were under the impression that Viz was being phased out, and I am sure some of those opted for Max, esp. when the arch. materials/design aspects surfaced.

I can only think of one reason why adesk would not create a compatable interface between the platforms today. I fully realize that they have reaffirmed their commitment to Viz, but that should not make the programs mutually exclusive in terms of compatibility, esp. in light of mixed messages and capitol expenditures.

[SkiSouth]

I really don' t think there is a conspiracy here, although it's frustrating to all of us. Remember 3ds was a start of Autodesk, but then spun off to Discreet, ( I think to separate the Acad and 3d Studio programmers ) and then so successful (especially to the movie side of things) that attention was focused back on the users of Autocad. The problem I believe relates more to how geometry is held, mapped, faced etc. I think VIZ was the first attempt at helping those unfamiliar with Max geometry creation, mapping etc, deal with a single frame render and simply the geometry conversion. Now, both programs have evolved AND they acquired Revit - which has a competing render program integrally programmed in it. So now what? Well, they changed Max to allow independent plugin programs, and even began to evolve Max internally through that process adding, combustion, now cloth, etc. I would be very surprised if a fully functional Revit plugin doesn't evolve, However, it will be time based I'm sure on how much revenue the stock holders can derive from the plugin, nothing more. Someone in the corporate side of things will have to say, okay, to stay competitive, we have to develop this plugin and it will cost us this much to do it, and we will make this much off of the development.

[Steve_Stafford]

...Remember 3ds was a start of Autodesk, but then spun off to Discreet...

Discreet, who Autodesk also purchased...
Interesting site to check ANTIC

[SkiSouth]

Discreet, who Autodesk also purchased...
Interesting site to check ANTIC

My memory ain't what it used to be...Checked a few old books/software manuals and the 1991 Animator Pro I came across mentioned 3d Studio as being copywrited by Autodesk with copyrights from 1990 on. Anyway, couldn't find my really old stuff (think I recently threw it away). Yost was the name I was trying to remember. Thanks for the link. I thought I remembered it was an 3d Studio was developed in the corporate offices by a separate group (the Yost Group) ...
From your link:

A year or two later, in early 1988, Gary [Yost] left Antic to pursue a development deal with Eric Lyons and David Kalish at Autodesk that would take all this momentum to the next level. Gary contracted Tom to begin work on Autodesk 3D Studio, and Jim to work on Autodesk Animator. Naturally, Gary brought Jack Powell along, too, as "the human on the team." Thus was born Yost Group, Inc.

Seems like as AutoCAD took off big time I think with R10, then the Yost Group moved out and formed a separate company - seems like Discreet was the name chosen, and then 3ds MAX came out - made a big hit with film studios, and then Adesk went oops and broke out the checkbook and formally re-acquired (perhaps the phrase would be "more heavily invested in" the Discreet company... Not sure about that - my memory is faulty.

[BillyGrey]

I don't think there is a conspiracy either, the way these folks do business is their choice in a free market. I only empathise with Richard's dilemma, and it is a dilemma that I have seen played out many times on this and other boards with relation to compatibility issues within Autodesk and it's child companies. That's the problem with answers to questions that are transperent to the user base, that on the surface could be resolved, but for reasons unknown to us, they are not (yet ).

One other issue you bring up, stocks and feature set implimentation. I think I'll go start a thread on that one...

[Andre Baros]

I read somewhere that the Max plugin was coming and that the only reason that the Viz pluggin came out first was that they only tested it on Viz so far. What I don' t understand is why a pluggin for Viz (or Max) requires you to own Revit. Ideally if I have a consultant using Max or Viz, I want to send them my Revit file and have them take care of the export/import. Most of the time we do this ourselves and have licenses for Max, Viz, and Revit but it would still make more sense to me to have a Max/Viz pluggin available to max users not Revit users.

[SkiSouth]

Andre,

Thats the reason behind my logic about a plugin being made available at some time. Having a support contract on 3dsmax allows "free" upgrades, as was the ADT plugin for MAX a few years ago. Revit's plugin will probably be made available to all Max users under contract once its developed. As a Max user, you simply download it and install it or not.

[Andre Baros]

Skisouth,
I think we agree, but since Viz has the same subscription or support contract as Max why was this particular pluggin provided to Revit users? Factory... a pluggin for Viz, by definition, doesn't work for Revit.