@hpi_pg said:
Hi there! Sorry in advance for this rant, but I've been really frustrated with the fact that the latest BIM plugin version I'm using seems to mess up Blender in several occasions. We are using Blender-BIM for processing IFC files, obviously, but we use Blender itself to other things as well. However, with the BIM plugin installed (and it's now a system plugin..), it takes over the Ctrl-S shortcut and it's not once or twice that I try saving the Blender scene and instead, BIM plugin starts to save the IFC file which I really don't want. Also, when copying IFC objects, the BIM plugin forces the IFC type (for instance, IfcSpace) to the beginning of the object name, which again causes problems if I wish the object to have a specific name. When I tried to disable the plugin altogether just to remove all the extra IFC functionality that I don't want to have present, the BIM plugin will take away also the Blender-related Scene settings. And I'm sure I've forgotten some other issues I've encountered thus far.
So, having said all that, even though the plugin work brilliantly in many ways, why oh why did you decide to make this a system level plugin? The previous version I used was functioning much better without causing any problems to the normal use of Blender for other purposes than IFC stuff.
I was late to the comments here, and somehow I missed it. I'm not a Hardcore Blender nor BlenderBIM user. I use it as much as I can in Production for Work but it's not my main Working tool. I work with Rail projects mostly, but I've worked many years doing Buildings. With this in Mind, I wanted to make a Point or two on BlenderBIM (BB) overriding/controlling too much Blender Functionality.
I personally find the three main uses of BB the following:
1. Model IFC natively from the ground up (A lot of development has gone in this direction and it's awsome what can be done).
2. Using Blender workflows for creating complex geometry and objects, that if not blender could not be done anywhere else. And making/converting them to an IFC Project.
3. Use the Import Functionality to get the IFC Files in Blender and Post-processing them, mostly in three ways:
a. Editing IFC Geometry (Moving, Deleting objects and meshes, adding furniture, details, etc). Here I would also put creating Drawings. This functionality comes from BB.
b. Editing IFC Attributes/Information (Quantity Take off, creating Construction Schedules, Assigning Classes, Parameters). This functionality comes from BB.
c. Workflows for Visualization, Rendering, Coordination (The functionality for this comes from Blender itself not BB)
From what I see in the Forum (with no quantitative data to evaluate) most vocal people are focused on 1, 3a and 3b. This neverteless, is by no means the biggest share of people or what the normal (not vocal) user is using. Because I'm not in the first group, i consider my self in the second group and would find it sad that attention is diminishing to points 2 and 3c.
Personally I would not like to see BB trying to evolve to be a Building Open Source Modeller that uses Native IFC as its File system. This meaning it stops being a Platform that enables the use and creation of IFC models for a variety of uses/workflows.
To add some spice to my comment: I would see with sorrow BB becoming an OpenSource, IFC-based Revit replacement....This could happen if, without mean Intention, the developers close the door on the alternative (and sometimes buggy) ways of using this open standard. @Moult , I tag you here not to squeeze a response out of you. Just with the hope that you read and meditate about my comment. Thanks for all the good work and the contribution to making the AEC Industry much more open.
For Info: I didn't used the Title above. And my original Post was an Answer to an existing comment on BlenderBIM toying to much with normal Blender functionality. I don't know who put the Title for the Post or if it was automatically created. It's misleading. If anything the Title should be: **How much does BlenderBIM need/should override/takeover in Blender? **
Can someone of the moderators please correct it?
NP, changed it from... Don't base BlenderBIM development on open standards such as IFC.
to How much does BlenderBIM need/should override/takeover in Blender?
Comments
I was late to the comments here, and somehow I missed it. I'm not a Hardcore Blender nor BlenderBIM user. I use it as much as I can in Production for Work but it's not my main Working tool. I work with Rail projects mostly, but I've worked many years doing Buildings. With this in Mind, I wanted to make a Point or two on BlenderBIM (BB) overriding/controlling too much Blender Functionality.
I personally find the three main uses of BB the following:
1. Model IFC natively from the ground up (A lot of development has gone in this direction and it's awsome what can be done).
2. Using Blender workflows for creating complex geometry and objects, that if not blender could not be done anywhere else. And making/converting them to an IFC Project.
3. Use the Import Functionality to get the IFC Files in Blender and Post-processing them, mostly in three ways:
a. Editing IFC Geometry (Moving, Deleting objects and meshes, adding furniture, details, etc). Here I would also put creating Drawings. This functionality comes from BB.
b. Editing IFC Attributes/Information (Quantity Take off, creating Construction Schedules, Assigning Classes, Parameters). This functionality comes from BB.
c. Workflows for Visualization, Rendering, Coordination (The functionality for this comes from Blender itself not BB)
From what I see in the Forum (with no quantitative data to evaluate) most vocal people are focused on 1, 3a and 3b. This neverteless, is by no means the biggest share of people or what the normal (not vocal) user is using. Because I'm not in the first group, i consider my self in the second group and would find it sad that attention is diminishing to points 2 and 3c.
Personally I would not like to see BB trying to evolve to be a Building Open Source Modeller that uses Native IFC as its File system. This meaning it stops being a Platform that enables the use and creation of IFC models for a variety of uses/workflows.
To add some spice to my comment: I would see with sorrow BB becoming an OpenSource, IFC-based Revit replacement....This could happen if, without mean Intention, the developers close the door on the alternative (and sometimes buggy) ways of using this open standard.
@Moult , I tag you here not to squeeze a response out of you. Just with the hope that you read and meditate about my comment. Thanks for all the good work and the contribution to making the AEC Industry much more open.
For Info: I didn't used the Title above. And my original Post was an Answer to an existing comment on BlenderBIM toying to much with normal Blender functionality. I don't know who put the Title for the Post or if it was automatically created. It's misleading. If anything the Title should be: **How much does BlenderBIM need/should override/takeover in Blender? **
Can someone of the moderators please correct it?
NP, changed it from...
Don't base BlenderBIM development on open standards such as IFC.to
How much does BlenderBIM need/should override/takeover in Blender?