And the Layer Structure is flat (when receive option “update” is on)
Or like this (still flat), when the receive option is set to “create”
A storey-wise organized layer structure or at least a property by Level would help in organizing the model for coordination. Similar to the IFC … and here I only mean “Site, Building, Story, Element Category”.
For example as an engineer checking the structure, I want to take a look storey-wise if it is constructible … or coordinate with all other design parties. A storey-wise control is helpful for this.
The most elegant and also time-effective approach would be the approach via property. What are you guys thinking about this?
Hi Alex, super good feedback. With the risk of taking more of your time, I have a few follow up questions:
Unpacking, in increasing order of apparent complexity:
layer structure confusion between send modes: known issue, and we’re going to kill it.
support for properties from revit on receive: should be nicer/better supported? which ones are missing?
organization of data from revit to stories: i agree, we should do it. nevertheless, would you need this data structured in the existing way in a different scenario?
The reason I’m asking about the last one is that I did want to move to that structure, but we ended prioritizing different issues.
A) Layer Structure:
Might be the easiest for the users. Even if it works on your end, there will not be one ideal layer structure … it very much depends on the office standards. It would mean that either you are providing it in the way the IFC is doing it (what is also done with Geometry Gym) or you are providing an additional setting … but those can get crowded.
B) Support for Properties:
I would take the Base Level, Top Level and Reference Level of Revit/Archicad or whatever tool which is level-based. This would be an easy win.
The more complicated but also not accurate approach … Assign all elements between the Levels defined as building storeys (checkbox property of the levels inside of Revit) a storey property of the level name (which has the checkbox property).
Users would be able to hide storeys with a few clicks. Select objects by keys and values and isolate them
C) Organization of the data:
This would probably help with the web viewer too (even frontend 2.0) as there would be fewer clicks. But also the data structure re-organization is not fun I believe .
In prioritization, I would go for B … and then A … or jump the A and go to C.
Hello guys,
coming back to this. We have tried out your next-gen connectors and are happy, that you considered the Storey approach - essential for AEC coordination.
Currently, you use all the reference planes for the display, which means depending on the strategy of the offices one level per storey (working with offsets) or multiple levels (working with a low amount of offsets), it can get cluttered if people use the multi-level approach.
top of slab
bottom of slab
Top of finish
The latter strategy I see as more common in Germany. This results that the floor covering, the structural slab, and the beams being all on separate levels and therefore separate storeys in the viewer (mainly as an issue in the viewer, but also in the CAD layers)
Autodesk provides the building storey check box parameter in its levels and therefore allows to combine the elements between those assigned levels to one storey.
even if there are more levels in between the reference levels of a Beam e.g. are allocated to the as storey defined level. Which is used for IFC Export or also the ACC … means the colleagues have less cluttered info.
I’m having trouble understanding the request. My understanding is, instead of having 3 separate levels for one story, you want to have only one for all objects. Is that it? How does Autodesk does it and where can we see that option/dialog?
… always up for that!
.
