Hi,
I have an issue with objects exporting near the 0, 0, 0 coordinates when they should be exporting somewhere else.
The model is a bit special, it's a main building in one model in which we have two apartment types linked several times. We need however to deliver one IFC so we thought of binding everything together before exporting to IFC, the binding process goes well, everything looks ok but when we export to IFC, some objects are far away from where they should be (objects from the main model, actually, not even tfrom the binded links).
The weirdest part is that, with exactly the same settings, those objects export correctly on the computers of another company, but not ours...
Any thoughts?
I have attached some pictures (the model is too big but I can share it).
We can take a look; we've been doing some work in this area. More generically - why are people demanding one IFC file as a deliverable? Is that something we should be pushing back on as an industry? We should be going towards easier access to granular data, not giant monolithic files.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I agree very much with you, I (the architect company) usually export the links as separated IFCs and put everything together in Solibri. The engineers, from another company, need the models for Solibri in this case too, I tried to convince them to use several models but they don't really want to. It's hard to convince them since when I send them my binded revit model, they can export it to one IFC without problems...
What is even weirder is that the objects wrongly exported are part of the main building (facade wall, windows...) and export correctly when only the main model is exported... Could binding links affect the position of non-binded objects??
Really strange indeed, where can I send the binded revit model?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks, I have sent the model. Edit: It failed because too big, is it ok with a wetransfer?
I am not sure you will be able to reproduce the error since, with the same model, I have issues and the engineers don't.
Last edit: DavidCDK 2022-02-23
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I looked at the model and the exported IFC file. The IFC file produced looks OK, but Solibri and a few other viewers have problem with objects that are located near the 0,0,0. This happens only when the export is done using "Shared Coordinates" coordinate base. Some other viewers work fine with the same model (see the attached example).
Both Open IFC and Link IFC in Revit for the same model show the correct result.
By manually looking into the coordinates and relevant placement references, the file looks perfectly OK (consistent). I suspect, it is the problem with Solibri especially because of the model is located far away from the origin (Shared Coordinates). If you export it using Project Based, or Survey Point, or Internal. Even Solibri shows the correct result (see attached). Therefore, I conclude that the issue is with Solibri.
Also I would recommend that the export for such model, which has far away geo-reference should use the reference coordinate nearer to the model. In this case Project Base point or Survey Point are good since they are located at the same location. Having objects located far away from the origin often distort the geometry.
Hmm, I see the same. It works in for example BIM vision but not in Solibri...
My engineers want us to send them the IFCs exported "By shared coordinates" and don't really want to change their minds, especially since it works in their Solibri... But I guess there is nothing to do.
Thank you!
Edit: it still is a bit weird though, I have exported hundreds, if not thousands of IFCs "by shared coordinates" with an X,Y,Z in the millions and it's the first time ever that I get this issue...
Last edit: DavidCDK 2022-03-09
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I agree. I am not exactly sure what's really strange about this coordinates, but from the data it does not show anything wrong, and also a few other viewers are able to put them correctly (also Revit import). I guess you may want to report the issue to Solibri in this case.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I recognize situations like this. The solution I then follow:
1) Select the Location2 objects when opening in Solibri (click on =)
2) Open the file in Solibri
3) Create ITO (with column BATID) and TakeOff selected
4) Enter the values BATID as "Select by ID" numbers in Revit.
Usually they are "openings" that are not properly connected to host in a family. Because they are not visible, other viewers sometimes have no problem with that.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi,
I have an issue with objects exporting near the 0, 0, 0 coordinates when they should be exporting somewhere else.
The model is a bit special, it's a main building in one model in which we have two apartment types linked several times. We need however to deliver one IFC so we thought of binding everything together before exporting to IFC, the binding process goes well, everything looks ok but when we export to IFC, some objects are far away from where they should be (objects from the main model, actually, not even tfrom the binded links).
The weirdest part is that, with exactly the same settings, those objects export correctly on the computers of another company, but not ours...
Any thoughts?
I have attached some pictures (the model is too big but I can share it).
David
We can take a look; we've been doing some work in this area. More generically - why are people demanding one IFC file as a deliverable? Is that something we should be pushing back on as an industry? We should be going towards easier access to granular data, not giant monolithic files.
This looks strange because it does not affect all of them. Is it possible that you share the model for us to check where the problem may be?
I agree very much with you, I (the architect company) usually export the links as separated IFCs and put everything together in Solibri. The engineers, from another company, need the models for Solibri in this case too, I tried to convince them to use several models but they don't really want to. It's hard to convince them since when I send them my binded revit model, they can export it to one IFC without problems...
What is even weirder is that the objects wrongly exported are part of the main building (facade wall, windows...) and export correctly when only the main model is exported... Could binding links affect the position of non-binded objects??
Really strange indeed, where can I send the binded revit model?
You can send to angel.velez@autodesk.com. Ideally, send just enough to show the issue, as this can substantially speed up investigation.
Thanks, I have sent the model. Edit: It failed because too big, is it ok with a wetransfer?
I am not sure you will be able to reproduce the error since, with the same model, I have issues and the engineers don't.
Last edit: DavidCDK 2022-02-23
Hi, any news on that issue? :)
Sorry got delayed on looking at it but passed it along now! Also, https://github.com/Autodesk/revit-ifc is more monitored these days.
Can you resend the link please?
Thank you!
I resent the link and I will look at the other forum from now on, didn't know it existed!
Last edit: DavidCDK 2022-03-07
I looked at the model and the exported IFC file. The IFC file produced looks OK, but Solibri and a few other viewers have problem with objects that are located near the 0,0,0. This happens only when the export is done using "Shared Coordinates" coordinate base. Some other viewers work fine with the same model (see the attached example).
Both Open IFC and Link IFC in Revit for the same model show the correct result.
Last edit: wsolihin 2022-03-08
By manually looking into the coordinates and relevant placement references, the file looks perfectly OK (consistent). I suspect, it is the problem with Solibri especially because of the model is located far away from the origin (Shared Coordinates). If you export it using Project Based, or Survey Point, or Internal. Even Solibri shows the correct result (see attached). Therefore, I conclude that the issue is with Solibri.
Also I would recommend that the export for such model, which has far away geo-reference should use the reference coordinate nearer to the model. In this case Project Base point or Survey Point are good since they are located at the same location. Having objects located far away from the origin often distort the geometry.
Last edit: wsolihin 2022-03-08
Hmm, I see the same. It works in for example BIM vision but not in Solibri...
My engineers want us to send them the IFCs exported "By shared coordinates" and don't really want to change their minds, especially since it works in their Solibri... But I guess there is nothing to do.
Thank you!
Edit: it still is a bit weird though, I have exported hundreds, if not thousands of IFCs "by shared coordinates" with an X,Y,Z in the millions and it's the first time ever that I get this issue...
Last edit: DavidCDK 2022-03-09
I agree. I am not exactly sure what's really strange about this coordinates, but from the data it does not show anything wrong, and also a few other viewers are able to put them correctly (also Revit import). I guess you may want to report the issue to Solibri in this case.
I recognize situations like this. The solution I then follow:
1) Select the Location2 objects when opening in Solibri (click on =)
2) Open the file in Solibri
3) Create ITO (with column BATID) and TakeOff selected
4) Enter the values BATID as "Select by ID" numbers in Revit.
Usually they are "openings" that are not properly connected to host in a family. Because they are not visible, other viewers sometimes have no problem with that.
so this is probably related to an issue ( and potential fix) i submitted on the GitHub-site.
https://github.com/Autodesk/revit-ifc/issues/137