Revit Family Import

Unless I'm missing something, its interesting to see that Bentley is completely silent on this issue, while serious operational concerns are being addressed in this thread. Perhaps we should be attaching extracts of this thread when the next Select subscription invoice arrives!

Everyone, 

I have been informed by Bentley there is an avenue to request manufacturer data. I was unaware of it prior to posting. If you go to http://www.bentley.com/en-US/Corporate/Bentley+Partner+Program/Content+Partners/Infrastructure+Partners.htm , there is a form which allows you to request Bentley contact manufacturers about producing content.

It is very good to see that Bentley is being proactive in this regard. 

Thanks,

Jordan

Hi Shawn,

Firstly, I would respectfully question the following notions: -

1. I think your stance is essentially one of 'wait and see'. If the users don't ask for it or can't use it, we don't need it... yet.

2. Something looks similar on the surface, so the underlying technology is the same and we can carry on as before. 

3. If it is hard to use, its really because someone hasn't told us how to use it properly. Nothing to do with whether the underlying technology is sound or not.

4. Assume that since we are not in the MCAD world, we should expect not to have effective history based feature modeling. I guess if we wait long enough that item 1 would kick in and Presto! problem solved.

5. Technology is like using toothpaste. You have to use the existing tube up to the fullest before going on or else there will be big trouble..

 

I would be sort of amazed if you really subscribe to the above....

1. ACAD 2010 CM vs DDD: Are you kidding ? Maybe you should email Colin Larkin and ask him.

2. DB and DD: Once again, I am amazed you think they are similar. Have you really looked into DB? DB is based on the old Atrix / Visio technology. It allows the user to specify actions and parameters to be stored with the DB. To aid useability, it allows the user to define grips so that the user can manipulate or flex the slaved CAD elements based on the previously defined parameters. It also allows the user to control visibility of the CAD elements. Its got a block editor so that the block can be edited in place. None of this drop and redefine origin, name, description malarky that DDD forces you to do. ACAD 2010 adds constraints to the mix and allows some cross block propagation. None of this is provided by DDD. 

3. FM vs CM: This is not a like for like comparison. Constraints modeling is a bigger animal. See "PowerCivils Directions" eseminar section on the upcoming associative geometry for an idea of what CM is. See also Vectorworks 2010's use of the D-Cubed DCM. Feature modeling in Mstn is specific to solids and can not build relationships with other types of elements including 2d and surfaces. I don't think it can even build a relationship with another solid if they are not connected (no multi bodies) or build assemblies. CM is traditionally used in MCAD to provide inter part 'mates' and intelligent 2d profile sketches for extrusions / sweeps / revolves. ACAD 2010 CM is a more general tool that works with 2d elements (although no support for splines at the moment) and as such is somewhat more relevant to AEC. ACAD 2010 also has better inferencing than DDD and allows individual constraints to be suppressed. It also does not force the user to make construction lines first and slave the actual graphic elements to them. This makes constraints so much easier to use in ACAD 2010. 

RhinoParametrics: FX has a few things missing in his remix IMHO, but actually RP does a lot of the things that FM should. And this has been done by a small crew.

SS1 and RealDWG: Constraints won't be translated in SS1, and there is no time frame for this, apparently . I think you are missing my original point if you think the translation side of things is the issue. How a particular element in particular file is constrained would be stored with the file, I stongly suspect. All Mstn needs to know is what type of constraint and the what the linked elements are. What is needed is the infrastructure to replicate the functionality in Mstn so that the design intelligence built up in ACAD won't be lost. So, if a valve is constrained to a pipe, then this behaviour would be preserved after translation and we are not left with broken zombie elements.

D# will be ACAD based. Are you hoping that AD will port it to Mstn? Not sure what your point is.

Revit, GDL, ASDK format: You are probably right but you as an 'operations' guy should know that there is a huge overhead associated with supporting multiple CAD platfroms, especially if they can't talk to each other properly. No one wins, except perhaps the market leader.

HTH

 

Dominic:  we should take this to another place, as unfortunately, it's gone off the original track of Revit Family Import.

Be happy to debate this off line, as I respectfully disagree (and agree) with some of your things.   I think we are going to agree to disagree on a few things, but that's fine.

Oh, and as I'm an Ops guy now, I have been a user for many years as well, and continue to be so, I just have the added job as ops as well.

 (and my point to D# was there was rumours at AU it would possibly go beyond ACAD, but I don't seee it happening)

 

HTH,

Shawn

Just one question:

Are these ACAD10 features you refer to available in Revit as well?

If not, it would give a good point about the Autodesk problem #1. They have 2 totally different products to support. ADT was Autocad based, and would thus benefit from improvements of the Autocad base. Revit is not Autocad based. 

Andreas,

I think the answer is a qualified yes. I think the constraints in Revit are not as complete and not as 'pure' as the constraints tool set in ACAD 2010. Here is a link to a list of limitations. Bear in mind this list is based on an older version of Revit. I think Revit has just published a families API and apparently ACAD going to put out a constraints API soon. The way way family components work is heavily dependent on slaving elements or sub-elements (faces, edges etc) to reference planes and driving those planes with dimensions. There is some basic constraint solving in the background judging by the error message dumps. Revit 2010 updated the massing family to allow a lot more constraint modeling-like behaviour but I think a lot of it is lost once the component is inserted into the project. 

Common constraints modeling framework or solver at Autodesk? Dunno, but I suspect that this must be underway. It was reported that the constraints in ACAD 2010 were based on Inventor's. Also, Revit can already import / link to Inventor files. Constraints modeling is a pretty specialised field. I know of only a handful of commerical developers D-Cubed, LEDAS, Spatial, Solvespace. Solvers are also available from Frontier, Sketchsolve (open source) and math / simulation software like Mathworks, Mathematica, MathCAD, which are probably lots slower. There are also lots of interesting research / academic implementations like RELCAD, Nemo+ and CoDraw that seemed to have died. There was also an interesting Smartgeometry presentation that used a springs solver via an excel spreadsheet to drive an array that could be seen as a kind of constraints modeling.

Constraints modeling is a big math field that extends way beyond CAD. It also has a big part in solid modeling kernels wrt maintaining valid topology. It would make sense to have a common solver / interface for AD but as you point out it will be a big deal to rewrite Revit, but hey nothing last forever. Revit has a huge scalability problem that it will need to address anyway in the long term. 

Quite interesting, though I do not understand everything you write about. The link is also very illustrative.

Anyway - having worked with Autocad many years, I know very much about the problems of this package. If Bentley is open to good ideas from other developers, the better for us as their customer.

Quite interesting, though I do not understand everything you write about. The link is also very illustrative.

Anyway - having worked with Autocad many years, I know very much about the problems of this package. If Bentley is open to good ideas from other developers, the better for us as their customer.

This has been a great discussion.  I am bumping this because I am really starting to wonder why Bentley is not commenting at all.

Well, I know I'm not the right person to respond!  If there actually is a "right" person...  But if there were, where would they start?  Here's a sampling of questions & topics mentioned in this thread:

 

- How can I open Revit family files in Microstation or a Bentley Building Product? If I can't open these files now, will I be able to in the future? Is this in Bentley's Plans?

- Is Bentley responsible to make conversions between Bentley and Revit "Just Work"? Is there a combination or middle ground?

- What we need is manufacturer's content delivered in a CAD format that can be used by any platform.

- How many years will we wait again for roof, floor, compound wall, a really usable curtain wall ... an so on?

- Right now, the only way I can see to import in a Family is to do use the Revit Plugin, one family at a time, once it's placed in a RVT file...but it would be a static object. With current technology, I would rather see an RFA -> PAZ workflow, where Revit Family information can be imported into PCStudio (not that I'm a big fan of PCStudio, but it's the closest thing to a Family Editor.)

- I would like to know what Bentley's plan is with BBMS Manufacturer libraries, because if something doesn't change this year- my drafting software will be. Although, it's somewhat telling seeing that Bentley hasn't had any input on this thread as of yet.

- Ideally, BA, BBMS etc should be able to import Revit files / families as components so that Bentley users can 'ride the market'. Not sure if Bentley's recent agreement with AutoDesk gives Bentley access to Revits' libraries as well as DWG.

- Bentley needs to come up with a computational design platform that supersets Revit's methods. Maybe like what they are starting to do with OpenPlant's use of ISO 15926.

- Though I don't know anything about plant, and ISO 15926 - for me it seems that there is the big difference between plant and building. Why don't we have an ISO-standard for parametric design in the building industry? The IFC format may be a beginning, but it's far from enough. Maybe Bentley could open source the PCS format?

- I think a lot of this must have already been done with structures, if they can offer up ISM. Maybe, the building services can piggy back on the work done in plant market. The problem will be the architectural stuff, which is more diverse and tends to be more ambiguous.

- And finally, lots of stuff about constraints modeling, features, comparisons between Revit and MicroStation, and so on...

 

Well, you get the idea...     :)

 

Hi Steve,

Seems like these questions are reasonable and should be addressed by whoever the 'right' person is at Bentley.

We are seeing such an uptake of Revit by our competitors and it is getting to the point where applicants for employment are now coming with Revit on their cv's not BA. It will soon become and economic decision for those remaining (possibly delusional), BA stalwarts, who continue to wait for BA to go somewhere.

Guy

Steve Cocchi:

Well, I know I'm not the right person to respond!  If there actually is a "right" person...  But if there were, where would they start?  Here's a sampling of questions & topics mentioned in this thread:

 

- How can I open Revit family files in Microstation or a Bentley Building Product? If I can't open these files now, will I be able to in the future? Is this in Bentley's Plans?

- Is Bentley responsible to make conversions between Bentley and Revit "Just Work"? Is there a combination or middle ground?

- What we need is manufacturer's content delivered in a CAD format that can be used by any platform.

- How many years will we wait again for roof, floor, compound wall, a really usable curtain wall ... an so on?

- Right now, the only way I can see to import in a Family is to do use the Revit Plugin, one family at a time, once it's placed in a RVT file...but it would be a static object. With current technology, I would rather see an RFA -> PAZ workflow, where Revit Family information can be imported into PCStudio (not that I'm a big fan of PCStudio, but it's the closest thing to a Family Editor.)

- I would like to know what Bentley's plan is with BBMS Manufacturer libraries, because if something doesn't change this year- my drafting software will be. Although, it's somewhat telling seeing that Bentley hasn't had any input on this thread as of yet.

- Ideally, BA, BBMS etc should be able to import Revit files / families as components so that Bentley users can 'ride the market'. Not sure if Bentley's recent agreement with AutoDesk gives Bentley access to Revits' libraries as well as DWG.

- Bentley needs to come up with a computational design platform that supersets Revit's methods. Maybe like what they are starting to do with OpenPlant's use of ISO 15926.

- Though I don't know anything about plant, and ISO 15926 - for me it seems that there is the big difference between plant and building. Why don't we have an ISO-standard for parametric design in the building industry? The IFC format may be a beginning, but it's far from enough. Maybe Bentley could open source the PCS format?

- I think a lot of this must have already been done with structures, if they can offer up ISM. Maybe, the building services can piggy back on the work done in plant market. The problem will be the architectural stuff, which is more diverse and tends to be more ambiguous.

- And finally, lots of stuff about constraints modeling, features, comparisons between Revit and MicroStation, and so on...

 

Well, you get the idea...     :)

 

 

All of these questions boil down to one:

Since manufacturer's apparently don't find it necessary to be compatible with Bentley in order to stay competitive, what is Bentley going to do to be compatible to stay competitive?

 

JordanH:

All of these questions boil down to one:

Since manufacturer's apparently don't find it necessary to be compatible with Bentley in order to stay competitive, what is Bentley going to do to be compatible to stay competitive?

 

Well, I certainly don't have an answer to that question, and I'm not sure whether there is *an* answer.   I guess I'm just seeing more than that in this thread...   For example, just in regards to being "compatible" - Revit parts? Architectural *and* Mechanical?  CAD format(s)instead?  ISO 15926?   IFC?    Not to mention the whole constraints/parametrics aspect.

Plus, there's a number of questions and comments sandwiched in between; e.g., "Is Bentley responsible to make conversions between Bentley and Revit Just Work?";  "I would rather see an RFA -> PAZ workflow"; "Bentley needs to come up with a computational design platform that supersets Revit's methods"; "...if they can offer up ISM. Maybe, the building services can piggy back on the work done in plant market"; etc, etc. 

It seems the aspects in this thread are covering a wide area in regards to products, workflows and preferences.   So I'm not sure that any one person could provide a reasonable answer(s).   Or perhaps the thread has simply taken too many turns along the way.   I'm really not sure.   I only replied in the first place since there were multiple comments in regards to the "silence", and only to offer up a potential reason why.    All of this is completely "IMHO" of course.     :)