Supported IFC formats and missing geometry

Does Speckle can take Step, format?Do you accept ifczip?

IFCzip can just be decompressed and then used with Speckle, IFCzip itself does not work. For Step, it depends on what’s in it (eg. IFC, GIS,…)?

Thx @Moritz_Henschel
I tried to import a simple ifc model into latest.speckle.systems and my ifc is empty whereas in other viewer it works, can I send you the file?
SEV-PI-00_-XD-001 (EDITED).ifc (611.6 KB)
it contains IfcEquipmentElement

Hey @pierrenavarra I can confirm your report of the empty IFC conversion - the objects are all there in terms of data and object hierarchy, but geometry is missing - Thanks for the file I can trace that back through the logs and report to engineers to review.

Separately I quickly ran the same file through our Navisworks connector and was able to successfully Speklify

Hi @jonathon , and as always, thank you for replying so quickly!
that’s great, so does that mean that my file isn’t correct or is it up to you to change something?
I noticed in the ifc you managed to import that the info selection hierarchy is not the same as on my other files. This is annoying because what I’m interested in is being able to retrieve the Tag property. In the problematic ifc, the Tag property is not at all in the same place…


I uploaded the latter from Navisworks, so what you see in Speckle replicates what you get there.

The broken direct upload shows the tag in the same hierarchy, so in both cases, this seems similar - suggesting it could be related to your IFC file.

I have run your file through a few free online / desktop ifc viewers and there seems to be no consistency of correctly showing this tag correctly. Best results were from Open IFC Viewer 25.6, which seemed to correctly populate IfcElement in the way I think you were hoping?

I don’t yet know the next steps with that IFC Equipment file, so I will have to pass it on to the engineering team to investigate and report back.

We rely on IFCJS for IFC parsing - maybe a bunch of other tools do, too. We are currently reviewing the parser tech stack, so we hope to improve, whether that’s us doing better with the information we get or choosing a better tech partner.