Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
However, these filetypes do not contain that information either? I'm surprised that an official answer could miss the mark by that much. In my case, i'm only using IFC as a workaround for certain information being missing in the SMLX, which should in fact be a complete export with all the necessary details, INCLUDING part marks, user attributes, free remarks, etc.
My advice would be to have those proactive in the AdS community to gather support and aggregate funding and have a custom IFC exporter developed independent of the software vendor who clearly has no intention of resolving the issue. This would allow us to include bolts, welds, single part numbers, assembly part numbers, Free Mark plus any other parameter we desire to include in the IFC xml file structure.
It is extremely frustrating when competing software is committed to interoperability and we are left stranded lagging behind.
But, a disjointed approach to AdvanceSteel development of export deliverables only segregates us further. This needs to come from Autodesk, so that other software importing our models accept a common recognised metadata structure/format that is developed for AdvanceSteel exports.
Whereas if you go down the custom approach, there is no one responsible for ensuring the export is accurate, and interoperable.
I agree it should be their responsibility however history has proven that is a waste of time waiting for improvements. If users want to fix the deficiencies in the systems then we will need to organise this ourselves. Individuals, companies or even the bigger 3rd party developers can't get the system sorted on their own, they need the support of Users. The User community are going to have to drive this themselves to get results. For this to work successfully I would suggest Users need to aggregate resources and pool funding.
I am sure all these things can be achieved, it is just not going to come from the software vendor.
