Missing Geometry when exporting building components

[fdkuenneke]

Hey all,

I have been having a nightmare of a time trying to export my ipt file to an rfa. see attached. In the rfa, half of the cylinder of this tank is missing and the object is unable to explode. I have tried moving to an assembly, shrinkwrapping and then exporting to no avail. Any ideas?

Thanks.

[cadman777]

Let me get this conversation started ...

I'm on an ancient version of Inventor, so my ideas may not apply to your situation.

BUT on the occasions when I've had to send my 3D Inventor models to others who use different software, such as SolidWorks, Tekla, Revit, Sketchup ... whatever, what I've done is EXPORT from Inventor as STEP file of the 3d model. Now I have an iLogic rule (thanx to someone in the Inventor Customization Forum) that exports each and every file into STEP format, instead of the entire 3D model. One thing I found (for the CNC machines in the fab shops) is, you have to export it in the correct STEP format that their software can read. Then they can import it as a DUMDUM 3D model into their own 3D software, such as Revit or Tekla, or use it directly in their CNC software (for cutting and drilling operations).

Also, I did some research recently on file format Translators, and there is only one application that I found which does it, but it's quite pricey, and it's really only for the BIM world. https://www.bimdex.com/inventor-to-ifc-export.php#:~:text=Inventor%20to%20IFC%20Exporter%2FConverter... But I don't know if that can do what you want, b/c I don't use Revit, nor have I ever used that software.

Otherwise, I don't have any ideas for you.

But one thing I discovered over the years about Autodesk software is that they don't have good file translators, and NEVER DID (although in my AutoCAD days they made many promises!).

In fact, recently I discovered that IFC was originally designed by Autodesk for their 2D AutoCAD entities. So I have to ask myself, WHY is it used today for 3D BIM? Why is everybody yapping about it when it's not designed for 3D data exchange? And then I had to ask, WHERE is the 3D BIM translator? How many years have we been using 3D, and there's no QUALITY and FREE 3D translator for Autodesk products to exchange data (BIM or otherwise) between Autodesk softwares??

Seems like a 'conspiracy' to me!

Hope this helps a little ...

[fdkuenneke]

Hey Chris!

I ended up cheating and remaking the file, but I will explore what I can do with STEP files and REVIT when I get time to do so freely since it costed me a good 30-45 minutes today scratching my head. Will let you know and update the thread with what I find!

Also, excuse the horrendous structure of the ipt file, I promise it was nice and neat before I started blowing it up to see if it'd work 🙂

[cadman777]

Thanx for replying.

Sorry, but I didn't open the ipt, so don't know what you did in there.

Figured you were on a newer version than I have.

But you can see the same principles apply regardless of the version you use, which is why I 'spoke up'.

[imajar · Accepted solution]

I think you stumbled onto a bug with the translator - which has the same problem with converting to .ifc.  @johnsonshiue.

I believe the issue is the tangent connection between extrude 20 and the cylinder.  If you extrude it into the cylinder as shown below, the translation works correctly.

[fdkuenneke]

Odd bug, but in all fairness they usually are. This seemed to work for my specific example, nice find. Solved!

[johnsonshiue · Accepted solution]

Hi! The way the cylinders intersect is not desirable. It creates so-called non-manifold conditions, meaning an edge is shared by more than two faces. Traditionally, such geometry cannot be manufactured.

Incomplete export is definitely a bug. But, one thing you can try without having to redefine Extrusions. Use Split command -> select YZ plane as the tool -> select all faces. After that, export it to Revit. Does it work better now?

Many thanks!

[fdkuenneke]

Another good workaround! Just tested it on the original file, and this method is also valid.