Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

IFC4RV: MEP export time & runaway pipefitting isolation #58

Closed
dvrvb opened this issue Oct 24, 2018 · 12 comments

Comments

@dvrvb
Copy link

commented Oct 24, 2018

R2019
exporter: R19.1 & R19-current-DEV-branch-version

issues:

  1. IFC4RV export is 10 times slower than IFC2x3CV2.0 export
  2. IFC2x3CV2.0 & IFC4RV: there are some 'runaway' pipefitting isolation objects

Since the model and exports are too big for uploading at GitHub:
Sample model is downloadable at German Revit User Group https://www.rug-dach.de/download/demodatensaetze.html
Direct link: https://www.rug-dach.de/phocadownload/2018_final/Samples.zip

Within the Samples.zip, it is the model: BIM Projekt Golden Nugget - Gebaeudetechnik (1).rvt
Todo:

  • upgrade to R2019
  • ignore the missing linked model
  • create 3D view
  • export to (standard setup options)
    IFC 2x3 Coordination View 2.0
    IFC 4 Reference View
  1. export time

R19.1 & R19-current-DEV-branch-version
IFC2x3CV2.0: exported in less than 1,5 minute
IFC4RV: 11 minutes

  1. runaway pipefitting isolation issue

R19.1
IFC2x3CV2.0: a part of the isolation of a pipefitting is not correctly positioned (is rotated)
IFC4RV: same part is now running more away

R19-current-DEV-branch-version
IFC2x3CV2.0: a part of the isolation of a pipefitting is not correctly positioned (is rotated)
IFC4RV: same as IFC2x3: a part of the isolation of a pipefitting is not correctly positioned (is rotated)

Just one pipefitting isolation is marked on the screenshot, but there are several in the model with the same issue.
(In R2018 with exporter 18.4 there are even 10 pipefittings that are not exported at all, and are missing in the export)

image

Regards,
Dirk

Note: in another MEP model I was not able to export the mechanical system in IFC4RV.
I don't know if this is a related issue with the export time.
Although with IFC2x3 it only took 9 minutes to generate the IFC-model, with IFC4RV there was overnight still no result (something exponential going on?)
The electrical and the plumbing part was not causing any problem.

@WawanSolihin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Nov 17, 2018

  • The issue with above fittings seem to be in the Revit file itself (see the screenshot). The result of export seems consistent with the source.
  • The performance issue has been partially fixed with the commit mentioned above. It still takes longer that before because in IFC4RV, the default is that it tries to simplify the triangulated geometry into polygonal one (In my test, the model gets exported under 1 hour. There is an option to skip this by selecting export option "Keep Tessellated Geometry as Triangulation" in the Advanced tab. This will keep the original triangulated geometry. With this option, the time taken for export should be around the same as in FC2x3. It is especially useful in models like this (MEP mainly) that may contain large number of triangulated geometry (but this needs the recent commit that fixed some a performance issue).

fitting issue 1 revit
fitting issue 1 ifc

@dvrvb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Nov 17, 2018

Hi Wawan,
Thx for all the effort. I'll will test it on the other MEP model that I mentioned, but that I couldn't send. Feedback will follow.
Regards,
Dirk
PS: I'm still busy with the Entity/TypeClass/PredefinedType test

@dvrvb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Nov 17, 2018

Hi Wawan,

I exported the other MEP-model (the model where I couldn't get it exported in IFC4RV within a reasonable time), now with the option "Keep tessellated geometry as triangulation" ticked on.

IFC4RV (with "Keep tessellated ..."):

  • with current commit it takes 25 minutes, but some ducts are now displaced (runaway 'Flex Duct Round', as IfcDuctSegment): its just some of the flex round ducts, not all of them.

  • until previous commit it takes 2 hours and 40 minutes (also with the same runaway flexible round ducts)

-> So, indeed there is for sure improvement in export time.

I also exported it in IFC2x3CV2.0 in order to see if there is also the issue of the runaway ducts.
IFC2x3CV2.0 (with "Keep tessellated ..."):

  • with current commit it takes 8 minutes, and everything is in place

  • until previous commit it takes 8 minutes, and everything is in place

Did I understand well that for IFC2x3CV2.0 the option "Keep tessellated ..." is obsolete? (It doesn't make any difference if it is selected or not, because this option is not applicable for IFC2x3CV2.0 ?)

So, the current commit did improve the export time.
The issue of the runaway of the flexible round ducts seems NOT to be related to the current commit (as regression or something like that).

I tried to isolate the issue, and it seems to be related to ... the option "Keep tessellated geometry as triangulation":

  • without the option selected: everything is in place: OK!
  • with the option selected: the flex round duct is dislocated: issue.

I attached a sample of the issue (rvt + 2 IFC's: one with and one without the option KTGAT selected)
2018-11-18 IFC4RV runaway flex round ducts.zip

Regards,
Dirk

image

@WawanSolihin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Nov 18, 2018

@dvrvb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Nov 18, 2018

I also noticed the state of the option KTGAT (Keep Tessellated ...) is not saved (which is a pitty if one doesn't notice it, since it makes a world of difference in exporttime): this issue is already posted by andydandy74 #6

@WawanSolihin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Nov 18, 2018

@dvrvb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Nov 18, 2018

OK!
So, the 3 main options in the exporterUI which have effect on the geometry, are:

  1. Level of detail for some element geometry: default = Low:
    I have to recheck it, but if I put it on 'high' then there were runaway voids in roofs.
    For which elements in particular is this option intended?
  2. Use active view when creating geometry
    As far as I noticed it is mainly intended to get the cable trays exported with the real 'ladder' detail (as viewed with Detail Level = Fine)
    Is it good practice to have this option always selected?
  3. Keep Tessellate Geometry as Triangulation
@WawanSolihin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Nov 24, 2018

@dvrvb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Nov 24, 2018

Hi Wawan,
Thanks for the clarification.
Regards,
Dirk

@dvrvb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Mar 9, 2019

I close this issue, since the pipefitting wasn't an issue after all, and the IFC4RV export time improved by using the option "Keep tessellated geometry as triangulation".
The issue about saving the option is already mentioned in another issue: #6

@dvrvb dvrvb closed this Mar 9, 2019

@dvrvb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Mar 9, 2019

Oops, I have to reopen it. The other issue (in the middle of this thread) with the runaway flex round duct still exists.
2018-11-18 IFC4RV runaway flex round ducts.zip

IFC4RV1.2

  • without the option "Keep tessellated geometry as triangulation": OK
  • with the option "Keep tessellated geometry as triangulation": the flex duct is on the run

image

@dvrvb dvrvb reopened this Mar 9, 2019

WawanSolihin pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 12, 2019
@dvrvb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Mar 12, 2019

@WawanSolihin : I can happily confirm that the flex duct remains in place with or without the option KTGAT :-) Thanks,
Regards,
Dirk

@dvrvb dvrvb closed this Mar 12, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.