The possibility to choose how your objects will be exported to ifc: at the moment everything exports as ifcBuildingElementProxy class, MeshElement type.
Example: assign surface templates (pavements) to export as ifcSlab; a retaining wall as ifcWall, ...
Hi! Great to see it has been delivered.
Could you guys elaborate where and how to access? Haven`t seen any new release update/version available.
I've been using many other BIM softwares and the one that gets closer to the ideal flexibility and clarity so far was BlenderBIM.
The best part about it, it is that the software brings to screen the ifc spatial and relations hierarqchy and let us change it.
If we could get something like this function would be amazing.
Something like having two types of ifc export:
A simple one that exports with one click using the default settings (what we have today).
A more complex one where we would create the project, similar to when we create a DU project inside the file.
With an exclusive view in the Explorer tab too. Inside of it, Openroads/OpenSite would map all the exportable elements in the file and references.
It would let us change the Projects, Sites, Roads, Facilit, Buildings, names
Possibility to group objects using ifcGroups or ifcSystems (huge step for DU)
Could offer an advanced window to customize properties, classes and material mapping
Properties filter for export too
Maybe a mapping between the common ifc properties and Asset Manager too.
...
One more thing, defining the ifc origin point when exporting would really help to deal with Revit users.
Now, it just generates an arbitrary ifcCartesianPoint. The ideal would be for us to define where this would be.
Civil 3D has an ifc 4.3 Autodesk extension that does exactly that. The tool's name is called IFC Base Point.
The problem with it is that it just reproject to the new point reference and the ifcCartesianPoint comes out blank as (0.0.0) and not with its UTM original coord. and north vector.
Adding to this idea: setting up and editing the ifc spatial hierarchy.
As it is now, it varies between each schema, but manly, it depends on corridors or surface templates. Group everything together (except for ifc 4 that everything is under the ifcSite).
For surface template the ideal would be for everything be a ifcMember/ifcPart or similar under one ifcSlab/ifcCovering/ifcPavement for each applied template.