Hello,
I have a few questions regarding BIM / IFC parameters visibility/transfer from Revit to Speckle (to another application or another Revit instance). I just tested Speckle a bit, and draw and placed some models randomly for testing purposes.
I have attached a few Screenshots: A default Revit element (in this case the roof), both in Speckle and Revit, with the properties window opened and manually inputted Test Data (Website of Speckle in the manufacturers website slot). Second a BIM model from bimobject.com (downloaded as revit family file), which has a load of information in Revit, but in Speckle, it is imported just as a mesh with no properties.
I am using Revit 23 at the moment…
I send “everything” to Speckle.
Do I miss an important step, or do I misconception the type of information / property parameters send?
Ok, a quick notice:
I looked on the wrong (I guess?) panel in Speckle; I only clicked on the model/mesh in the “scene” - the “Selection Info” panel.
If I would have clicked directly in the (lets call it “Project view”, or does it have a fixed name? well, where the Branch infos and commits are shown; the hamburger button menu) Project view, and “expanded the data view” there, I would have get (most) parameters there - my fault.
But, with that problem solved, another one appeared - E.g. the “furniture” is labeled with its Array (?) Indexes, meaning from 0 - n of “furniture” elements. Is there a way to get the name of it? And, as shown in the Screenshot, some categories do have the naming as in Revit, and some only its ID numbers (i.e., the “QR code” data from Revit vs the opened panel in Speckle) - could it be resolved with more “clean” data?
The nature of IFC is to apply properties to nodes all up the inheritance tree. Other softwares do likewise.
Because Speckle is as faithful as possible to the host application, there are different “shapes” of the data structure that we do not normalise to a singular standard.
Thanks for the report and welcome to the forum @maniwo !
Seems related to this issue here, as @dimitrie says, possibly caused by some changes we recently pushed to how instances are handled - we’ll look at it soon!
