Yeah that's him, it's the same article he was spamming all around, also here. It's mostly (probably ai generated) plausibly sounding nonsense.
I wrote about how buildingSMART has historically been influenced by Autodesk and other CAD vendors, long before the advent of LLMs and ChatGPT. To properly understand the topic of data in construction, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the history of IFC, buildingSMART, and openBIM — areas where many professionals, understandably, may still have gaps in their knowledge: https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_laML2cs=/
The article I shared is based on factual data. If you have specific questions, I would be happy to discuss them in detail. However, simply dismissing it by saying that “it was all written by AI” does not seem like a constructive approach.
Of course, if you prefer to believe that buildingSMART is a completely independent organization, that is your right. You can continue to believe in its openness and independence from CAD vendors—that is your right. For my part, based on my research and conversations, I see it differently.
I know experts who participated in the registration of IFC in Boston in 1994, and I recently spoke with Thomas Liebig, recognized by buildingSMART as one of the founders of IFC (oddly enough, again after articles about the history of IFC). I know many other important experts in the German openBIM community. I also know many people who are actively involved in various departments and rooms, and I receive direct information about Oracle's role in the openCDE group, where attempts to centralize influence and monopolize this market are evident, or how openBIM is being promoted in German government offices. Even many of my colleagues who are deeply involved in these initiatives share concerns about the dominance of CAD vendors. Unfortunately, however, the broader openBIM community is often unwilling to openly acknowledge these facts.
So I would suggest starting with the history of the issue. That way, instead of dismissing the discussion, you will find it easier to focus on what is really important. For context, here is a video that provides additional information — I invite you to watch it:
The fact that buildingSMART, led by HOK, some buildingSMART directors who are closely associated with Autodesk, and of course the CAD vendors themselves, who are the sponsors of the organization, will create a simple exchange format—like a copy of USD—since NVIDIA, Apple, and other large companies in the AOUSD alliance are already actively using USD in their products, ranging from Omniverse to iPhone applications.
And does the openBIM community really believe that NVIDIA and Apple will understand the IFC documentation of a small community managed by a few vendors?
IFC5 will be a fragmentation of the monolith. BuildingSMART is moving away from parametric geometry and object relationships, removing them from the core. The format, which is currently used for CAD exchange, will most likely become the format for web viewers first — just like SVF-CPIXML-GLTF-USD.
@JanF said:
Yeah that's him, it's the same article he was spamming all around, also here. It's mostly (probably ai generated) plausibly sounding nonsense.
@JanF, I wrote about how buildingSMART has historically been influenced by Autodesk and other CAD vendors, long before the advent of LLMs and ChatGPT. To properly understand the topic of data in construction, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the history of IFC, buildingSMART, and openBIM — areas where many professionals, understandably, may still have gaps in their knowledge: https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_laML2cs=/
The article I shared is based on factual data. If you have specific questions, I would be happy to discuss them in detail. However, simply dismissing it by saying that “it was all written by AI” does not seem like a constructive approach.
Of course, if you prefer to believe that buildingSMART is a completely independent organization, that is your right. You can continue to believe in its openness and independence from CAD vendors—that is your right. For my part, based on my research and conversations, I see it differently.
I know experts who participated in the registration of IFC in Boston in 1994, and I recently spoke with Thomas Liebig, recognized by buildingSMART as one of the founders of IFC (oddly enough, again after articles about the history of IFC). I know many other important experts in the German openBIM community. I also know many people who are actively involved in various departments and rooms, and I receive direct information about Oracle's role in the openCDE group, where attempts to centralize influence and monopolize this market are evident, or how openBIM is being promoted in German government offices. Even many of my colleagues who are deeply involved in these initiatives share concerns about the dominance of CAD vendors. Unfortunately, however, the broader openBIM community is often unwilling to openly acknowledge these facts.
So I would suggest starting with the history of the issue. That way, instead of dismissing the discussion, you will find it easier to focus on what is really important. For context, here is a video that provides additional information — I invite you to watch it:
IFC5 will be a fragmentation of the monolith. BuildingSMART is moving away from parametric geometry and object relationships, removing them from the core.
The format, which is currently used for CAD exchange, will most likely become the format for web viewers first — just like SVF-CPIXML-GLTF-USD.
Nah, I don't think so
Also, my humble point of view, if you think IFC is only a "CAD exchange format" makes ME respectfully think you missed some important pieces of the puzzle.
Ok my bias is also because you proposed to replace IFC with USD.
Cheers
Yes - although one can tell that ChatGPT is not too smart - reading the PDF from the end makes more sense and is definitely enlighting. I am though missing major conecpts STEP and EXPRESS (only mnetioned once) and the game changer BonsaiBIM. We are working on promoting BonsaiBIM now on BIM World 2025 in Munich. We are team of IFC enablers you can find at www.scholarum.de.
Ok my bias is also because you proposed to replace IFC with USD.
Cheers
It is not me who proposes this. It is Autodesk and HOK that will punch into buildingSMART - this is necessary for working on NVIDIA, Apple and other platforms, where the simple PDF format USD is already used.
If you need parametric, then parametric IFC requires a geometric core – which doesn't exist. For 20 years, Autodesk hasn't had any interest in a perfect export to IFC. Furthermore, Autodesk couldn't export data from Revit to IFC, so they turned to ODA for an export module. But if you use the ODA SDK, why do we even need IFC with its outdated Express Markup, which dates back to the days of punch cards?
All CAD vendors are members of the ODA and, without exception, use their reverse engineering. From the outside, it looks more like a circus in which we aren't the spectators. Nvidia, Oracle, Siemens – they all use reverse engineering. Why do they need IFC?
Subjectively, I think Autodesk is currently pushing for the use of USD as a replacement for IFC – and in a few years, we'll simply have a polygonal format similar to CPIXML.
Whether anyone will use parametric IFC without its own geometry kernel is a big question. OpenCascade hasn't established itself as a standard, and buildingSMART is unlikely to make it the standard, as most of the development of this geometry kernel took place in Russia.
@VolkerKrieger said:
Yes - although one can tell that ChatGPT is not too smart - reading the PDF from the end makes more sense and is definitely enlighting. I am though missing major conecpts STEP and EXPRESS (only mnetioned once) and the game changer BonsaiBIM. We are working on promoting BonsaiBIM now on BIM World 2025 in Munich. We are team of IFC enablers you can find at www.scholarum.de.
If I understand correctly, BonsaiBIM uses IFC via IfcOpenShell. Which, in turn, runs on the OpenCascade geometric kernel, most of which was developed in Russia.
To start talking about a real alternative, we need to start with geometric kernels. Most of the OpenCascade developers have now moved on to developing Chinese open source geometric kernels, and some of them have moved to Portugal with the help of French managers.
If you continue to work with OpenCascade, you need to discuss the limitations that can be discovered when comparing OpenCascase with PolarSolid and other commercial kernels.
@doia many thanks! If you prefer to dismiss proven facts with the phrase “Don't feed the trolls,” that is, of course, your right. However, I would advise you (or perhaps your mentors who recommend this approach) to take a closer look at issues related to the lack of a geometric kernel, dependence on OpenCascade, and buildingSMART's broader dependence on large CAD system vendors.
Forming an informed opinion begins with understanding the history of these issues. Otherwise, the later you learn about the background, the later you will be able to recognize the shortcomings of the current system that has been imposed on you by vendors. At that point, it may become clear that you have inadvertently reinforced the very dynamics you wanted to avoid and that you yourself have been trolls. This could be the boomerang effect of your message, which may well come back to haunt you later.
I do not dismiss the facts. These might be (partially) true. What I dismiss are the unspoken conspiracy theories you imply. Just take for example your very last comment above my statement:
@ArtemBoiko said:
If I understand correctly, BonsaiBIM uses IFC via IfcOpenShell. Which, in turn, runs on the OpenCascade geometric kernel, most of which was developed in Russia.
[...] Most of the OpenCascade developers have now moved on to developing Chinese open source geometric kernels, and some of them have moved to Portugal with the help of French managers.
What do you want to say with this? What do you want to imply with these statements?
I have read countless articles of yours. Which are mostly a waste of time. But I must say any flat-earther would envy your writing and graphs full of connection lines. You state singular facts, twist some and make connections where there aren't any. You imply malicious intend of some behind the scenes connected entities on every corner. And yet you do not write clearly what you want to say. You sow doubt.
You are entitled to your view of the world and the expression of these in any form you like. But I can not let that go unchallenged.
Damn, why do I not listen to my own advise. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@doia said:
What do you want to say with this? What do you want to imply with these statements?
@doia thanks. I never said that these are “evil forces” trying to do something bad (just watch the film to the end). In virtually all of my comments on this topic, I always say that no one is fighting Autodesk and buildingSMART, and that any of us in their position would take the same steps and that they are all doing the right thing — I have no complaints about them. The only problem here is those users, including myself, who believe CAD vendors in their created concepts.
If you can show me where I wrote about some kind of “evil intentions of secret forces,” please let me know, and I will try to change the text and apologize.
For the past 10 years, I have been gathering information from various experts, from those who registered IFC in Boston in 1994 from Germany, to those who sit in various departments and rooms, developers of OpenCascade, Revit, OpenDesignAliance. I have also gathered a lot of insider information from developers of various products, practically all CAD vendors.
If you write even a few questions about the facts I present, and if any of them turn out to be incorrect, I will gladly change my text, which has not been objectively verified for accuracy.
Dion Moulte always writes about trolling — instead of asking questions or checking facts, he responds to any questions about the geometric kernel and OpenCascade by telling everyone to “don't feed the trolls” to avoid logical discussion.
In the end, it may turn out that it is difficult to find “evil intentions of some secret forces” in my content and that only the openBIM community accuses me of “evil intentions” towards IFC, even though I am simply passing on ideas and facts that I have received from people close to the creation and development of IFC.
Yeah that's him, it's the same article he was spamming all around, also here. It's mostly (probably ai generated) plausibly sounding nonsense.
I wrote about how buildingSMART has historically been influenced by Autodesk and other CAD vendors, long before the advent of LLMs and ChatGPT. To properly understand the topic of data in construction, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the history of IFC, buildingSMART, and openBIM — areas where many professionals, understandably, may still have gaps in their knowledge: https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_laML2cs=/
The article I shared is based on factual data. If you have specific questions, I would be happy to discuss them in detail. However, simply dismissing it by saying that “it was all written by AI” does not seem like a constructive approach.
Of course, if you prefer to believe that buildingSMART is a completely independent organization, that is your right. You can continue to believe in its openness and independence from CAD vendors—that is your right. For my part, based on my research and conversations, I see it differently.
I know experts who participated in the registration of IFC in Boston in 1994, and I recently spoke with Thomas Liebig, recognized by buildingSMART as one of the founders of IFC (oddly enough, again after articles about the history of IFC). I know many other important experts in the German openBIM community. I also know many people who are actively involved in various departments and rooms, and I receive direct information about Oracle's role in the openCDE group, where attempts to centralize influence and monopolize this market are evident, or how openBIM is being promoted in German government offices. Even many of my colleagues who are deeply involved in these initiatives share concerns about the dominance of CAD vendors. Unfortunately, however, the broader openBIM community is often unwilling to openly acknowledge these facts.
So I would suggest starting with the history of the issue. That way, instead of dismissing the discussion, you will find it easier to focus on what is really important. For context, here is a video that provides additional information — I invite you to watch it:
Comments
I wrote about how buildingSMART has historically been influenced by Autodesk and other CAD vendors, long before the advent of LLMs and ChatGPT. To properly understand the topic of data in construction, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the history of IFC, buildingSMART, and openBIM — areas where many professionals, understandably, may still have gaps in their knowledge: https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_laML2cs=/
The article I shared is based on factual data. If you have specific questions, I would be happy to discuss them in detail. However, simply dismissing it by saying that “it was all written by AI” does not seem like a constructive approach.
Of course, if you prefer to believe that buildingSMART is a completely independent organization, that is your right. You can continue to believe in its openness and independence from CAD vendors—that is your right. For my part, based on my research and conversations, I see it differently.
I know experts who participated in the registration of IFC in Boston in 1994, and I recently spoke with Thomas Liebig, recognized by buildingSMART as one of the founders of IFC (oddly enough, again after articles about the history of IFC). I know many other important experts in the German openBIM community. I also know many people who are actively involved in various departments and rooms, and I receive direct information about Oracle's role in the openCDE group, where attempts to centralize influence and monopolize this market are evident, or how openBIM is being promoted in German government offices. Even many of my colleagues who are deeply involved in these initiatives share concerns about the dominance of CAD vendors. Unfortunately, however, the broader openBIM community is often unwilling to openly acknowledge these facts.
So I would suggest starting with the history of the issue. That way, instead of dismissing the discussion, you will find it easier to focus on what is really important. For context, here is a video that provides additional information — I invite you to watch it:
🔗
The fact that buildingSMART, led by HOK, some buildingSMART directors who are closely associated with Autodesk, and of course the CAD vendors themselves, who are the sponsors of the organization, will create a simple exchange format—like a copy of USD—since NVIDIA, Apple, and other large companies in the AOUSD alliance are already actively using USD in their products, ranging from Omniverse to iPhone applications.
And does the openBIM community really believe that NVIDIA and Apple will understand the IFC documentation of a small community managed by a few vendors?
IFC5 will be a fragmentation of the monolith. BuildingSMART is moving away from parametric geometry and object relationships, removing them from the core. The format, which is currently used for CAD exchange, will most likely become the format for web viewers first — just like SVF-CPIXML-GLTF-USD.
@JanF, I wrote about how buildingSMART has historically been influenced by Autodesk and other CAD vendors, long before the advent of LLMs and ChatGPT. To properly understand the topic of data in construction, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the history of IFC, buildingSMART, and openBIM — areas where many professionals, understandably, may still have gaps in their knowledge: https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_laML2cs=/
The article I shared is based on factual data. If you have specific questions, I would be happy to discuss them in detail. However, simply dismissing it by saying that “it was all written by AI” does not seem like a constructive approach.
Of course, if you prefer to believe that buildingSMART is a completely independent organization, that is your right. You can continue to believe in its openness and independence from CAD vendors—that is your right. For my part, based on my research and conversations, I see it differently.
I know experts who participated in the registration of IFC in Boston in 1994, and I recently spoke with Thomas Liebig, recognized by buildingSMART as one of the founders of IFC (oddly enough, again after articles about the history of IFC). I know many other important experts in the German openBIM community. I also know many people who are actively involved in various departments and rooms, and I receive direct information about Oracle's role in the openCDE group, where attempts to centralize influence and monopolize this market are evident, or how openBIM is being promoted in German government offices. Even many of my colleagues who are deeply involved in these initiatives share concerns about the dominance of CAD vendors. Unfortunately, however, the broader openBIM community is often unwilling to openly acknowledge these facts.
So I would suggest starting with the history of the issue. That way, instead of dismissing the discussion, you will find it easier to focus on what is really important. For context, here is a video that provides additional information — I invite you to watch it:
@ArtemBoiko
Nah, I don't think so
Also, my humble point of view, if you think IFC is only a "CAD exchange format" makes ME respectfully think you missed some important pieces of the puzzle.
Ok my bias is also because you proposed to replace IFC with USD.
Cheers
Yes - although one can tell that ChatGPT is not too smart - reading the PDF from the end makes more sense and is definitely enlighting. I am though missing major conecpts STEP and EXPRESS (only mnetioned once) and the game changer BonsaiBIM. We are working on promoting BonsaiBIM now on BIM World 2025 in Munich. We are team of IFC enablers you can find at www.scholarum.de.
It is not me who proposes this. It is Autodesk and HOK that will punch into buildingSMART - this is necessary for working on NVIDIA, Apple and other platforms, where the simple PDF format USD is already used.
If you need parametric, then parametric IFC requires a geometric core – which doesn't exist. For 20 years, Autodesk hasn't had any interest in a perfect export to IFC. Furthermore, Autodesk couldn't export data from Revit to IFC, so they turned to ODA for an export module. But if you use the ODA SDK, why do we even need IFC with its outdated Express Markup, which dates back to the days of punch cards?
All CAD vendors are members of the ODA and, without exception, use their reverse engineering. From the outside, it looks more like a circus in which we aren't the spectators. Nvidia, Oracle, Siemens – they all use reverse engineering. Why do they need IFC?
Subjectively, I think Autodesk is currently pushing for the use of USD as a replacement for IFC – and in a few years, we'll simply have a polygonal format similar to CPIXML.
Whether anyone will use parametric IFC without its own geometry kernel is a big question. OpenCascade hasn't established itself as a standard, and buildingSMART is unlikely to make it the standard, as most of the development of this geometry kernel took place in Russia.
If I understand correctly, BonsaiBIM uses IFC via IfcOpenShell. Which, in turn, runs on the OpenCascade geometric kernel, most of which was developed in Russia.
To start talking about a real alternative, we need to start with geometric kernels. Most of the OpenCascade developers have now moved on to developing Chinese open source geometric kernels, and some of them have moved to Portugal with the help of French managers.
If you continue to work with OpenCascade, you need to discuss the limitations that can be discovered when comparing OpenCascase with PolarSolid and other commercial kernels.
Don't feed the trolls.
@doia many thanks! If you prefer to dismiss proven facts with the phrase “Don't feed the trolls,” that is, of course, your right. However, I would advise you (or perhaps your mentors who recommend this approach) to take a closer look at issues related to the lack of a geometric kernel, dependence on OpenCascade, and buildingSMART's broader dependence on large CAD system vendors.
Forming an informed opinion begins with understanding the history of these issues. Otherwise, the later you learn about the background, the later you will be able to recognize the shortcomings of the current system that has been imposed on you by vendors. At that point, it may become clear that you have inadvertently reinforced the very dynamics you wanted to avoid and that you yourself have been trolls. This could be the boomerang effect of your message, which may well come back to haunt you later.
I do not dismiss the facts. These might be (partially) true. What I dismiss are the unspoken conspiracy theories you imply. Just take for example your very last comment above my statement:
What do you want to say with this? What do you want to imply with these statements?
I have read countless articles of yours. Which are mostly a waste of time. But I must say any flat-earther would envy your writing and graphs full of connection lines. You state singular facts, twist some and make connections where there aren't any. You imply malicious intend of some behind the scenes connected entities on every corner. And yet you do not write clearly what you want to say. You sow doubt.
You are entitled to your view of the world and the expression of these in any form you like. But I can not let that go unchallenged.
Damn, why do I not listen to my own advise. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@doia thanks. I never said that these are “evil forces” trying to do something bad (just watch the film to the end). In virtually all of my comments on this topic, I always say that no one is fighting Autodesk and buildingSMART, and that any of us in their position would take the same steps and that they are all doing the right thing — I have no complaints about them. The only problem here is those users, including myself, who believe CAD vendors in their created concepts.
If you can show me where I wrote about some kind of “evil intentions of secret forces,” please let me know, and I will try to change the text and apologize.
For the past 10 years, I have been gathering information from various experts, from those who registered IFC in Boston in 1994 from Germany, to those who sit in various departments and rooms, developers of OpenCascade, Revit, OpenDesignAliance. I have also gathered a lot of insider information from developers of various products, practically all CAD vendors.
If you write even a few questions about the facts I present, and if any of them turn out to be incorrect, I will gladly change my text, which has not been objectively verified for accuracy.
Dion Moulte always writes about trolling — instead of asking questions or checking facts, he responds to any questions about the geometric kernel and OpenCascade by telling everyone to “don't feed the trolls” to avoid logical discussion.
In the end, it may turn out that it is difficult to find “evil intentions of some secret forces” in my content and that only the openBIM community accuses me of “evil intentions” towards IFC, even though I am simply passing on ideas and facts that I have received from people close to the creation and development of IFC.
I wrote about how buildingSMART has historically been influenced by Autodesk and other CAD vendors, long before the advent of LLMs and ChatGPT. To properly understand the topic of data in construction, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the history of IFC, buildingSMART, and openBIM — areas where many professionals, understandably, may still have gaps in their knowledge: https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_laML2cs=/
The article I shared is based on factual data. If you have specific questions, I would be happy to discuss them in detail. However, simply dismissing it by saying that “it was all written by AI” does not seem like a constructive approach.
Of course, if you prefer to believe that buildingSMART is a completely independent organization, that is your right. You can continue to believe in its openness and independence from CAD vendors—that is your right. For my part, based on my research and conversations, I see it differently.
I know experts who participated in the registration of IFC in Boston in 1994, and I recently spoke with Thomas Liebig, recognized by buildingSMART as one of the founders of IFC (oddly enough, again after articles about the history of IFC). I know many other important experts in the German openBIM community. I also know many people who are actively involved in various departments and rooms, and I receive direct information about Oracle's role in the openCDE group, where attempts to centralize influence and monopolize this market are evident, or how openBIM is being promoted in German government offices. Even many of my colleagues who are deeply involved in these initiatives share concerns about the dominance of CAD vendors. Unfortunately, however, the broader openBIM community is often unwilling to openly acknowledge these facts.
So I would suggest starting with the history of the issue. That way, instead of dismissing the discussion, you will find it easier to focus on what is really important. For context, here is a video that provides additional information — I invite you to watch it: