Moult
April 7, 2021, 12:11am
12
BTW further reading why pulling the “mirror” transform outside (as I have proposed) might also be a good idea, is because it can make it easier to support scenarios like this:
opened 07:11PM - 08 Jul 20 UTC
enhancement
99% of floors in the condo design are the same.
Duplicating them
- increase … file size with factor 99
- make impossible modification after Design Transfer View
STEP ed 3 is one way, but maybe we will have better solution knowing business logic... At least typical floors.
Move IfcMappedItem one level up.
(Remaining 1% of floors is made from the same typical floor parts)
Also here is a nice quote by @angel.velez which I agree with: Is IfcProductDefinitionShape a 1:1 relationship? - #4 by angel.velez
I would support an official (IFC5) method of simplifying how we reuse geometry, and have 1 way that works for all cases. I don’t want to add another way of doing it in existing schemas, even if it is "nicer’, because in practice that just adds more complexity, as you have to support existing ways and a new way.
1 Like