In a recent LinkedIn post, I recommended testing Data Exchange for referencing workflows, as Data Exchange can lead to leaner file sizes in some cases if compared to IFC. in this blog explores this topic in more detail and explains the file sizes as well as the differences.
What happens when you link an IFC in Revit?
Revit generates an .ifc.RVT file in the background, for which a project template is used - and this is the crucial point, because this project template is defined in the IFC export settings:
If no project template is defined here, Revit takes the first template from this dialog - and this is usually your office template with many views and library elements that are not needed in the .ifc.rvt - but only inflate it unnecessarily:
For this reason, you should choose a template for IFC that is as minimal as possible - I have had good experiences with a completely empty template that you can easily create from scratch in Revit:
If required, certain content and properties can be added to this template, for example as described in this article .
You can see what a difference this can make here:
As the size of the linked files has a direct effect on the memory required by Revit, you can save resources, especially if you have a lot of linked IFCs.
The actual difference between a linked IFC and a Data Exchange in terms of file size and performance will therefore vary from project to project - but it might be worth testing.
It is important to note that there is no perfect solution - but it always makes sense to keep an eye on new developments such as Data Exchange and test them when the opportunity arises.
What is so exciting about Data Exchange?
Data Exchange is a new approach based on granular data. A data exchange can be created on Autodesk Docs from a Revit model or as part of our beta program with a Data Exchange Connector from Revit, Inventor, Tekla, or Rhino (and soon Navisworks / IFC) (more info here).
There are no special settings, mappings or training required - you simply need a 3D view that only shows the components that should be included in the Data Exchange.
Referencing a Data Exchange in other systems is only possible via the Data Exchange Connectors - and is therefore also in the beta phase.
An interesting aspect here is that the Data Exchange is embedded directly in the Revit file - and is therefore also visible in the Revit model on Autodesk Docs, for example (which is not the case with an IFC link), but can still be easily updated via the Connector (or also unloaded).
A workflow that is also possible without beta functionalities is the evaluation of Revit models in Power BI - more on this in this blogpost.
So is Data Exchange better than IFC or will it eventually replace IFC?
No! Both have their use cases and strengths - it makes sense to consider and test which is more suitable in specific cases depending on the workflow or requirements.
Thanks to its granularity, the Data Exchange offers advantages when it comes to sharing or dasboarding a subest of your model through the ACC.
When is IFC the better choice?
IFC is an internationally recognized industry standard that is supported by all BIM-capable software and can therefore cover many common use cases. In addition, an IFC file can also be saved locally - this is not possible with a Data Exchange, as the granular data is not a file and can only be accessed via the Data Exchange API.
For handovers, traditional coordination processes or transfers to cost estimation or simulation software that do not have a direct API connection to your authoring software, IFC is the best choice.
What are your thoughts and experiences?
German 
English