Is there a reason why the system parameter Fire Rating isn't mapped to IFC parameter FireRating? I have to use an extra parameter called FireRating in Revit?
Seems confusing to me.
Greetings
Arjan
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I wonder why the parameter is there at all, when others are missing. For example what about AcousticRating?
I would much rather that Autodesk removed the OOTB parameter. In our workflow, parameters of this type is set on a instance level anyway, so that they indicate the demanded rating. Otherwise we would have many more types than we already have to manage, and have a harder time having a clear indication of the planned layout.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I have and I try to use it as much as possible. Alas it is not as easy as it should be. Some of it, most of it, is limitations in the parameter management UX. Not something you can fix.
Now I would not espect that you produced a file containing all Ifc parameters (even though it would be nice). But there are some inconsistency.. Some parameters are camelcase, others not. The parameters are in different directions; official ifc parameters, enablers for export (but not all of them) and finally things added that are hard to figure out the purpose for.
An example of confusion is exactly the fire rating. We actually have it 3 times; OOTB "Fire Rating", ifc sp file "Fire Rating", and ifc sp file "FireRating".
I can figure out what I want to use and why - FireRating on instance. AcousticRating and many others in the file, are formatted the same way. So figured that would be the most consistent for now.
But will a novice user be able to produce correct ifc content, without spending quite alot of time doing so?
(I actually do not know, if camelcase makes a difference for export..?)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The case and spacing doesn't matter on export. That said, you are correct that we could go through and be more consistent. The current file has been created over the course of a decade, and thoughts about how to create parameters have changed over time.
Of course, if anyone has a file they'd want to share, theis is a great place to post it!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi Angel,
Is there a reason why the system parameter Fire Rating isn't mapped to IFC parameter FireRating? I have to use an extra parameter called FireRating in Revit?
Seems confusing to me.
Greetings
Arjan
I wonder why the parameter is there at all, when others are missing. For example what about AcousticRating?
I would much rather that Autodesk removed the OOTB parameter. In our workflow, parameters of this type is set on a instance level anyway, so that they indicate the demanded rating. Otherwise we would have many more types than we already have to manage, and have a harder time having a clear indication of the planned layout.
Arjan - "Fire Rating" should be mapped to the IFC parameter. The only possible issue could be incompatible types. Note that the value has to be set.
Troels - we do provide a shared parameter file and a template that has many more IFC-friendly values. Have you looked at that file?
I have and I try to use it as much as possible. Alas it is not as easy as it should be. Some of it, most of it, is limitations in the parameter management UX. Not something you can fix.
Now I would not espect that you produced a file containing all Ifc parameters (even though it would be nice). But there are some inconsistency.. Some parameters are camelcase, others not. The parameters are in different directions; official ifc parameters, enablers for export (but not all of them) and finally things added that are hard to figure out the purpose for.
An example of confusion is exactly the fire rating. We actually have it 3 times; OOTB "Fire Rating", ifc sp file "Fire Rating", and ifc sp file "FireRating".
I can figure out what I want to use and why - FireRating on instance. AcousticRating and many others in the file, are formatted the same way. So figured that would be the most consistent for now.
But will a novice user be able to produce correct ifc content, without spending quite alot of time doing so?
(I actually do not know, if camelcase makes a difference for export..?)
The case and spacing doesn't matter on export. That said, you are correct that we could go through and be more consistent. The current file has been created over the course of a decade, and thoughts about how to create parameters have changed over time.
Of course, if anyone has a file they'd want to share, theis is a great place to post it!