IfcSite RefElevation vs. IfcLocalPlacement Z value in IFC2x3

[ReD_CoDE]

@angel.velez This sounds good and valuable

I think the issue is that Autodesk mainly has focused to implement IFC2x3 when other competitors day to day have improved their IFC2x3 solutions based on the findings in IFC4 and later

@jwouellette I think bSI needs to implement a way that let companies not only implement previous versions (Supported Tag), but also implement a part of the latest version in their solutions (Planned Tag) and when is needed and are ready give the latest version license too

I mean bSI shows not only Supported certificates, but also Planned certificates

Like this:

I think this link will help:

Coordinates of the IfcLocalPlacement/IfcCartesianPoint

do you know what is best practice on defining the coordinates of components in the IFC Structure, respectively the IfcLocalPlacement/IfcCartesianPoint? Depending whether the component sits near the Project Zero Point the values appearing in the IfcCartesianPoint will be in a range of some tens of meters. When the model georeferenced acording to a local datum, the component sits in the BIM Authoring tool far away from the Project Zero Point resulting in coordinates rangin in thousends/millions. …