Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Well, got it to work, now how to get it to do what I want! What would really be nice is to have the ability to link the mapping in the Revit Materials to the MXM materials much like the Sketchup plugin can do. You can pick the MXM material in Sketchup and apply the MXM map to the texture in the Sketchup material. That way the mapping is linked. It doesn't seem like there is any connection in the Revit plugin.

Does any one know what the mapping coordinates between an MXM file and Revit is (I mean if I set the texture size equal to 1 in the MXM editor, what physical size will the texture be in Revit?).

looks like a scaling discrepency of 3.3 units (we tested a 1m x 1m tile on a 5m x 8m long wall)

applying this to our existing maxwell brick maps 4.8m long = 15.84 seems too work

please correct me if im wrong


PS We dont want to have two sets of mats for max and revit!!!!

nobski wrote:looks like a scaling discrepency of 3.3 units (we tested a 1m x 1m tile on a 5m x 8m long wall)

applying this to our existing maxwell brick maps 4.8m long = 15.84 seems too work

please correct me if im wrong


PS We dont want to have two sets of mats for max and revit!!!!

Yes, internally Revit uses feet for measuring length, so when we get the model, the UVs are set as if the object exported was measured in feet, so when we export a 1m x 1m x 1m cube and assign a texture it will be tiled 3.281 times.
We added a checkbox that will adjust the UVs so that they match the scale Revit uses for the document being exported and set it to be on by default, it will be available in the next build.

raduc wrote: Yes, internally Revit uses feet for measuring length

This is fantastic.

Update: We can't use any render parameters when exporting MXS files from the family editor, so the checkbox only works when exporting revit projects, in the family editor we'll need a default behavior which right now is export UVs as is when the family uses imperial units and adjust UVs as specified before when the family uses metric units, is this behavior ok with everyone ?

Mihai wrote: This is fantastic.

It actually goes a little bit further because Revit uses imperial units for length only, every other type of parameter like mass, temperature, etc. is kept in metric units (see here) which gives birth to some truly interesting units like the kg-ft / s^2 for measuring force

Having the ability of the texture to render as I see it in Revit will be a great improvement. At least for now, having the scale of the texture come out the same upon export will help. I would really hate to have to scale all of my textures in the MXM editor just for Revit. Now, Revit needs the ability to be able to adjust the UV's in the program itself. I have tried painting surfaces, and so far it seems to work most of the time, once or twice it ignored the painting when I exported.

Splitting surfaces seems to be ignored.

ridenho wrote: Splitting surfaces seems to be ignored.

Can you send me a scene so I can see what happens ?

Which software? Revit or MXS?

ridenho wrote:Which software? Revit or MXS?

The Revit one, if it's possible only the parts that don't work.

Here's a link to the reduced model. There is a small section of the wall with the window which I split the surface of the wall and painted a different material. From the image in the earlier post, you can see that the split surface was ignored when rendered.

http://ftp.corp.rrmdesign.com/?fs=1685-45ef09d30b40

raduc wrote:We added a checkbox that will adjust the UVs so that they match the scale Revit uses for the document being exported and set it to be on by default, it will be available in the next build.

I see the checkbox but it's not doing what I assumed it would.

I made a 1 meter cube, applied a Revit material 1 meter square, and made and MXM for it also set to 1 meter. When I render from Revit the material tiles about 3.5 times across the cube.

Am I missing something?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/309 ... 20Test.zip

edit: I figured something out. If I treat meters as if they were feet in the MXM the material renders at the anticipated scale. Less than ideal (I don't really want to manage two sets of materials either) but workable for the short term.

Further, when I do scale the material in the MXM to get the texture to the correct size, the texture doesn't appear in the same relative location as it does in Revit.