General Discussion

In my experience Solibri 24.9.0 indeed loads slower than 24.5.0, even without opening an SMC file (So just starting a empty Solibri session).

Also insertion point seems to be correct, flipping a door also flips it’s insertion point thus giving different output. Example of a flipped door:

image.png

Indeed, something is not quite right, and I suspect those lines are not the only questionable aspects of the file. Still they load with some third-party tools. However I also find it problematic when they open load without any indication of existing errors. That said, completely blocking the file from loading is not an ideal solution either. If exceptions are implemented, at least a disclaimer would be very much appreciated.

Seems strange but hard to say without more context

Hi @Matti can you provide some more info as mentioned in your answer above?

@Paul-Linder

It still happens and this brough me back to this post.

ba4d552a-9f6a-4f4d-830c-d9c7157c618c-image.png

Btw, regarding an appointment - seems like we missed each other in Munich this week, but sure I can send you a short mail. If there is actual interest in feedback and making improvements.

As I understood the question I don’t think you actually need a gatekeeper rule.
I think you could use the general intersection rule and check any component with the property set “pset BIP” and the property “StatusConstruction” that is one of “New”.

6a8189e8-ec81-4125-812d-8a9267cdd79a-grafik.png

A gatekeeper should be possible too but I think this would be unnecessary in this case.

so far as I have tested, it seems to me that both are the case.
I tested this method also with a file that was clearly missing some Mb. Solibri (after closing/opening) could not open this file. For another file, that seemed plausible in size, this method worked.

Thank you Matti, it worked.

@Matti

When you change the vmoptions, how mutch slower is Solibri with showing the clashes?
Have you test this?
Or is it a matter of 1 or 2 seconds slower to show the clash?

Severity calculations are specific to the individual rules. This article explains severities, how to override them, and has a link to a PDF of a table that details how the severities are calculated.

https://www.solibri.com/articles/understanding-the-severity-levels-of-checking-results

It is from 2015, so some of the more recently created rules will be missing. Please let me know if there is a specific rule you are interested in.

I just came here again to emphasize once more that the current implementation falls short of meeting user needs or being user-friendly.

I think that would be nice, for ITOs especially.

Could share a picture showing which identification fields you want have in the report.

Hi @stebehan,

I remember that there were some bugs involved with interposing a folder between a second gatekeeper (that already comes after a first one) and the “last node” rule, maybe you can try without the “LOI” folders.

Basically, Gatekeeper > Gatekeeper > Folder > Rule is buggy and should be avoided.

Here are some setups that do work (using Windows):

Gatekeeper > Multiple Folder > Multiple rules
image.png

Gatekeeper > Multiple Gatekeepers > Rule
5b9b07e7-286d-4cc2-9bd4-1b26d2c84c7a-image.png

Gatekeeper > Multiple Folders > Gatekeeper > Gatekeeper > Multiple rules
1cb9e183-8634-4ee3-abae-2a230a24491f-image.png

@Matti Hei, what’s the email for support? should i contact nordicbim if i’m located in norway? 🙂