General Discussion

@Pasi-Paasiala oh I understand! it takes it as a standard to color the entire model as a base. Thanks so much for the explanation!!

Captura de Pantalla 2023-03-20 a la(s) 9.01.05.png

@JSN Understand the miscommunication. Hear this feedback a lot during training. Maybe ‘Divide into Rows’ or ‘Divide into separate Rows’ ?

Thank you for your reply, @Matti-Kannala

Well, I thought that there should be a rule to measure an angle between two elements, so in this way, I can set a rule like this:

If a [Komponent] is touching the [Komponent] then the angle should be [X degrees]

Example:
If a [wall] is touching the [building envelop] then the angle should be [90 degrees]

I am just trying to imagine how it might work.
It could be a 2-step rule as well.

would that be possible?

Yes,

I have also tried SimpleBIM, but unfortunately the components in the IFC file is one group. So there is no chance to exclude/separate the nuts and screws from the file when exporting…

Maybe the solution is to actually tell the guys who export the IFC file from Inventor program to exclude all the higly detailed components or check the settings before exporting the IFC files - to export in a not so highy level…

Any other solutions would be grateful!

@MadsHA Nice to hear.

@mathieu-farine this is related to the encoding character choices when importing IFC.
It could be set here:
b2964a7a-5671-414a-9c40-1f01ca298c7b-image.png

@ginnapp
Hi Ginnapp, Please log with support [email protected] and we will look into this issue for you. It’s hard to tell without understanding what is configured why you are not getting data into the sheets. Please log and if possible provide the SMC file along with the CObie Settings xml file that you are using.

@Mats_Knutsson said in Possible to get cset header to report?:

I have namned my csets and rules in an easy to understand manner and would like them to come in as headers in the report so that I could organize them nicely. I this possible or a wish?

Isn’t that the case?

32afae5e-ba80-42f1-86b4-d1010cfd6c5b-image.png

Afaik in the last update the rule order on export should be fixed as well and therefore you should be able to easily use power query to get any transformation of the list you want.

Ok now it is there. Thx. I must have fiddled around so much the original rule I wanted to go to was deleted/changed and thus greying out the option.

Hello @teun_1!

Thanks for your message. While 9.13 is compatible with older Solibri versions, 9.13 does bring in support for additional IFC4 components, which are not supported in previous Solibri versions.

More informaiton on these are available in the Release notes.

Kind regards,

Toni on behalf of the Solibri team

@john-lipp I’m not worthy…

@Mats_Knutsson You can add this to the Feature Requests list.

Hi @david-polanski ,
Is Dalux also confirmed?
Thanks!

Hi @Matti-Kannala

Thanks for your answer… i understand most of what you say.

I can send you a smc file… maybe you can check it there.

Below an ITO of the levels… here you can see 2 models with different elevations but close to each other…
this is what is causing the extra footprint.

52a078a4-a412-4ef7-ba1d-86d9c328a3b2-image.png

The strange thing is… that if I add another model with lots of different levels with Elevations that do not match… no footprints are added.

Good luck on the new release!

Well, it is as I expected…

For some reason, the integers are not working. Maybe this has something to do with the German version?

For the time being, I simply used a text to get what I needed to work (working with variables of 0, 1 and 2.)

I didn’t play around with length that much…but I suppose that would be the only other possible option to use operators. “Real” Numbers also didn’t seem to work.

Since there are no replies, I figured I would revive this topic.

I have a similar issue. I am exporting a model with information regarding the concrete finishes. I would like to avoid setting unnecessary values in Revit. When I export my revit file, parameters which contain no value are no exported.

The operators in the classification are actually very very weak, and if I were able to, I could just handle this issue with wildcards.

What to do? It seems I need to create multiple rules just to handle a short-coming in the software. Is that so?

I guess if it’s Nemetschek…that makes sense…