IFC Compliance?

[tatchley]

Do you know if MAX files created with Autodesk VIZ 4 are IFC compliant?

[Steve_Bennett]

I don't have VIZ 4 to test that out on my system & VIZ 2006 cannot import, export or save as IFC so my guess would be no.

[de-co1]

I wouldn't think so.

Taken from International Alliance for Interoperability

Building Smart Mission
IAI is an alliance of organizations dedicated to bring about a coordinated change for the improvement of productivity and efficiency in the construction and facilities management industry (Building Smart). Our members engage in national-industrial programmes that aim to change the organisation, process and technology of the industry.

As this is a project dedicated to the construction and facilities management industry, I would expect their focus to be primarily on products the are used in the day to money-making aspects of the industry. MAX for certain is not a part of that, but VIZ on the other hand may be be considered at some point. However, I would expect products like Revit and ADT to be included long before a presentation product such as VIZ is included.

VIZ is not required in these industries as part of the 'job', if you understand. It is used to generate (on occasions) models, and to render them, but these models (correct me if I am wrong) are hardly ever or never used in an actual project beyond presentation. It is not required, and as far as I am aware, not useable on a highly technical scale - i.e. it provides no further information other than a design presentation tool, whereas Revit and ADT use 3D for it's technical qualities.

I could be wrong, and they just may surprise me...

[tatchley]

A little more background on us and the project. I work for a manufacturer. Our products are ceiling mounted. We provide architects 3D CAD blocks (Max or 3ds files). One of the architects asked if our models were IFC compliant. I can tell him that they are not. We are evaluating creating REVIT families for our products.

[hand471037]

However, I would expect products like Revit and ADT to be included long before a presentation product such as VIZ is included.

Revit can export to IFC. At AU this year, they showed a beta that could import from IFC, but who knows when we'll get that in real life. And IFC is more complex than just a file format, so... it's kind of a moving target. I mean, just because Revit exports to IFC doesn't mean it gives you the IFC you need for say, Timberline for estimating. IFC is kinda a sad mess, to be honest, in my opinion. While I hope for it's future, I'm not expecting huge things out of it for another couple of years.

ADT can do some stuff with IFC too I believe, but I haven't work with any of that so I don't know much about it.

[de-co1]

And IFC is more complex than just a file format, so... .

I can certainly see the benefit of a universal system, but then when using multiple programs, it does indeed become quite a mess...

Wasn't DXF an attempt at a somewhat similar concept way back when, albeit on a much simpler scale - being able to acces drawings over a variety of drawing platforms. The same applies to 3D apps with the 3DS format to a degree.

As you say, it isn't just a file format system though, however, beyond the idea that IFC is a manner in which to share information and build projects, accessible across a variety of platforms, there must still be some sort of format required for each application to read... either through the use of plug-ins or extensions.

I mean, just because Revit exports to IFC doesn't mean it gives you the IFC you need for say, Timberline for estimating.

I don't know what Timberline is, but my understanding is that it the idea is to make it so that different programs can access IFC compliant information. It is the generation of a project model. All disciplines can access the necessary information through a variety of applications all from one model, without having to all have the same applications in order to share that info.

Drawing practices can access the drawing files regardless of their platform, yet at the same time their respective databases can access the project databases, regardless of application. A user using Archicad can open up an ADT drawing and read all the database info, yet the QS using Excel can also access certain database info from the project model.

All very much like creating an internationally recognised layering system that will be used by all the disciplines, so that no matter where you work, the layers will be the same...

I haven't read too much about IFC, and as I say, it's my understanding but I could be way off.

[hand471037]

Wasn't DXF an attempt at a somewhat similar concept way back when, albeit on a much simpler scale - being able to acces drawings over a variety of drawing platforms. The same applies to 3D apps with the 3DS format to a degree.

Yup. However, these formats are just data, not data+behavior, which is what IFC is trying to go for. If you do 3D work, you know what I mean, in that a DXF or 3DS file from Viz/MAX, when brought into Maya, won't have it's animation abilities (it's skeleton, ies light files, ect) anymore, it's just the mesh. It looses it's behavior. IFC is trying to be smarter about this, so that if I create a steel beam in Revit, and export to IFC, it still 'knows' that it's steel, and can hold a certain amount of weight, in addition to what it looks like and where it is.

As you say, it isn't just a file format system though, however, beyond the idea that IFC is a manner in which to share information and build projects, accessible across a variety of platforms, there must still be some sort of format required for each application to read... either through the use of plug-ins or extensions.

right. That's pretty much it.

I don't know what Timberline is, but my understanding is that it the idea is to make it so that different programs can access IFC compliant information. It is the generation of a project model. All disciplines can access the necessary information through a variety of applications all from one model, without having to all have the same applications in order to share that info.

Timberline is a cost estimation and job scheduling package a lot of big contractors use. 'Theoretically' you'd be able to pull in a Revit model via IFC, and Timberline would now 'know' how many doors, bits of steel, that kind of thing are in your Project. It wouldn't care about what they look like or where they are, just how big they are and how many there are.

Drawing practices can access the drawing files regardless of their platform, yet at the same time their respective databases can access the project databases, regardless of application. A user using Archicad can open up an ADT drawing and read all the database info, yet the QS using Excel can also access certain database info from the project model.

Right. Part of the IFC thing is to allow disimular programs all share the same set of info, and have that info be relative to what that program does.

All very much like creating an internationally recognized layering system that will be used by all the disciplines, so that no matter where you work, the layers will be the same...

Kinda, but way more complex and yet possibly a little easier, for meeting IFC standards, by having it be machine-generated and not user-generated, and by being a format that's just for information sharing, you've got less problems that trying to get everyone to use the same layers across programs. Theoretically, you'd be able to use whatever layers or names you want, and IFC would still 'know' that those are bits of steel, for example, if your software 'knew' that they were bits of steel. When that's up to the user to define (it's not done by the software) then things get real muddy real quick.

I haven't read too much about IFC, and as I say, it's my understanding but I could be way off.

No, sounds like you're pretty close as far as I know, which is just slightly more than you on this (last job dealt with some IFC stuff). One more thing is that IFC is little better than a pipe dream at this point. Marketing droids love to tout it, no one is using it, and IMHO it's so horribly broken that it will be a very long time before it works at all, let alone obtain the interoperability that the IAI says is possible.

[de-co1]

... One more thing is that IFC is little better than a pipe dream at this point. Marketing droids love to tout it, no one is using it, and IMHO it's so horribly broken that it will be a very long time before it works at all, let alone obtain the interoperability that the IAI says is possible.

I have noticed that it has been around for over a decade now. I only started reading about this because of tatchley's thread. Before this, I had never even heard about it. It surprises me that such an idea is still going without industries / businesses even knowing it's there, but it is commendable that all those people have worked all this time to develop this.

It is definitely a wonderful concept, but I can only imagine the logistical nightmare it will be, not only for the developers, but for the users in the end. It certainly has many pros that come along with all the cons, but just reading through posts in AUGI, and seeing how reluctant companies generally are about change within their already stable (even incorrect) practices, I expect that the marketing will be a huge issue to overcome.

Furthermore, it's not like creating plug-ins for just one application, and X amount of versions and releases of that same application, it's developing the plug-ins etc for a large number of applications in all their variations... and then updating them continuously and developing new ones for new releases...

To me it's a brilliant idea, but I find it extremely ambitious. I do wish them all the best with the project, and hope to see it come to our offices in the future...

[hand471037]

Furthermore, it's not like creating plug-ins for just one application, and X amount of versions and releases of that same application, it's developing the plug-ins etc for a large number of applications in all their variations... and then updating them continuously and developing new ones for new releases...

What's worse is that IFC is a binary format controlled by the IAI.

What this means is that you can't simply read is like you can an XML based format.

You can't write your own tools to do things with it.

You can't write your own plug-ins for it.

The different versions of it aren't compatable with each other. A program made to read IFC 2.0 can't read a lesser older IFC file (1.4) nor can it understand a future format (2x2). Again, something like a proper XML format would solve this issue.

And I think you have to join the IAI in order to get the specs in the first place, you can't just get them, and it costs money to join the IAI.

That's why I think it will be a very long time, if ever, before IFC amounts to much. It's a technical mess that's not openly available as far as I know for anyone to use. At least with a DXF it's plaintext, and you can download a spec from Autodesk for free on how it works...