Why is my intelligence not enough?

[Phill]

Will someone please tell me what it is that I am missing? Over the last two years I have seen presentations from some quite large plant modelling packages, and I haven't seen why they cannot import intelligent objects from other packages, in my case Cyclone. I know I must be missing something fundamental here, but after 20 minutes of discussion today, the provider doing a demonstration could not show me the difference between a pipe modelled in their package as opposed to one in Cyclone, or one in Autocad with the layer being used for the catalogue name. They both have a start and end point some midpoint geometry (i.e. a line or curve) and generally a rotated direction (z axis transformation for want of a better term), and some intelligence in the form of a name based on a catalog of some description.

One person even told me today that they don’t support transfers because they don’t want to, so clients keep using their program (this is not the first time I have heard that one).

Some of the reasons seemed to be the databases behind the view, which is fine, on big project I would imagine those databases would get quite large, but why can’t I add some data to their database, just using another package.

Most cad/engineering packages can import at the least a DXF… why, because it is simple, readable and anyone with half a programming brain could take a DXF import it to their package in one form or another. Can’t someone do the same for piping, steelwork etc?

I think the fundamental thing here, is that I seem to be (according to these software providers who are all big players in the markets according to their powerpoints) the only one that models to catalogs in Cyclone, or models in Cyclone (or from a cloud) at all, so it would appear that I am out of touch with the rest of the Scanning community. Everyone else seem to be designing with the cloud as a background. When did that happen?

Appreciate comments, if anyone can help me here because I want to know... please.

Cheers

Phill

[bwx100]

Yes, it is a long held wish that there was better transfer of intelligent data.

No you are not alone. I would say hundreds of Cyclone users are modeling pipes, steel, equipment, HVAC, Cable tray, etc. in Cyclone and transferring to intelligent systems. Sometimes as dumb objects but sometimes intelligent.

You can use PCF from Cyclone to take pipes via some Isogen path to various systems as intelligent data. You can use SDNF from Cyclone for steel members as intelligent data. Neither is push button easy but is being done every day around the world.

The fact that both catalogs and specs are managed differently by every plant system and very embedded in the logic of the systems regarding connectivity, completeness, relationships is is a huge effort to even try to build an intelligent converter for anyone.

I don't think there is any conspiracy, but I do know it is never easy to get engineering resources to build converters which could be used to allow customers to easily migrate away from your solution. It will just never get much priority without some huge customer push.

[hypsometric]

Its the job of the software company with the larger market share to create an open standard format... not the other way around.

[Matt Young]

I'm not aware of any open standard formats right now, are there any?

[Oatfedgoat]

Parametric IFC?

[Matt Young]

I could of bet a million pounds you would answer with that Matt...

http://practicalbim.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... d-for.html

As I say, I'm not aware of any open standard formats right now. By this I mean that there is no open standard format for 3D models with intelligence that make it easy to go between one piece of software and another.

As for industrial intelligence models - if the big companies don't want people using software other than their own then they will never let it happen.

Autodesk cannot even get it right between software in their own design suites I tried to get a simple and small industrial pipe model from AutoCAD 2014 into Showcase 2014 and half of it was missing or looked awful, yet Navis works looked okay, what is that all about then Autodesk seem to just bundle a load of code together in bunch of different software and then package it in a suite and sell it as a solution

[Oatfedgoat]

You're right though Matt. IFC 4 is not really yet a thing of use.
Hopefully it will develop into something that can be used by us.

[Matt Young]

Hopefully it will - I just feel so flippin sceptical about the whole thing these days

[Phill]

Bill

Thanks for your response here and elsewhere on the forum. While often come across a bit critical here on the forum, I can assure you that your input here is most appreciated by me and hopefully others, just as a "my voice is being heard by the software providers", if nothing else.

I guess "connectivity, completeness, relationships" is the answer to my original question, so thank you for that.

I am aware of SDNF and PCF, and hopefully have made others aware on the forum elsewhere in the past, but last time I checked your parent companies plant package which talks up being able to take data from multiple platforms does not support either of these formats (it could have changed, I am still waiting for it to be installed on my computer... two years later... sigh.. IT).

Interestingly the only people who seem to want to import many different types of formats are Autodesk... which brings me to IFC. Matt & Matt, right with you here. You only need to export a circular sweep from Revit to IFC and bring it straight back in again to see the shortcommings of IFC.

Cheers

Phill

[Oatfedgoat]

Bill
Matt & Matt, right with you here. You only need to export a circular sweep from Revit to IFC and bring it straight back in again to see the shortcommings of IFC.

Cheers

Phill

My understanding from the people that I speak to is that it is not the IFC schema itself that is flawed, it is the import/export implementation of it by the software vendors.
I know that Autodesk are putting a huge amount of effort into IFC currently. I am sure that many others are too.
I believe that currently ArchiCAD is currently very good at handling IFC compared to other vendors.