REVIT WALL JOIN PROBLEMS SOFTWARE
I think that current versions of all modeling software have come to that point.īut you will always know the difference between a native speaker and a programmatic translation based on a set of rules. Not all languages work equally well (Dutch, for instance, seems to be pretty tricky), but at least you will understand the meaning of the translation and it will be right to the degree that the errors stand out and can be corrected. It now is pretty decent at translating basic languages, IF you use simple grammar and sentences. IFC has a similar growth path.Ī few years back Revit would produce IFC files with horrible errors, weird translation mix-ups, and so on, just as Google Translate did.Īs more development came, Google Translate got better. Why? Basically you can compare it with Google Translate.
If you want to transfer other stuff for use in complex calculations and analysis, in my humble opinion it will fail miserably. If used as our government wants-as a container for all geometry and the most important properties only-I think it already works decently. I guess it depends on the way you want to use it. Likewise, I’m not sure whether IFC is “the future” or not. And it does not mean that with that, IFC is not properly supported by Autodesk. Every commercial company in its right mind should seek world dominance. That’s how innovation works in my book.īut it is also completely beside the point. Or they come up with a brand new revolutionary concept that in its turn will seek world dominance. What’s the problem? New companies emerge, they take the idea and make it better or cheaper. They all sought to dominate the world in their own market and succeeded pretty well at it. Does this not always happen with a new (software) technology? Look at Office, PDF, Java, Photoshop, iOS, Facebook Likes, and so on. I’m not quite sure why this is a bad thing, though. Most often heard reason: “Autodesk seeks world dominance with the rvt format just like they established with the dwg format.” If I listen to the OpenBIM consortium, Revit’s handling of IFC has always been and will always be dramatic. So this makes one wonder: where DOES Revit stand in all this? Whilst the mandatory use of IFC is now limited to major Design and Build contracts, it is expected that this will evolve very fast. Following other countries, the Dutch Governmental Building Agency has issued the use of IFC as a deliverable for BIM projects in certain categories. I know that IFC does not (yet) play a major role in Autodesk’s home country, the US.
One of the major points of discussion for every firm has been the (supposed) lack of IFC compatibility with Revit. We have two major players in the BIM-scene here: Revit and ArchiCAD. With that, the entire Open BIM versus Closed BIM debate does not exist. Revit is perfectly capable of importing and translating an IFC model to native Revit geometry. Back October 20th, 2012 Myth Buster: Revit & IFCĪutodesk® Revit® is perfectly capable of exporting any kind of geometry to Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), without the loss of any geometry.
0 kommentar(er)
