Upgrade Ifc2x3 to IFC4
I am trying to upgrade IFC2x3 files to IFC4, but using IfcPatch to "migrate"/upgrade throws the following error for most of my .ifc files. I actually only need the geometry, but I do need IFC4 in order to visualize the scheduling. I dont need the migrated .ifc files afterwards either, so it doesnt matter to me if the files have errors in them as long as I can use the 4D/5D BlenderBIM functionality for visualization, at least as a first step.
Does anyone have any tips for getting IFC4 geometry from IFC2x3 files, or how to ignore all errors when using IfcPatch Migrate, or if I need to write a script to process the geometry only myself etc?
See the attached error message (if of interest):
Comments
This sounds like your IFC was invalid. What produced the IFC?
Can you check the text of your IFC for a line with "IFCAPPLICATION" and paste it here? In particular, I'm looking for the ApplicationFullName which is mandatory, but seems to be missing.
Moult, I DM'd you one of the .ifc files. I have filled out ApplicationFullName in previous files, but the problem I encountered was that there are "always"/often another error. I can't (dont want to) manually correct eg. 50 errors, just to arrive at one I am unable to correct. I was hoping that since the IFC2x3 file imports into Blender, perhaps there was a way to ignore all errors when migrating to IFC4? I only need the geometry upgraded to IFC4...
Yeah, I checked and indeed it seems as though your file is invalid and contains many invalid issues, not just one. Usually, I don't like to support invalid files, but I'll make an exception in this case since it's a schema migration tool, and would be good to be more lenient. Fixed :) https://github.com/IfcOpenShell/IfcOpenShell/commit/db9af13843b672f4b5e848b766464bf1f5fce75b
Thank you very much!?
I did a few more adjustments to schema.py, and I am kind of wondering if this is a bad or really bad idea:p If you have time @Moult, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I did this because some more files produces some more errors, like expecting a Python sequence etc.
My changes are on the left marked with red, which is un-intuitive but I wasnt able to flip the files in VS Code (I'm kind of new to the 'diff' functionality...)
You shouldn't need to add "ApplicationFullName" to the list because it should auto skip that error as non-fatal. The try except is suspicious, I won't know if it's a good idea without seeing a test file. For the final one, I don't think we should default to building element proxy there, since the class could be anything and possibly not an object at all, instead a mapping should be used. If you send me a test file ([email protected] if private, better than hosting on the OSArch servers) then I can make a more informed comment.