Revit to 3ds Max VRay workflow.

[philvanderloo]

I'd give my lefty for a good vid tutorial series on importing scenes from Revit, Making material adjustments for Vray, light and environment setup, and render settings.

Seems easy to find vids on most of these things as stand alones. But the Revit import workflow has me in the fog.

If anyone has any good resources for this I would love to hear about it.

Thank You

[beestee]

I'd give my lefty for a good vid tutorial series on importing scenes from Revit, Making material adjustments for Vray, light and environment setup, and render settings.

Seems easy to find vids on most of these things as stand alones. But the Revit import workflow has me in the fog.

If anyone has any good resources for this I would love to hear about it.

Thank You

 

I have been using "Suite Workflow" built into Revit since upgrading to the Building Design Suite and it has worked pretty well the times that I have used it. Revit changes so much from one release to the next that a step-by-step walkthrough would quickly become outdated. I know there are some workflows around here mentioned already, but they are probably for the most part outdated.

 

The last time that I really put any focus into it myself we were still exporting to DWG. I have since used FBX and now use the Suite Workflow that exports directly to Max.

[landrvr1]

The workflow of importing Revit into 3D Studio Max is, and always has been, absolutely DREADFUL. It's ridiculous that after this long it's not really improved one bit. Mostly it's the lack of what would probably be very simple translators. Bringing stuff into Max usually results in every single window mullion in a 50 story highrise being brought in as it's own object. That's insane. What's needed is a way to simply bring everything under one catagory as a single layer.

 

Apparently there's supposed to be some way that you can export to layers and then filter exactly what goes into that layer but, I swear, I've never received a single Revit file from any architect in which they knew how to do this....heh. The lack of true integration between AutoCAD/Max/Revit drives me crazy. They need to take some lessons from Adobe on very basic communication between apps. bah.

[landrvr1]

...and hey, I'm ready to be corrected if someone knows a surefire and easy way of bringing in a Revit file into Max and not having to painfully sit there for hours cleaning up all the crap.

[Scott Schroeder]

If you do the Revit link, and you choose combine by family/category/material you can combine your mullions and similar objects based on their family/category/material. However, that all relies on the Revit model being made correctly which as we know rarely happens. Revit models are created for mostly 2d views and quick renders. Rarely when the revit people are making this stuff are they thinking of the max people.

 

You need to turn on Revit Category/family in your selection dialog and you can sort the objects when selecting things. Again, this relies on the revit model being properly set up.

 

It's still not the best and the model is generally painfully bloated full of crap.

[beestee]

You either have to be authoring the Revit file in-house or be working with someone that is willing to bend over backwards to change their Revit workflow to suit your needs for importing to achieve a surefire and easy workflow. It is really not much different with any software, the biggest issue being that different people have needs of the Revit model, and different ways of creating for what they need from it.

 

I have worked with native Max files where the author simply used a different method of organizing the scene data yet I found it difficult to work with. I find that even with purchased content it serves me best to go through it and optimize it for the way that I work before finding a place for it in my library. On the other side of that coin, one of my previous colleagues and I worked out at very reliable process for moving data between Revit and Max using DWG format, so it is possible to get a good workflow between the two pieces of software, but it takes hours of discussion, trial and error, and development of content management procedures.

 

The programs being able to communicate is only a small piece of the puzzle to figure out, and I have made it work with each iteration that Autodesk has attempted, although it was a major PITA to have to redevelop the workflow due to their format changing with every other release of Revit. Hopefully the suite workflows stick as they seem to be the most painless to accommodate to thus far.

[Derek Entesano]

OK, so I am pretty blown away by the lack of quality workflow between Revit and 3ds Max. I use archicad and have a fantastic plugin available for importing and updating models in Max. Made by the same 3rd party guy that did it for Cinema 4D which I used for 11 years prior to switching to Max. Cmon Autodesk! I am just a bit dumbfounded. To be able to export with objects by material must be achievable?

 

I tried to work with models being exported by a large local firm and they just can't get it across in a simple useable format. When asked how they have done it for other illustrators they said that they always have problems too. Shocked.

 

I won't show you a screenshot of the plugin interface and options I get from my .din3d translation format or you will all get jealous!

[Scott Schroeder]

You can export from Revit and combine them by materials in max. You just have to use the Revit link. Importing straight FBX's from Revit is not the preferred way to go, and you can tell Autodesk doesn't really push that method. If all you have is the FBX from a 3rd party, link the FBX and you'll be able to combine by material. Then just bind the FBX into you max file. Why the native straight FBX import is so clunky, God only knows.

 

Again, it all depends on if the 3rd party actually put materials in Revit. Most places simply used generic materials so all objects have the same material and import as one nasty ball of geometry.

 

If everything is set up right, Revit to Max is pretty seamless as shown in the Autodesk videos on the subject. The problem lies in 99.9% of the working revit world doesn't create their files like that.

[philvanderloo]

Thanks for all of the great comments.

Scott, I am primarily a Revit user/General Contractor. I design and build mostly residential custom homes and remodels. I'm trying to expand my arsenal with Max and VRay and am perfectly willing to do what it takes when creating my Revit files to optimize for Max import. If you have reference to some good vid tutorials please send them my way. It would be very much appreciated.

As of now I'm still dogging my way along trying to figure out how to make selections and apply materials to individual objects that are categorized by material. I started to go back to my revit file and apply any different bs material to objects just to break them apart from every other "dimensional lumber" or "cast in place concrete" or whatever material Revit automatically assigns by default. Waay too time consuming. There has to be a better way.

[beestee]

I have always held to a few rules when moving from Revit to Max regarding materials:

 

1. If I need a unique material assignment in Max, I ensure that a unique material assignment was made in Revit.

 

2. I lift the materials directly from the model once in Max and leave the names and in most cases Sub Object ID assignments as they land whether they make sense or not.

 

This is the only way that I have found to be able to relink a Revit model after an update and keep the upgraded material assignments. I have not tried this with the Suite Workflows yet though, and when I did this I had to set up the linking preset very deliberately to make sure that these assignments would come through and be preserved with each iteration.

[jojoduah]

If your using 3ds Max 2013 or higher, you can just link a Revit file. I usually just group them objects by material which seem to work really well for me. The only thing I hate about linking is that you can't edit single faces, polygons, or elements of the building. The only way to do that is to bind the link and then your able to edit. If anyone can provide information otherwise, that would greatly be appreciated.

[Sauger]

If your using 3ds Max 2013 or higher, you can just link a Revit file. I usually just group them objects by material which seem to work really well for me. The only thing I hate about linking is that you can't edit single faces, polygons, or elements of the building. The only way to do that is to bind the link and then your able to edit. If anyone can provide information otherwise, that would greatly be appreciated.

 

A edit poly/mesh modifier should work.

[Scott Schroeder]

A edit poly/mesh modifier should work.

 

Yep, edit mesh and poly allow you to edit the linked geometry without having to break the link. But be careful in that if you update the link, and the geometry with the edit modifier on it changes, KA-BOOM! due to the re-ordering of verts and faces. Thankfully, removing the edit modifier solves the problem but you have to re-do the work then.

[jojoduah]

Yep, edit mesh and poly allow you to edit the linked geometry without having to break the link. But be careful in that if you update the link, and the geometry with the edit modifier on it changes, KA-BOOM! due to the re-ordering of verts and faces. Thankfully, removing the edit modifier solves the problem but you have to re-do the work then.

 

Is there a way to edit the model without that issue and also not breaking the link?

[Sauger]

Is there a way to edit the model without that issue and also not breaking the link?

 

Depends on the operations you do, when use suite workflow, update active session simple edits seem to work fine, but others will break the geometry if dramatic.

 

You can outline/extrude a wall, then put a window in it in Revit, the modded wall in max will update with a angled cut for the window etc, test it with basic stuff first.

[beestee]

Is there a way to edit the model without that issue and also not breaking the link?

 

Edit the Revit model?

[Scott Schroeder]

Is there a way to edit the model without that issue and also not breaking the link?

 

No.

 

Benjamin is right, if you need to do that much editing then just edit the Revit model and update the link. The edit mesh/poly modifier really is only used for minor last minute adjustments and creating different face ID's for materials.

[jasonstewart]

This is the workflow I am using since we design everything in Revit and I render in Max with Vray. I have tried different things and have settled on exporting similar elements from Revit as individual FBX files and importing them (not linking) into Max. For example, I got into 3d view in Revit and select everything and then filter out lets say windows. Then I do a temporary hide/isolate and export, then do this for all the different groups I want to have on separate layers in max. Usually even if the model is updated it doesnt take long to get the new geometry in the scene, plus if it is just one area I can isolate that area and leave everything else alone.

 

At first I was using the FBX link but that sucks, you cant edit anything (not easily at least) and it actually takes me longer that way. I have not tried the suite workflow yet, we just got a 2014 suite recently and I haven't had a chance to test that out.

[philvanderloo]

Jason I'll be curious to hear what you think of the suite workflow. Keep us posted. I also do all of my work in Revit since that's my primary occupation. I am in 2014 and have been using the suite workflow and am starting to get the hang of it. I'm a max/Vray rookie for the most part but hammering away at it. This forum has been more helpful than anything.

Thanks All

[anthonygugliotta]

Not to hijack the thread, but how do you guys go about re-texturing for Vray? I'm working in metric units (meters) in 3DS and find that my "real-world-scale" textures made with vray map onto my linked revit model as imperial units; effectively making my maps 2.54x smaller than they should be.

 

The only way I've been able to solve this so far is apply a "Map Scalar" modifier which resets the texture mapping scale of my model.

 

My guess Is since Revit operates internally in imperial, it is effectively linking my model and then scaling it to the correct physical dimensions by scaling up by 2.54, but then my texture maps get left behind and are not scaled properly.

 

Thoughts?

[jasonstewart]

Not to hijack the thread, but how do you guys go about re-texturing for Vray? I'm working in metric units (meters) in 3DS and find that my "real-world-scale" textures made with vray map onto my linked revit model as imperial units; effectively making my maps 2.54x smaller than they should be.

 

The only way I've been able to solve this so far is apply a "Map Scalar" modifier which resets the texture mapping scale of my model.

 

My guess Is since Revit operates internally in imperial, it is effectively linking my model and then scaling it to the correct physical dimensions by scaling up by 2.54, but then my texture maps get left behind and are not scaled properly.

 

Thoughts?

 

I have never tried it (I dont work in metric so I have never had a need to) but I must think that there is a way to avoid this. Are your units set to metric in both Revit and 3ds? How are you importing?

 

If not, in all reality I have been re-mapping almost everything anyways since the Revit UV's are typically not very good in my experience. Anything that is very critical I usually have to redo, something like a roof for sure would need to be redone if you are just using a texture with a bump/displacement. You will either need to realign the pieces to use a procedural/tiling texture or properly UV if you are going to paint it in PS or whatever. For walls and stuff I usually just select all of them and box map it or unwrap if I need the texture to continue around corners, that way I have finer control of the mapping. Since my workflow is different than the FBX link your mileage may vary with my methods, this is one of the reasons why I import rather than link.

 

If I have some spare time later I will try linking/importing a FBX in metric to see what I get. Another thing you might be able to do is use a uvw xform modifier on everything after the import to rescale the UV space, I have never used the map scalar modifier not sure if it is similar but it sounds like it is.

[anthonygugliotta]

I have never tried it (I dont work in metric so I have never had a need to) but I must think that there is a way to avoid this. Are your units set to metric in both Revit and 3ds? How are you importing?

 

If not, in all reality I have been re-mapping almost everything anyways since the Revit UV's are typically not very good in my experience. Anything that is very critical I usually have to redo, something like a roof for sure would need to be redone if you are just using a texture with a bump/displacement. You will either need to realign the pieces to use a procedural/tiling texture or properly UV if you are going to paint it in PS or whatever. For walls and stuff I usually just select all of them and box map it or unwrap if I need the texture to continue around corners, that way I have finer control of the mapping. Since my workflow is different than the FBX link your mileage may vary with my methods, this is one of the reasons why I import rather than link.

 

If I have some spare time later I will try linking/importing a FBX in metric to see what I get. Another thing you might be able to do is use a uvw xform modifier on everything after the import to rescale the UV space, I have never used the map scalar modifier not sure if it is similar but it sounds like it is.

 

 

Both are set to metric. I've tried multiple methods, including the workflow suites both into a new file, and existing max file with units already set up. I ended up using max to import because the "combine by material option" was not working from within Revit.

 

If I knew my project wasn't going to change I would have imported and UVW mapped everything, but already I've needed to add things like ceiling lights, modify doors etc, so importing kind of scares me.

 

I tried the xform modifier; however the texture mapping retained its size relative to the geometry. The map scalar modifier is very slow when you edit or apply it; especially since I applied a single instance to all my objects rather than applying it to each individually. I guess I could also apply a UVW modifier with a scale of 2.54.

[hanselmoniz]

I usually export all my models as an fbx file, then use maxscripts to split them into layers and even to convert autodesk materials to vray materials, even if you map scale seems wrong you can work it out by using maxscripts. Do not add another uvw modifier try uvwxform rather. But its is better to adjust the scale of the map in the material. 3dsmaxdesign 2013 has the convert autodesk material to autodesk generic that does most of the converting of materials work. You can use the change cameras script to change your cameras to vray cameras..

[jasonstewart]

I am interested in hearing more about the MaxScripts you are using to split the import into layers. That sounds like it would save me a lot of time. If you are willing to share of course.

[Matt McDonald]

In the US, the internal system unit for Revit is feet. Most Max installs use inches as the system unit so the model is automatically scaled on import. Your mention of 2.54 makes me think it's a meters/centimeters issue for you.

 

The two solutions I know of are to apply an xform modifier to every object in the scene or change your system units to match Revit. We tried the former and found it to be a pain if it came time to edit the model in Max. We now use the latter. This too is a pain because you have to transition your entire workflow and deal with legacy models. Of the two options, I prefer the second option as over time it will be a non-issue because legacy models will be touched less and less.