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

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?

 

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.     :)

Steve, 

Software development is a pretty complex business with a very high rate of change, as you know. I think its pretty apparent that developing successful software is a long arduous error-prone process that is riddled with pitfalls, roadblocks, detours and dead ends even if the financial burn rate problems and stalling clock-rates can be put to one side. I think the range of tangents and questions contained in this thread is indicative of the problems facing CAD software development, which is still one of the most complex types of software to tackle. 

Problems:

1. Reliance on third pary libraries / tech: Look what happened to Mstn/J when MS and Sun fell out. I suspect that lisencing parasolids / D-Cubed is not the same as having the developers homegrown. This probably goes for the Luxology stuff as well. All of this means that there is a strong tendency to think within someone else's box / terms. I suspect that Spaceclaim's claim that they got ACIS to modify and extend their geometry kernel to suit their big idea is the exception, rather than the rule. I guess it helps if the lisencing company hires away their lead tech, like Spaceclaim did. Vectorworks 2010 took a similar step with Parasolid.

2. Legacy software / investments: Large inertia in established processes. Large support staff that will need to do something. Bentley's business model seems to rely on their software being set up and maintained by their support types $$. Nice work if you can get it, but over the long term, that expensive staff should be moving on to solve bigger problems, if they want to keep adding value. How long can we keep justifiying paying thru the nose for some suit to come by to install the stuff when it should be fully error trapped and automated by now. Cloud computing? I guess the new  emphasis on web training is a good start.

Why is BA so much more complicated to set up than ArchiCAD or Revit, when its trying to do the same thing 9/10  times? Is this a really good thing long term? I won't even get into the bewildering way BV/DV needs to be set up or why the user needs to be dumped into a totally different UI like PCS to get basic parametrics, when others offer a much more coherent environment.

3. Domain / Vendor disconnect: or How to Set Development Priorities: Evan Yares has a humorous take on this. I suspect most users have excruciating and prolonged exposure of this as they file CR's or TR's and fill out wish lists online. There are all kinds of ways software developers do this.

Solidworks has a souless way of prioritising by user requests by popularity. This is OK for prioritising bug fixes, but its not great for big long term decisions, as users are not really very technical and usually don't have a clue of what is possible at the fundamental level.

AutoDesk has their 'UI think tank' who have a pretty worrying way of crayoning their way to their conclusions. I guess, its a good way of keeping the user ergonomic issues alive in the development process. They also have their PhD group, who are targeted at more esoteric, long term opportunities like emerging technologies, or big problems looking for solutions or vice versa, some of which may or may not have to do with emerging markets.

I guess all CAD companies talk to their favourite power users / deployment sites. I guess that there is also a fair amount of people with new tech walking in the door and offering new features that may of may not help the user, which can end up in the build. Why do I suspect that this is the main direction-setter at the moment ? 

I think the problem is the scale of the question. Software use, therefore, development is becoming so integral to real life processes that productivity gains i.e. development priorities must react to, structure and automate a lot of domain knowledge. The key market, if you believe some researchers, is the small to mid-sized engineering companies. They see providing these 'mittlestand' type outfits the tools to capture and automate their intellectual property efficiently, with minimal cost, as the 'keylog problem'. You can see the whole debate around design intent, parametrics etc bubbling to the surface here.

At the same time, the market is huge and needs standards to operate effectively. This means interoperability, which needs an open data model, dictionary, ontology to happen. Funnily enough, a lot of this is being done by either academia or coalition type organisations. Also, don't forget the public sector side of things, that will set the design rules for your highway intersections and how your building permit will be checked electronically.

Bentley seems to be trying to answer a lot of these questions, it just seems to be taking a long time to put them on the table, leaving users with the feeling that they have been left behind or about to be abandoned. Ironically, Bentley, with its emphasis on large infrastructure users and diverse markets, is probably well placed to answer the big key questions.

So, I think the overarching questions / "vision-thing" / development priorities need to be sorted first, which it probably done ages ago in a back room somewhere or on KB's patio ? But the implementation has hit all kinds of problems, and no one likes to promise stuff they are unsure of delivering ?

I guess it's back to waiting patiently in anticipation for the poor users.... I guess we should distract ourselves with something else like learning Revit, as a Plan B, while we wait.

 

 

Even though as a member of the Technical Support Group this is all way outside my realm, I still enjoy the discussions.  :)

1. Regarding someone else's "boxes", I'm sure 10 people could come up with 10 different reasons why it's good...or bad.  I guess it comes down to perspective.  I do think things like Luxology are a good choice though, as long as we integrate them well and that they keep pace with overall development needs.  Is it better to wait additional years for similar "native" functionality?  Some things we'll just never know...

2. Support of legacy software is a reality.  I've found the Building discipline to be much more "bleeding edge" than most others when it comes to the new stuff, which is one reason I'm glad to be part of this particular corner of the business!  Other disciplines are much different... many still using MS/J in production.  it is what it is.  But with regards to installation and setup, there certainly are changes coming...  Nothing I could possibly discuss not having all the details, but I think it is a move in the right direction.  Very much so. 

3. I agree.  I think Bentley is in a good position just based on pure diversity.  But I also agree about the promise/delivery aspect... At the current rate of change, a thing isn't done until it's done, or at least close...   And talking about it prematurely does tend to leave remnants for others to discuss for years to come.   It's a bit of a catch-22 I guess.   But again, I'm certainly not a person with the knowledge to actually address any of those concens, just an interested bystander with a bentley "B" in their avatar.  :)

Though it would be hard to argue that BA V8i was put out prematurely as tech support was even 6 months behind delivery.

Steve,

1. Point taken, but the road is strewn with half digested third party tech that do not deliver compelling, 'transformative' tools that users will use. PCS is a good example in my view. That's probably why Spaceclaim went the extra mile and hired ACIS's lead tech. This gave them an inside view on ASICS and got past their support desk, who don't write their code and probably don't have the insight / history to redefine the code, I suspect.

2.  Bleeding edge? I think you need to get out more :-)  I think Bentley's model of relying on tech support to configure and support its apps is really shortsighted and promotes bloated overheads that will keep its costs and costs to the users high. It will eventually be overrun by software that will see their profits scale with the number of licences sold and not have to find, train and pay staff to support each license / site. Users will keep away and there will be a self perpetuating glass ceiling. Why are people staying on J? is it because they can't find support ? 

I suppose, this model could still be valid out in emerging markets like the BRIC countries, where techie labour is still relatively cheap and most  big engineering firms are pretty software un-savvy and would like Bentley to step in lilke some kind of IBM or SAP or .... Intergraph? They must be running out of big fat ENR 100 type companies at home.

3.  Yes, but coming up with compelling apps is a deep and many layered affair that requires a huge amount of coordinated working that I don't think Bentley is used to in many ways. It has aquired a lot of companies over the years and is probably having to divide its resources between supporting old code and building the foundations for the next generation. Remember Speedikon or Bluethink? I suppose if you are working in the civils or mapping or plant sector where Mstn is pretty entrenched, you can afford to sit back and wait for Bentley to deliver eventually. Its not so pretty in the AEC world, which is a good reason for Bentley to stay committed, if only to keep things challenging.