I just exported an IFC from SketchUp v2016 with a IFCBuildingStorey component nested inside a IFCBuilding Component and it opened in BIMsight with no issue.
I can hover over the elements in the Object pane and they hilight in the view. I can pick either in the Object pane, and open a Detail view of them, or in the model view double click into the context of an outer object and highlight (select) the inner object (the BuidlingStorey in this test case.)
An interesting fact is that in the Details for these IFC objects exported from SketchUp, it says “SketchUp 2015”.
I’m not sure if that is an indication of how old SketchUp’s IFC exporter is (for SU2016), or how old BIMsight’s IFC importer is.
ADD: Figured out how to get at the BIMsight release notes,… I do not see any mention of SKP format compatibility above v2015 !
The machine I’m on will not run SU2018, so I’ll need to test later.
ADD: Tekla BIMsight is one of the worst GUI designs I’ve ever seen. The text is blurry and almost unreadable. The tooltips Forget It! The “flavor” of the interface is Linux-like but even subpar for Gnome or KDE. Not a fun application. No wonder it’s free.
I’d tried to upload my .ifc file exported from 2018, but on this forum, you can’t as it’s format is not allowed
My nesting hierarchy in SU, as you saw maybe, is: level 1, or outmost group, is an ifcSite, inside which I have a subgroup (level 2) as ifcBuilding, then inside that, two subgroups (level 3), one for each ifcStorey, and inside those (level 4), the actual building elements like ifcWall, or ifcBeam etc…
When I say “isolate” I mean that in Bimsight, which I agree is horrid to look at, I mean that in the “objects” pane it identifies the sub-object (4 levels deep) like ifcWall, ifcColumn etc, but you can’t render invisible either building nor storey… Odly, it correctly identifies the ifcSite which you can render invisible…
I’ll try exporting with SU2016 on another machine when I get a moment… And yes, even from 2018 the objects owner is listed as Su2015 ! Bizarre…
Maybe there’s a wierd and wonderful methodology to respect, but I can’t work out the logic !
You can always wrap “unallowed” file types in a zip archive and post that.
(I’ll prod @jody into “allowing” IFC files.)
I believe this comes from that BIMsight itself hasn’t been updated since then, or that part that part of it’s code hasn’t had any “love” since then. I see that the executable was last built in Jan 2017, so in no way was it updated to read any 2018 SKP file changes or “goodies”.
NO, it’s just that this “application” is a piece of junk, and reflects poorly upon Trimble’s product portfolio.
I would strongly suggest finding another BIM / IFC viewer.
BTW, … I had previously (June of 2017) filed a report on the lack of IFC help / knowledge in the SketchUp Help Center in the Meta > Help Center Issues category …
I’ve asked that the thread be unlocked so others can weigh in on what information users need concerning BIM / IFC SketchUp integration, import and export.
Otherwise, yes, maybe I need to use something else as a viewer… Just seemed logical to use something from Trimble as it seemed like a “suite”… Any suggestions of a good free, or not too expensive Bim viewer ?
I see after testing that the SketchUp IFC exporter does not list IFC objects as having been exported, UNLESS they have geometry of their own. So basically for the building object, you need to draw a 3D box around the whole building volume.
The same for other “enveloping” object types.
Since SketchUp has a bounding box built-in, it would’ve been nice if SketchUp’s IFC exporter did this itself for us during the export.
NOW, if this is new or regressive behavior, then this is a bug, and you should recategorize this thread into the Technical Problems > SketchUp category, and add “bug SU2018 IFC export” tags.
The product groups came from different companies in different countries.
They are far from a suite. Their products are not “in sync”.
You may see some SketchUp model editing features being implemented within other Trimble products including Tekla products (if it benefits these products and helps drive revenue.)
ah ha, I see the thing about creating a frame around the enity called building or whatever, even if it’s invisible… but what a drag that Trimble hasn’t synced it’s own products, even if they do come from different sources… hého, in a later release maybe… meanwhile, we’ll find another viewer !
thanks for the info in any case !
Hi guys, I only just found this topic, sorry for the late chime in. As you are probably aware, PlusSpec automates and associates very high-level classification information to the Model, EG IFC wall, IFC Structure, IFC Beam ETC that can be exported and understood. The reason we hadn’t taken this further was due to the issues raised above.
Just so you are aware, we have been working hard in this area, and we believe that we are breaking through yet it is still a little early to raise the victory flag and claim we have broken through. In-house testing gives me confidence, and if all continues the way it has to date, then I hope to have something in Beta in the coming months.
OpenBim is the key to collaboration with Industry in my view.
Very interesting, as you’ll probably know there is a significant amount of work going on in relation to product data templates. I am the BIM development Lead at BRE in the UK and we’ve been developing an open system to define attributes and property sets (accessible via webservices and downloadable in machine readable ways (as well as human-readable ways too)).
As a very enthusiastic Sketchup user, I of course made sure to test our work on Sketchup (as well as in other apps like word and Excel etc - not limited to just BIM authoring software but also open to other platforms that may need to interface with production informaiton). I wanted to ensure it had all the ingredients needed to create an skc file and for example if an end user’s component is a particular product, they can add this class parallel to the ifc class that has been applied. Below is a screenshot demonstrating its use in a European Project Data Template generated from our system. implementation was straightforward it just involved an additional xsl to transform the standard xml output of our system which produces an xsd in a structure that is compatible with both sketchup’s skc generation (as well as MS Excel XML mapping).
But there will always be a variety of other psets that people will want whether its COBie, or other Standards that aren’t shipped with the base IFC schema right the way down to company level templates of standards.
The only thing missing from the sketchup software side is the recognition within the ifc export of the additional property sets. Whilst it is realtively feasible to create an rb extension for this function, it really should be an integral part of skp imo. The only other way I can think of to add property sets with the current functionality would be to modify the ifc2x3.xsd file itself which wouldn’t be ideal. - If this is in the 2019 release I would be certainly keeping an eye out and would love to get a preview of the next release ahead of the official release if possible.
Other wish list items:
Possibility to link directly to definition libraries. If you’re interested in connecting to BRE’s work on templates let me know, the xsd and json format we provide from our webservice is already compatible.
Better support for data type fields would be useful - You have the basics but a date field and a boolean field would be useful. Also the potential for an array field would also be needed for some of the ifc data types such as BOUNDEDVALUE, REFERENCETABLE and IfcTimeSeries
The ability to link some of the fields (particularly quantity based ones) in the Component Options with the fields in Dynamic Components
The ability to attach the class to an instance (group and see the property sets) - I note it only shows the psets for Types (Components).
Read and Write the ifcxml format as well as the Express format of ifc.
