đ FREE Standalone Revit to IFC (IFC2x3, IFC4, IFC4.3, IFCXML) Conversion without Revit and Autodesk
Until now, IFC export required Revit licenses and came with limited configuration options.With this tool, the process changes fundamentally:
đč No Revit required â works directly with RVT/RFA files
đč 52 configurable export parameters â full control over geometry, properties, classifications, metadata, and coordinates
đč Batch conversion â process dozens or hundreds of files in one run
đč Multiple output formats â IFC2x3, IFC4, IFC4.3, IFCXML, IFCZIP, HDF5
đč Automation-ready â integrate with Python scripts or n8n workflows for ETL pipelines
đč Completely offline â no cloud, no ADSK subscriptions needed
The converter ships with an interactive HTML configurator (DDC_Rvt2Ifc_custom_option_control.html) that exposes 52 export parameters and generates ready-to-run commands. In one place you can set IFC version/format (IFC2x3/IFC4/IFC4.3, IFC/IFCZIP/IFCXML/HDF5), level of detail, common/base property sets, Revit/material sets, schedules (with filtering), classifications (name, edition, field), project metadata (author, organization, file schema), visibility and selection (view filters, element IDs, category mapping, exclusions), rooms/2D boundaries/bounding boxes, tessellation, analyzers, and georeferencing (origin mode, CRS name, EPSG code, units). The page lets you tick options, fill values, and instantly generate a command-line string or a semicolon-separated config for repeatable, documented exportsâno scripting required.
This is a toolkit for teams who need freedom, efficiency, and transparency in their BIM-to-data workflows. With the DDC Revit2IFC Converter, you have full control over how your Revit data is exported, analyzed, and used.
đ„ You can download the standalone Revit2IFC converter directly from our website, or get the full converter bundle with example workflows on GitHub:
 đ https://github.com/datadrivenconstruction/cad2data-Revit-IFC-DWG-DGN-pipeline-with-conversion-validation-qto
â»ïž If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to reach out directly. And share this with a colleague who still has to open Revit every time just to export an IFC.
Comments
Cool! Where can I find the source code for this? The Github seems to only contain binaries.
@dionmoult thanks! Unfortunately, I depend on various reverse engineering SDKs and libraries, and ODA is one of them, whose licenses prohibit posting application code in OpenSource. For âŹ60,000, we can get the full application code, but unfortunately, this is a considerable amount for ordinary developers. Two of the three major companies in the reverse engineering market, like OpenCascade, are developed by Russian-speaking developers, so I get different insights from this side.
Since 2020, I have been talking to the CEOs of these companies about OpenSource (attached is part of a 2020 letter to one of the CEOs of an important company) and that there is a business model in this. But in 2020, this was not obvious to anyone, now it seems that the situation is beginning to change. But like buildgingSMART, today these companies are unfortunately heavily influenced by CAD vendors.
Over the past five years, I have invested nearly $40,000 in various app developments, which I distribute for free. My goal is to earn money from consulting, which I am succeeding at. I don't see a business model in software. Therefore, only open source and consulting will remain.
Yeah, that's weird. On Github it claims to be distributed under the MIT License which is an open source license and explicitly grants the right to modify. I'm getting vibes of "self promotion of closed source apps in an open source forum". Looking on the DDC website this looks like a closed source application, free (as in beer, not as in liberty) with adverts (you are the product), or paid ad-free. I suspect the download in GitHub is going to be the one with adverts, and no source will be made available.
You should really change that Github License designation as it is factually wrong.
Personal opinion: I don't like it when closed source providers try to hawk their wares on open source community sites.
I'm not even an American, but considering the history of Open Source and Agile development which were begun predominately by Americans, this is a wild statement to make.
@sjb007 thanks, let me clarify: the MIT license on GitHub applies only to the n8n workflow, which is fully open and can be used with any data or tools you prefer. The workflows themselves are not tied to the convertersâyou can connect them to IfcOpenShell, your own scripts, or other sources, while the rest of the nodes handle the data processing logic. The converters are distributed separately under an SDK-based license, which is why a different license file is included in their root folder. In the workflows we show examples with Google and OpenAI credentials, but you are free to connect your own services. Regarding the quote, I apologizeâit was taken out of context, and of course I recognize that much of the history of Open Source and Agile has strong American roots.
It's not about Oracle almost completely controlling the OpenCDE topic in bS, or how Autodesk and HOK are promoting USD in the new version of the IFC5 format. Paradox lies elsewhere: for three decades, the CAD vendors â the very founders and promoters of BIM / IFC / OPEN BIMÂź â have never provided users with a simple tool to directly convert their proprietary formats into IFC outside their own ecosystems.
Instead, inside their products and CDE platforms, they have relied for decades on third-party reverse-engineering SDKs, paying hundreds of thousands of euros annually for access. Even the organization responsible for IFC cooperates with these companies, which means that so-called âopen data exchangeâ is actually based on closed commercial reverse engineering technologies rather than on the initiatives of CAD suppliers themselves.
Revit development team integrated a third-party DWG SDK back in 2000âtwo years before Autodesk acquired them. Ironically, Autodesk had been fighting these DWG SDKs since 1995, but ultimately became dependent (since 2020 due to the IFC SDK) on them itself. Thus, OpenBIM has become Orwellian newspeak: âopennessâ means controlled access, and âinteroperabilityâ means dependency on closed SDKs.
Since 2018, I have been systematically gathering insights into how CAD vendors operate and have consulted or communicated with almost all of the major players in this field. My main conclusion is if data becomes truly open, a much larger market for applications and services will emerge, which will not only benefit users but also allow CAD vendors themselves to earn more stable income in the long term. We will all benefit from the cannibalization effect â when the disclosure of data or the introduction of new technologies that threaten the existing revenue model will enable CAD companies to experience exponential growth.
And if true data freedom today can be delivered by independent reverse-engineering companies while large corporations only imitate it, then the question is clear: Who really drives the industry forward â CAD vendors, or those who build tools to unlock CAD data?
I have to give you credit for that you are very persistent in marketing.
@doia thanks. Since 2020, I have been gathering information about how CAD vendors operate. My first step was to study the history of the issueâto understand where modern tools and concepts came from. Once I had that foundation, developers began sharing their experiences with me, and I couldn't help but collect and share that knowledge.
My initial goal was to provide consulting services. I never saw much of a future in SaaS or closed-source software business modelsâespecially considering that I have personally been making money with the OpenSource model (WordPressâJoomla) since 2005 and expected a similar shift to eventually reach the construction industry.
However, the reality turned out to be more complex. I had to go through the process of opening up data and focus on the âExtractionâ stage before moving on to the âLoadingâ and âTransformationâ stages using Open Source tools.
When I first introduced my tools to this community, they were often met with hostility, even though my intention was to make them as accessible and free as possible. Unfortunately, the company's policy on reverse engineering does not allow me to release all of the converter code as open source. However, I see no problem in distributing the converters as binary files, provided that they remain free and accessible on different platforms.
These tools represent a market value of tens of thousands of euros â and I am sharing them for free not because I underestimate their value, but because my real goal is to create a niche in the field of consulting on working with âopen databasesâ based on trust, experience, and openness.