IfcOpeningElement - Option to not create these as separate elements

[HL-code]

While we need a void in the wall, we do not need the opening itselft as a separate element.
Heres an example of what i mean:
https://www.screencast.com/t/CPjnlJZkrSn

All the grey elements in this picture are "IfcOpeningElement".
Normally created as "Generic Models" they are somewhat hard to remove.

We cant turn off the "Generic Models" category because there might be other elements in that category we need.
Nor can we use a View Filter because the parameter guid of "IFCExportAs" are not consistent from link to link.

In any case we need a solution that does not require a setup for each view or view template.
So some kind of import/link option.

These "IfcOpeningElements" in Revit does not actually cut anything technically.
If you delete them the void in the wall is still there.
So from a "visual fidelity" standpoint they are not needed.

[HL-code]

For reference.
Archicad and Solibri do import IfcOpeningElement of course.
But both of them automatically hide IfcOpeningElements .

[HL-code]

If we could just turn off the sub-category "IfcOpeningElement" it would be ok. But that only works in a 3D view. Floor plans still show boxes where there should be a door or window. This is Revit 2023. We are in 2023 now.

Listen..i think this opensource project has done its job. In its current form these intermediate hotfixes does not fix more than they break. Since we had those first meetings, with Anthony in Oslo then in Stockholm and Las Vegas with Angel almost 10 years ago this IFC team has done some amazing work. Creating the entire "Link IFC" functionality. Even got that into the "Manage Link" dialog which im sure wasnt easy to negotiate. But this project has clearly run its course.
If over the last 6 years this simplest of issues cant be fixed on this "fasttrack" then whats the point ?
Same with door swing lines created but at wrong elevation. What are architects or engineers supposed to do? Switch to Archicad ?
I got that question today from a senior architect at Norways largest architect office. Come on this is not rocket science you could fix this if you wanted to.

[AngelVelezSosa]

Let's split out a few issues here. This is not intended to suggest we don't have work to do still; we do. But it's important to understand the various aspects at play here.

1. Open source: The intention of the open source is twofold. One, it allows us to asynchronously (to Revit updates) update customers on existing versions of Revit. Right now, I am working on issues that otherwise might not show up until 2025. Given the nature of the open source, Revit 2022 users will see some updates. Two, everyone has access to the code. That said, the main work is done on the development version of Revit with full regression testing first, and we've updated our patches to also have to go through regression testing also. That of course doesn't mean that there won't be things that escape, but they can be addressed and fixed faster. That doesn't mean that everyone will be opensource forever; we may use better engines to process IFC files that aren't open source. But I can't see that being open about our open standards is anything but a good thing.
2. IFC vs Revit issues: IFC code still relies on Revit, and some "IFC" issues are Revit issues. I recently fixed two "IFC" issues that were really problems with elements in Revit (caused by? I don't know - I filed issues with the teams in question to investigate). The issue with openings in plans was a Revit issue that snuck up a few years ago but wasn't reported until fairly recently. The fix for that is unfortunately not in the open source so that does have to wait until a future release. Other opening color issues, especially with IFC4, are also being addressed (I have a buildingSMART forums question about one of them).
3. Improved UI: That is on our roadmap. Link doesn't have the options that Export has. Turning off openings for everyone means that someone will be missing their openings properties. But we should allow this. Still, it needs some scaffolding that export has and link doesn't for that UI.

Some issues are simple, but still get lost in the backlog while we work on other issues. Our team addressed 3 times as many issues last year as they did 3 years ago, so we have picked up the pace, which I hope is reflected in the release notes of recent releases. We don't get as many issues around 2D concerns as 3D concerns, so they suffer a bit more, and we aren't as good at closing GitHub issues that have been already addressed (there are a fair number that should be). These are all areas of improvement and we are trying to do better here, and having @JOuellette-Autodesk help has helped us triage here better.

[louistrue]

Thanks @AngelVelezSosa

Forgive me if this may sound harsh, but IFC and Revit still include way too much frustration. While it is noticeable that the team picked up speed last year, as @HL-code pointed out, you are still mainly putting out fires and fixing stuff on the fly, which often feels somewhat concept-less.

Just have a look at the oldest open issues: good ideas and valid feedback from 5 (!) years ago. How do you think those people feel who took the time to bring it up here? Maybe we should write letters instead, but i guess we already know better with Autodesk 😉

As customers of a multi-billion company with ever increasing subscription fees, I think it isn't unreasonable to expect more. Your CEO boasts about interoperability on every single opportunity he gets!

[AngelVelezSosa]

You have a point that historically the work done was reactive and not proactive (that is, putting out fires). In recent years, while there has definitely still been a fair amount of firefighting, we have also been able to work on actual improvements - adding the built-in parameters for IFC Export, consistent GUIDs (as a first step for federated export), exporting material properties, more support for IFC4/IFC4.3 to name a few. We are also working on some fundamental changes to improve quality/performance by significant amounts - the switch to the ODA toolkit in Revit 2022.1 was an example that removed the "too large to export issues" and we have on our roadmap a revamping of the link IFC engine to provide higher fidelity for Revit, Navisworks andBIM360 as a major re-write. So it definitely isn't just reactive any more. And yes, the last issue I worked on was reported 9.5 years ago - that's a long time ago! So there are still a lot of low-hanging fruit out there that we need to pick off.

I don't want to be an apologist for Revit/IFC. Some things take too long. Some things aren't important to enough people. Some things are just really hard to do. But the goal here is to get to the point where we aren't having conversations about IFC being frustrating, slow or wrong, and that will take a combination of cleaning up existing problems and thinking about better ways to do things in a holistic way.

[louistrue]

Thanks, @AngelVelezSosa! Keep it coming, I love some of the recent updates.

And I think it's great to have an open community here, even if it may not always be pleasant to be on the receiving end of our nagging 😃