Tech Talks

@daniel-d Could you please share the ruleset, thanks

@ricardo
I don’t know if it works in the ruleset, shown in your snapshot.
I create reports in the view result summary.
I hope that is what your looking for

Hi. There are some ways to achieve this, one being classifications:
Create classifications such that they classify to same “result” with multiple different conditions. Then use this classification in a filter.

Hi @matti-kannala,

where could I find this feature to turn it off?
It is frustrating to know after one year of having this issue that it is coming from Solibri, not from the exporting software.

Looking forward to your reply!
Thanks

Indeed, after changing the Slide_ID to the same number, it does work.

So, with the example below I do get the expected results…

2acaedc7-756b-4e74-9af8-a1eb59e062df-image.png

Result in Solibri:

8f557fad-0da7-4a34-8e02-0a183b6392c6-image.png

Thanks John!

@cburgess

I made a request for this a year back or so, it’s in this post:

https://society.solibri.com/topic/711/width-adjusted-columns-should-retain-their-position-after-selecting-new-elements?_=1629702912331

Since this is also still frustrating me, it’s good to bring this back under the attention of Solibri.

Hello @agroni ,

Please open a support ticket for this by sending an email to [email protected] and attach the files in question. we’ll get back to you after further investigations as to what this issue could be.
On behalf of Solibri team.
Thank you.

@cburgess

Can you place a picture of de clashrule?
Mayby you exclude some parts there.
Sometimes is wil help to see what the ingnore intersections will do.

When you use classification for the rulset, maybe in the classification you exclude some parts.

A other possibility is that the ifc is updated and you didn’t recheck.

Anyone has an answer to the question?

Hello @Ricardo @Maxime-Sabbagh ,

Like our support had informed you, this is most likely dues to the gatekeeper rules sub rule options. If there are nothing to pass from the gatekeeper rule into the sub rule, the rule is not shown in checking layout.

This is a feature that can be used as a “if” condition in checking.

This allows you to create a rule that first checks some condition of the model (e.g. amount of floors) and according to that either passes the model to the sub-rule or not. If not, the rule disappears.

69d7947f-f888-4b2e-b58c-f62056bf9f00-image.png

The problem is related to point 1 of my initial post.
The only viewer (from the ones I tested) still capable of visualizing the whole model is Bimvision.

@jsn the GUID’s change when the ifc is exported from different machines. we have multiple users on a file and depending on who exports it, the GUID’s could change. strange but true.

Well using IFC timestamp isn’t that much harder I guess, but it contains one step more.
In cloud environment it is easier to just check revision/version/timestamp of the file itself than download the file and read something it contains.

See also https://society.solibri.com/topic/1194/upcoming-solibri-version-testers-wanted if you wish to test an upcoming version that integrates into cloud services. There we do use for example Dropbox the file metadata revision (https://www.dropbox.com/developers/documentation/http/documentation#files-get_metadata) to see if the file has changes. This is one reason why I would be hesitant to start looking into the contents.

Hi @Harmen-Jorritsma,
Thanks for the lineup. BIMCollab sure makes these things easier to manage. Unfortunately, sometimes plain bcf is all that is available on a project.
I have to disagree on Solibri Issues not being able to exist without Components, if that is what you mean in your opening statement. There is a button in Solibri that removes Components from Issues.

@sebastian-nybäck Ah thank you!

I believe I ran into the requested overview in a new topic: IFC entity vs SMC Component
https://society.solibri.com/topic/1056/ifc-entity-vs-smc-component