3ds max + Revit Link - Who is using this workflow? Thoughts on BIM within max?

[Alex York]

Hi folks,

 

Is anyone else using Revit Link within 3ds max to maintain the original RVT/FBX so their architect clients can update the model as needed and you can work with it in a live state within max? I have several clients who model within Revit and supply me with their model, and updates on a regular basis. Being able to just hit Reload seems like a very efficient workflow.

 

I've only just started looking into this and it seems as though you can do all sorts of things like move objects around, assign new materials to them and preserve all of these changes within max while Reloading the model once a new revision is supplied by the client. I would guess that the only obvious issue would be when you need to heavily modify a particular part of the model and you don't want to lose it when a new revision is supplied and it's time to Reload. It would, I think, be a case of keeping your customized local version of that part of the model separate and then Reload and delete the parts it will replace. A little fiddly...

 

Is anyone else using this workflow? Any tips for streamlining it? Any issues you've come across? I think it's something we're going to be seeing a lot more of in the coming years with BIM making such a huge leap lately, even among smaller practices.

 

I look forward to your thoughts.

[Corey Beaulieu]

The issue I have with this linkage is that materials are terrible in Revit and if you are having to update them any way one they are imported to Max, you might as well not bother with the cumbersome linkage. Revit models have an origin, obviously, and you can save selected on anything. Personally, I wouldn't bother with it and just delete and import whatever is necessary.

 

Also, the link is for Mental ray and iRay. Vray cannot be updated in the same way.

[Scott Schroeder]

We've looked into it but there are a few issues. One is how our Revit team makes the models. They pretty much use generic walls and generic materials when they are creating the models during the design phase, which is when we get the models into Max for the rendering. So combining by materials or Revit family yields a ball of garbage.

 

Once inside Revit, if you apply UVW mapping or edit mesh/poly modifiers to say, change the face ID numbers, they will keep on import as long as the source geometry doesn't change. If the object it is on changes, you will see the model explode. However, once you delete the modifier, the correct geometry appears.

 

I think the Revit linking is good, but it needs work for it to become effective at anything more than a 800 square foot house. If you notice, any of the Autodesk movies on this subject only have an extremely simple house. I'd also like to see Revit adopt the Arch and Design materials rather than the crappy Pro materials.

[alekzab]

It works just fine. I receive models from consultants in revit format from ARCH, MEP, STRUCT and never have major issues. As far as materials go, Revit assigns textures to AEC objects/assemblies. These materials transfer into 3dsmax as autodesk materials (autodesk generic or something), but you can switch them pretty easily in max by copying your material/shader to the material slot for the object (Vray/MR). I havent been able to fbx in lines from the revit model, things like expansion joints or construction lines, that you would normally use to represent reveals or grout joints.

 

The major plus in this workflow is that the design team can carry on with their design and you can just reload when ever a model from the consultants become available. The visualizer and the designer can work parallel, I was happy when i started using it, and I reload models alot!

[Jose Negrete]

Its useful to have the architect team create a revit view for you to link/reload quickly without having to sort through the file. The material scale is still wonky, real world scale uvwmap doesnt scale properly and reset xform modifier breaks the linked geometry(if you remove it). But if you keep that in mind you can still scale your materials (I have yet to test if this is resolved in 2013).

[Justin Hunt]

It does help if you can optimize the revit model BEFORE you bring it into Max. Things like hiding toilets and sinks, trees and any structural items that you wont see. In some cases DWG works better than FBX AND vise versa.

 

Texture scale is a big issue.

 

Distance from origin is important.

 

Jhv

[Alex York]

Some very interesting insights, here, thanks all, and keep them coming!

 

Looks like materials and other tweaks like modifiers etc. that deal with geometry are a problem. This is the bulk of what we do to models, of course, so rather a serious shortcoming.

 

So far I did test it with Vray materials being preserved in the max file when Reloading and it seemed to work just fine. But if I move an object at all and Reload the RVT then the moved object remains moved, rather than resetting. I think we need an option in the Link Manager to be able to respect/preserve translations. This would deal with that problem nicely.

 

So not ideal but certainly usable. I think for a project that doesn't require a huge amount of tweaking to the geometry, or ideally any at all, and where we know the architects will be updating the model several times, this could be a good setup.

[Matt McDonald]

The material scale is still wonky, real world scale uvwmap doesnt scale properly and reset xform modifier breaks the linked geometry(if you remove it).

 

I just ran in to this today. I think it's an issue of system units. In the US max uses inches as default system units, Revit uses feet. The Revit importer automatically scales the geometry which messes up all your maps.

 

I can't say for sure what the mis-match is on the metric side of things but I'd bet dollars to donuts that's the issue.

[Scott Schroeder]

I just ran in to this today. I think it's an issue of system units. In the US max uses inches as default system units, Revit uses feet. The Revit importer automatically scales the geometry which messes up all your maps.

 

I can't say for sure what the mis-match is on the metric side of things but I'd bet dollars to donuts that's the issue.

 

Yeah, if you are going to use Revit models with real world mapping you must have your system units in feet for it to work correctly. Revit must equal Max no matter what units you are using.

 

Realistically, the Revit linking is for what is shown on the Autodesk videos. You can pretty much dump in a Revit model then make extremely minor to no tweaks to it and use Max + Mental Ray to render. My issue with this is that Revit models are not always the best and you inevitably need to tweak them.

 

The problem we run into is our Revit models are huge in themselves. A sports arena is going to be big no matter what. For us, we have to do our cleaning up in Revit before we bring it into Max.

[Justin Hunt]

even using Inches for system units there are issues.

[Matt McDonald]

even using Inches for system units there are issues.

 

Inches or feet? According to the AutoDesk info system units in Max should be set at feet.

 

We're just getting started with the whole Revit to Max linking so I'll be interested to hear the experiences of others. We mostly do retail work and so there is a prototype that everyone (Architects, Illustrators, etc.) work from. Currently the prototype is kind of messy but we anticipate continued cleanup efforts.

[Justin Hunt]

Not tried feet, but certainly inches doesn't fix it.

 

The other major issue I get is certain geometry not displaying properly, mainly curtain walls. It is there in that it renders properly and is listed in the select by name etc, its just not visible in viewport. Once its selected it becomes visible but dissapears on deselect. If a modifier like reset XForm is applied or collapsed to edit poly then it displays as it should. Haven't been able to solve this issue.

 

The biggest thing to get under control is how the Revit model is built. ie there should be strict control over the revit Families. Some downloaded families are so heavy they can contain as many pollies as the whole model. Which makes importing a nightmare.

[Matt McDonald]

I haven't run in to disappearing geometry...yet. I've had objects that I tried to modify at the sub object level and though the verts or poly or whatever moves, the associate geometry doesn't seem to until I've switched viewports a few times.

 

Currently, my biggest complain are the excessive vertices on objects which don't require them. EX: a square piece of tube steel extruded a particular distance should only have 8 vertices but with the Revit import it will have hundreds.

 

Do try feet as your system units though (or whatever the Revit system units are). You shouldn't have to reset all the xforms.

[Justin Hunt]

The excess verticies are an FBX thing, it tessellates in a similar way to when objects get tessellated for rendering. DWG is better for curved items.

 

Also remember, depending on the view resolution in revit (low or high detail) will affect what is exported out, eg door frames may be visible in High detail but not in low detail, same with wall linings etc.

 

jhv

[toms200]

So exactly what instructions do I give to the architect to get an FBX or DWG without all the interior detail like faucets and fire extinguishers? I've asked the architects several times to turn this information off, but always get the full model.

[Justin Hunt]

I know it is an extra expense but it might be worth getting Revit. Otherwise you'll just have to manually go through the model in Max which is a pain. If you have the DWG file then try cleaning it up in AutoCAD.

 

jhv

[Cjmcphail]

So exactly what instructions do I give to the architect to get an FBX or DWG without all the interior detail like faucets and fire extinguishers? I've asked the architects several times to turn this information off, but always get the full model.

 

I would talk to the architect and ensure the Revit user is placing the interior detail (sinks,taps,door handles etc...) on there own worksets so when they do an export all they have to do is turn off the worksets that don't effect your view. Ask them to export the model from a generic 3d view not a camera view and save as a DWG. Then in Max clean the rest up using the layers that the model is broken into when exported from Revit.

 

Just my 2 cents

Chris

[Jason Matthews]

In 2013 the view templates actually work. It takes all of two minutes for them to setup a view template for exporting. If you have Revit 2013 you can setup a template inside of the file and give the file to the designer and ask that they "Transfer Project Standards" and select on the View Templates. Then they simply set that particular 3D view to that template and export.

[Chris MacDonald]

Every Revit model I've ever brought in has caused me issues in one way or another. I avoid it at all costs, unless I'm specifically asked to use it. I'd much prefer to work from plans & elevations and model up a building that I know will display, navigate, scale, texture, render & displace correctly.

 

One thing that I would add though is that the quality of the model very much depends on the person that's made it. I've had models from some people that are unusable, and models from other people that are really pretty good, with all the relevant detailing.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Macker

[jamestucker]

The best workflow to avoid the units issue is to open 3ds max FIRST, set units to feet and then 'Suite workflows' into 'ACTIVE' 3dsmax scene. all objects are then scaled 100% rather than odd values, which really messes with materials. I cannot seem to achieve this by suite workflow into a new 3dsmax scene as there appears to be no settings for units/scaling when submitting.

 

I work in both Revit and max, depending on whether a project is drafting/drafting & visuals/visuals only, but will ALWAYS render in max, and often receive models in Revit, so have to convert.

 

Thanks to earlier posts for pointing me in the right direction, I was getting to hung up trying to find a solution in revit to fix the units issue, but the mention of changing max to feet was the final trigger!

 

using 'ACTIVE' 3dsmax session rather than new scene is the final fix though!

[danb4026]

What is "suite workflows"?? And what do you me by "active" session?

[jimbo.selecta]

What is "suite workflows"?? And what do you me by "active" session?

 

This is a way of exporting a revit scene to 3dsmax, but as a live link rather than an export.

 

Active session refers to exporting to a currently open session of 3ds max rather than opening a fresh session.

If you export to new session you have no control over units/scale, whereas when you export to an active session you can setup Max's units to suite the import so you can have models at 100% scale, very useful when doing mental ray materials and uvw mapping, which really be screwed up when objects have non-100% scale values.

 

Hope that explains it!

[jeremygordon]

I've been having troubles in 3d Studio Max 2013, with reloading (an updated) fbx model. When I try and reload the linked fil it crashes 3D Max. Anyone else have this problems/have a solution?

[starslicer]

It works pretty good until you need to make some changes to the building model. A lot of places the project architects and specialists creating the Revit model don't do a great job. At my firm however, I make the Revit models for my project so when they get linked in as an FBX they don't need to be touched in Max anyway. But yeah if you get a model from a person who is using generic walls, and half finished geometry you're gonna be in for a long haul.