musicolz.blogg.se - Fbx unity sdk export

Exposed functions to pass export options on export to the public API.

Exposed FBX Recorder Settings class to the public API.

Updated supported Unity, Maya and Max versions in the documentation.

Export camera focus distance and use depth of field properties.

So now I've narrowed down my current question to the more focused question "How would I go about making a TwinMotion plugin of my own?" Or is it possible to automate calls to Revit plugins via the API? That way I could drop in TwinMotion or then have that handle the exporting.Changes in Fbx Exporter - Added However, my searches on where to begin are coming up dry. At any rate, the TwinMotion plugin offers a proof by existence that it's possible to make something like this.

I find it surprising that there's no way to do this in the API or even with Revit's UI. (Apparently, there's a way to get the materials to re-appear if you open in 3DS Max, but that's extremely non-optimal for an automated pipeline.) The way I currently get materials is via a manual export from the TwinMotion plugin. I can't say that I'm further to my original goal, but I did confirm that manually exporting and exporting via the Revit API gives the same results: no materials or texture. It's so often that if I don't automate this, I'll be spending a lot of 2023 mindlessly clicking the same Revit buttons over and over. I export with materials and textures manually very often. But for this tool, I'd take the old FBXExportOptions or Unity-style approach to FBX-specific exporters if that's available in the current Revit API (with materials working). I can export exactly how I want without being limited to the configuration of the method params. I can see the flexibility in that file-agnostic approach. It's just a lot more code that I would have thought. Is that a correct understanding? It's fine if so. The developers now need to understand the specs of the file type to export to. In short, the Revit API moved away from filetype-specific exporters. Löbel's export approach is much more code than using filetype-specific exporters. The flip side is that this class doesn't understand the output specifics of particular file types, so the developer has to handle that themselves. That used to be the case in the Revit API:īut FBXExportOptions is obsolete, so people now use CustomExporter.

Just so I understand the current API a bit better, is this statement true? In Unity and several other apps, you can export a scene/view/etc to an FBX in a couple lines: I'm pretty new to the Revit API, but not to related tools, so thanks for the insight.

It's more work than I thought it would be, especially after seeing the FBXExportOptions class. It's now on the developer to handle writing the output file with assistance from the helper methods.