gbXML schema options dialog

[plawton5092]

Folks:

Do we have any insight as to when autodesk will incorporate a more modern gbXML schema into the exporting tool?

For Revit MEP 2015, the gbXML schema is version 0.37, which was very modern in 2008.

It would be nice if we could have a drop-down (within the Export gbXML dialog?), in order to select whichever schema we want, which we could download separately if necessary.

Is this something the API can do?

Thanks

[jeremytammik]

Dear Plawton5092,

Thank you for your query.

I checked with the development team and was passed through a (large) number of hands.

The summary of the final result of all that is the following:

We are still 'on' 0.37.

I am not aware of any option to 'set' the current version of the schema for validation or output (in either UI or using the API).

Basically the API doesn’t support it right now. I am not aware of any future plans.

I am checking whether more information can be obtained from the BPA team, building performance analysis, including the question about eventual upcoming enhancement.

Sorry for the meagre results so far.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Jeremy

[plawton5092]

Thanks very much, sir, for that effort.

We who use Revit MEP full time are very anxious to see any improvement in the engineering capabilities of the program, and the gbXML export tool is an essential link in the HVAC design process.  We anticipate getting much richer (and more useful) data out of our models once the latest gbXML schema (5.12 as of August 2014) is incorporated into Revit.

Thanks again for yor help.

[Martin__Schmid]

Hello--

What engineering capabilities in particular would be most interesting to you?  

With regard to gbXML, what richer/more useful data are you hoping to take advantage?  Personally, I'm not intimately aware of the Schema definition, but with an understanding of what you're after, that may help guide our efforts.  E.g., stating 'As an engineer, I need to... ' is much more insightful / helpful than pointing to a variety of params and enums in the schema, and saying ' I need that! '.

Look forward to hearing more about how you'd like to see the product evolve.

Thanks,

MS

[plawton5092]

Mr. Schmid:

Thank you for responding.

We first heard about gbXML (from ABS) and Trane Trace at AU2004, and for the ensuing 10 years we have been trying to get it to work.  These days we are trying to get Revit MEP 2015 to export a usable gbXML file, but it consistently fails, and we're not quite sure where the problems lie - Revit's gbXML export tool, or the gbXML schema itself, or Trane Trace.  It could also be the case that our architects are simply not properly defining their elements, but from the engineer's perspective, Revit Spaces should be better able to work with incomplete models from architects, because that is what we usually get, even at 100% CDs. 

Of course we use Space Separators, but it is still a time-consuming struggle.  Can Spaces behave more intelligently, more flexibly, so that when I place one in an architect's un-bounded space, the program will show me exactly where the problem lies, then allow me to override the problem (unjoined wall or unbounded ceiling), and place the space anyway, maybe with stretchable faces that can find endpoints of selected entities?

Also, when we look at the gbXML file in a viewer like DDS, the geometry is often missing fenestrations.  Can we get a gbXML viewer and repair tool, in Revit, that will show problems, then allow us to graphically adjust walls and add windows if necessary?

Many walls come into Trane Trace with confused orientations, or we see unexpected roof pitches, and we have no idea about why or how to fix this.  Would it help to be able to verify which way is north, in Revit's gbXML Export window - a graduated compass, with another compass overlaid showing Trane's coordinate system (Cartesian vs Geographic?), maybe?

In general, we would very much like to be able to completely rely on Revit's gbXML exports AT LEAST for accurate and complete geometry when they are imported into our energy modeling tools, but repeated tests show this still is not happening.  Can you share any information about planned or in-process developments in this specific area?

Thanks again for your time and attention.