Late comment on your post Lew. IFC compatibility should already be a solid part of the CA environment and that Mr CA reader is a given. Logically it is a must inclusion and yet after 12 years of requests and likely from others beside yourself it isn't integrated. Although .ifc is an ISO standard I believe the Chief Architect environment is all about using its own .plan format and yes if you must, import or export for example, .dwg but only under sufferance. Most if not all all 1st tier CAD applications can either natively use or import .dwg and export same afaik and yet it is a proprietary format!. In CA for example, it works a treat. But surely in CA eyes, first stop and hopefully last stop is the Chief Architect CAD software. All companies push towards user reliance on its software and proprietary file formats have always been the go-to method of ensuring that. Autodesk is the exception with its .dwg format. It has such a huge user base and been around for over 40 years such that its .dwg is near enough to a standard.
BTW, Autodesk with several other companies helped bring .ifc into the world and yet even though it is a standard, not all boys and girls want to play nicely together in Cad Park.
So not aiding any competition is a good enough reason in itself for no .ifc integration but I believe there is another more basic reason why CA has not embraced this ISO standard file format.
If you look at BIM objects available on the CA website, multiply the download count of the many pay-to-use BIMs by their cost and one can see that there is good money to be made from selling proprietary object libraries. Many of these objects may be available free in .ifc format elsewhere so why would CA want to destroy this income stream by allowing full featured .ifc compatibility? Don't try to apply logic here Lew. I always say, follow the money. That usually works.
Pip
