A few file formats interrogations, if I may... :)

[den.alt.roy]

Greetings fellow Showcase users,

I have been introduced to this product last week and have been asked to help on a project that will be using Showcase as a base/engine. I've watched a few of Marion Landry's Tips & Tricks, read a bit of documentation, tried a few things by myself and got some decent results. A few a questions have also sprung into my mind as I've had a few experiences on which I'd love some feedback from more advanced users.

1. I have found the SDK and API for Python/C++ online but also noticed that the A3S file is using the XML format and I'm wondering if the schema or structure used is documented and available? I have been "reverse-engineering" the parameters for lightings, layers and such but would be delighted to learn that some reference document exists as it would help me greatly in writing some simple scripts to automate the geometry -> layer association for exemple. Eventually I'd like to use Python but for now I feel I could get faster results by simply playing with the A3S itsel for the experiments I'm currently doing.
2. I've noticed in some DXF->FBX converted geometry I've tried to import that the same surface seems to be considered as "normal" and "reversed" at the same time and seem to be unable to fix the patches as it detects the object as a single patch. If I import the same geometry exported as FBX from AutoCAD 2015, I don't get this problem but I get very poor performance even on high-end hardware because the result is an explosion of 8000 mesh faces with incremented numeral names (01, 02, 03, etc) instead of blocks of meshes grouped by original block name ("BC2D-1", for exemple). I know I can regroup them manully in the organiser but I feel it would be a duplication of (very tedious) work as they are already grouped as blocks in ACAD.
3. Which brings me to the following: I know from the doc that Showcase can import a variety of file format but was wondering if there was a "native" or privileged format for "naked" geometry imports? A format around which the software might have thrown its base and with which no or very little loss of information is known to happen, for exemple? So far I'm using Sketchup's FBX Exports with some success, I have not tested exhaustively FBXs from AutoCAD 2015 but have had success by converting DWG/DXF to FBX using the FBX Converter 2012.2, particularly in the filesize department (and therefore, FPS and performance dept. also). ACAD FBX Export would give me 14MB File while same drawing in DXF converted with FBX Converter 2012.2 would yield a 314kb file without noticable differences in the geom. polycount with the advantage of regrouped mesh with retained block names. The only problem being the normal/abnormal mesh problem cited in point #2.

Other than that, I really appreciate the product and its openess and have had loads of fun so far. I'm looking forward to the replies I might get in this thread and will make sure to share back all my findings.

Thank you all in advance for your input,

Denis Roy

[Christian_Garimberti]

Point 1:

... I don't know ...

Point 2:

Fbx 2104 has bugs. so it is better to use 2013 fbx version.

Point 3:

If you work with AutoDesk product why use fbx? You can import native file direcly into showcase.

If you use other softwares you have to try. You can use Fbx (2013....) and all the other standard formats, iges, step, etc.

Bye

[den.alt.roy]

Thanks for your reply M. Garimberti.

#2. This particular exemple was taken from a 2020 Design DWG converted to DXF with ACAD and then to FBX with the FBX 2012.2 converter. I was told that tests were done with 2013.x converters but were not successful. In light of your comment, I will try to test FBX 2013 myself and see how it goes. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.

#3. I've been doing test with geometry from all kinds of source (Sketchup, ACAD, etc). I imported DWGs from ACAD but as I have stated, I experience important performance issues if I don't "Combine" similarly textured geometry together but this has to be done manually and can be quite time-consuming, that's why I was wondering if there was any other way. My scenes are simple so far but they might very well extend to several million polys eventually (an entire house for exemple). Using FBX so far has been much more responsive for pan and zoom operations and overall use but I cannot go with the kind of anomalies of Point #2 as the render quality is greatly affected. I might give .STEP and .IGES files a shot but am afraid I might lose block info/names with these generic file types.

I am presently experimenting with lighting for now but I will post more test results for Point #2 and #3 later on during the week or next week if no other priority pops up.

Thank you again for your reply and a nice day to you,

Denis Roy