Revit dissapointment

[Chris MacDonald]

Currently my workflow is Sketchup (modelling) to max (texturing, additional modelling, ancillary objects such as furniture & trees) and rendering in VRay.

 

A few of the guys in our office are using Revit now, which we are expected to use within our workflow. I have been led to believe that Revit models are excellent and will speed up the workflow, but from my first initial tests all I've managed to confirm is the opposite.

 

My main concern is the lack of detail in the model and the fact that just about every material is (annoyingly) a multi sub-object material. Has anyone else had similar frustrations with Revit models? It seems a substantial step backwards for me, where I'm used to having very highly detailed models within Sketchup that don't bring across any material issues.

[RyderSK]

Yes, they are shitty ;- ) Like every BIM-software generated models, they weren't meant for high-end presentation. They can do all, in very average fashion (less than average for visualization).

I got my autodesk "diploma" for learning Revit, was fascinated by it, the ease, the functionality...then later realized I have no use for it, neither in Architecture nor visualization.

[Dave Buckley]

The models are as good as the person who modelled it. That's the beauty of Revit, you can be as detailed or undetailed as you want. You control what level of detail goes into the model.

 

With regards to material, you probably want to try File Linking an FBX file from revit via the file link manager in Max and choosing 'By Material' as the link preset.

 

All should be fine then.

 

If you wanna check out Revit used in Visualisation I believe HOK are strong users of Revit models in their viz work. Just ask Crazy Homeless Guy although I've not seen him round here for a while

[hockley91]

I've used the FBX file linking and it's been much better with 2012 than what I used to do with Max / Revit 2009...what a mess that all was importing.

 

It's still by no means perfect working from Revit to 3DS Max. For example, be sure all your elements in Revit have a material assigned to them, or they will come in grouped as "generic" when you file link and group by material.

 

Also, it's best to stay in the Mental Ray environment since Revit's renderer is also based on the Mental Ray engine. Although I am a Vray fan, I was forced to learn how to use Mental Ray.

 

DO NOT RENDER IN REVIT!!!!! Unless you are cloud rendering or if you absolutely need to. It takes forever and a day to render in Revit. It is the worst. Plus, in order to keep the Revit model as small as possible, a lot of the smaller details are left out so I do need to add more detail to the models. The furniture, sinks, all those details are awful looking in Revit. Anyone can make a rendering in Revit, but it's still the Arch Viz guy that can make it really look good. It's night and day.

 

I'm sure in time things will get even smoother. It's getting there.

Edited February 1, 2012 by hockley91

[Chris MacDonald]

Yeah I hear what you lot are saying, and I can totally overlook the material annoyances etc; but I just like to model in all the little details that allow me to get up close to the building and take artistic shots that look real.

[David Arbogast]

I agree that a Revit model is inadequate for rendering purposes without modification...but it's not that hard to edit Revit geometry as an editable poly. Use Revit as a macro-modeler and Max as a micro-modeler to add in the finer details.

 

Even if you don't need file-linking, use it anyway because the "By Material" preset Dave mentioned is a real help in simplifying the way the Revit material import into Max. If you don't need file-linking, then as soon as the model gets linked in, then just bind it, which breaks the link.

 

The one thing I seem to struggle with the most in the Revit-to-Max workflow is texture scaling. For some reason I have to do a reset xform on the Revit geometry in order to get UV mapping to scale correctly in Max. Any workflow suggestions there?

[Justin Hunt]

Revit can give you alot of detail for "free" if the family parts are modeled correctly. Which is essentially where Revit can either excell or fall short.

 

My biggest gripe with Rivit imported models is the messy way curved surfaces are tesselated with FBX. Sometimes its bettter to import curved surfaces as DWG's.

 

As for texture scale, it is recomended that you have the system scale set to inches, in theory it should scale the textures properly, for me it doesn't, so reset Xfor or attaching the revit geometry to geometry created in Max is the way to go.

 

jhv

[hockley91]

I have had some very strange things happen with Revit. One of the things that keeps perplexing me are that the UV mapping settings are sometimes oriented in the wrong sometimes for one or two elements. For example, a wall of masonry divided into four quadrants. One of the quadrants may show up with the UV mapping vertical instead of horizontal. So, I have to Edit Mesh and separate it and then UVW Map it.

 

Other times some geometry comes in black and no matter what I do, I cannot apply a texture to it. It is strange. It stays as a black solid. So, I have to erase it and model it in 3DS Max.

[David Arbogast]

My biggest gripe with Rivit imported models is the messy way curved surfaces are tesselated with FBX. Sometimes its bettter to import curved surfaces as DWG's.

I hate that too. I don't love the way AutoCAD curves get edged out, but at least imported AutoCAD geometry don't add a bunch of meaningless intermediate vertices on a simple round column.

 

If time permits I apply an edit poly modifier on my Revit geometry and delete the curved elements right after I've remodeled them in Max.

[David Arbogast]

I have had some very strange things happen with Revit. One of the things that keeps perplexing me are that the UV mapping settings are sometimes oriented in the wrong sometimes for one or two elements. For example, a wall of masonry divided into four quadrants. One of the quadrants may show up with the UV mapping vertical instead of horizontal. So, I have to Edit Mesh and separate it and UVW Map it.

No need to separate that out. Just use "Mesh Select" modifiers to select any sub-object faces you need to re-map and then apply a UVW Map modifier. Repeat as necessary. The cool thing is that if you're using file-linking, you can refresh the link to the Revit file which will bring in any updates to the Revit model while preserving all your previous mapping coordinates and material assignments.

[battjes2006]

I completely agree with Dave, but I am not going to make a custom sofa in Revit. As an architect who does the in house viz, the fbx link to Max serves as a quick way to modify the building mass throughout the design process. The details such as furniture, environments, lighting, etc needs to be handled in Max or some other program. Revit efficiently handles the basics early in the process, but Max/Vray picks it up from there and finishes the job. Adam is also right in my opinion...only render in revit if you are in studio I in arch school.

[ronll]

Altho I don't use Revit, I kind of like it because it convinces firms that in-house rendering is harder than the salesman told them it would be and then they give up and call me.

[kmanus]

Is anyone doing their materials in Revit and importing them into Max? We are just now integrating Revit, and I've had many of the problems mentioned in this thread (Texture scaling off, weird tesselation where it shouldn't be needed, etc.). Our goal is to make the textures in Revit so there is minimal work in Max, and I'm wondering what issues I should be on the lookout for...

 

It seems like the Revit sales folk are promising the world to potential buyers, but the reality is much different, especially when it comes to the Max-Revit workflow...

[kmanus]

So I've found a few workarounds and solutions to import and scaling issues in the Revit-Max workflow.

 

I've been seeing far fewer geometry issues when I link the file as opposed to importing it.

 

I've also discovered that Revit, no matter what you do, exports FBX files with units set as feet. You have to set Max's system units to feet while importing or linking FBX from Revit. Kind of ridiculous, I hope they fix this in the 2013 versions...