General Discussion

Brilliant! This is more than what I was looking for…very helpful!

Hi,

I think this has to do with the IFC-Export options as well.

There may be a difference of how the IFC-Elements are geometrically constructed between 2x3 and IFC4…I’m still using IFC 2x3, but my faulty memory keeps reminding me of something to do with BREPs vs. Meshes.

There is a setting in Revit which allows you to specify how “exact” the elements should be geometrically exported. It would be amazing if this could be applied individually to elements, but it is a global setting by export.

Detail level of geometry = high will render a much more precise slab.

My interpretation (best guess) is that revit is facetting round objects with a set number of facets. Doesn’t matter if you have a 20cm column, or a 20m slab edge…the number of facets will always be the same; as determined by the Detail Level of Geometry setting I mentioned.

Unfortunately, using a higher level of detail can cause the model-size to balloon, especially if you have a lot of round columns / rounded surfaces in the project.

File size is also dependent upon the project size…a small building with a higher detail-level of geometry probably doesn’t affect anyone. If it’s a 20-storey building with a lot of rounded surfaces, you are probably creeping towards issues with file-size.

My best guess…

Cheers,
Matt

Here is the official statement from Solibri.

Just want to add a few thoughts on this topic:

If the quality of the IFC is so poor that it cannot be used without optimisation, it should be returned to the planner instead of optimising it afterwards.
There are very few use cases for optimisers that are actually necessary. Mostly the cause is poor export quality. Instead, one should start exactly there and improve it. If there are problems because the export of the authoring programme “can’t do it better”, instead of finding workarounds, pressure should be exerted on the development of the authoring software to better support the open and certified standard.

Double exported PSets, identical attributes existing several times in different PSets, etc. are not a reason for IFC optimisation, but problems that have to be solved in the authoring software. This also includes that models do not have to be separated in the IFC, be it due to their size or the fact that several buildings were modelled in one model.

One should keep in mind here that the planner owes a deliverable that is free of faults. Specifications on content and data quality should therefore be precisely defined in the BEP and also enforced.
Such duplicates and other flaws in the data quality are to be detected and communicated with Solibri so that they can be corrected.

@sarahhielscher @JENVDC

Thanks for the report. We are working on improving the Solibri IFC string decoding.

@Pasi-Paasiala

So how does it work?

Afaik if I load Classification B (which requires A) then nothing happens (also no warning) until I load A. Then A & B should be fine - I guess certain actions like loading/updating models/changing classifications … trigger (all?) classifications to be reloaded. But in which order?

If Classification C requires A & B then it should have no problem to scale.
If Classification A requires a Classification E (we assume it’s loaded) then I guess E is updated before all others. Is it?

And what if E is required as a column in A & B -> does this make any difference on calling/refreshing E or is it just iterating trough E’s values?

Problematic would of course b an accidental short cirtcuit when (A requires B and B requires A) - if this is the case e.g. on a classifcation change, then you classifications don’t update correctly - it seems like they only loose their results if a model is changed.

In general we try to use classifications in a kind of hierarchy from top to bottom to avoid such little accidents, but we also want to optimize their behaviour. Currently it seems like with many (depending) classifications little changes to classifications take a looong time.

Anyhow, I will try to find some time the above described behaviour and recreate a small mockup which can be transmitted for furhter investigation. In the meantime it would be good to understand the way how classifications work a bit more.

Same thing here. Would it be possible to implement some sort of password requirement if a user within the company needs to alter rulesets or classifications? And then for non-company persons, all the rulesests and classifications, would work, but the inner workings of the rules and classifications would stay empty or protected?

I try to work with the selection.
If you see similar subjects in the folders or visually, select all of them and filter results by selection basket.
Then you can create a grouped issue (you should switch to the List Hierarchy though)

It still takes quite some time…

@ljungpipan

This is asked earlier. Please upwote these feature requests.

https://society.solibri.com/topic/502/3d-connexion-mouse-compatibility
https://society.solibri.com/topic/2182/3d-connexion-mouse-compatibility

@twosk said in Which rule to choose:

i, I’d like to find if a
Rule #23 would be good in your use case:

This parametrization checks that bottom of a column is fully covered with another column.
You could also add slabs there as Touching component or exclude bottom most floors.

f1918570-2bf1-40a1-80dc-1c2cd84e4f87-image.png

Ok, I will check it out. Thank you for quick response!

I am a bit surprised that it was not solved? Is it intended behavior?

This appears to work, I cannot thank you enough for this @john-lipp ! Makes my job alot easier 🙂

My Proxy Server Settings is unchecked.

4ee87052-48bf-4c23-8628-fc9698fad294-image.png

I will contact the support as recommended. Thank you!

@Mats_Knutsson

Avoid two different rules to check the same set of components.
e.g. add exclude filter rows that excludes the components checked in the first rule

@m-neustadt said in using solibri in an office:

A kind of active directory, User and directory access system for solibri.

You can in fact use server paths in roles which kind of helps to store ressources on a central place and users just would have to load roles and they are good to go.
This might be especially interessting as you could give special read/write permissions to prevent ressources from accidentally being overwritten. Tbh this worked best so far though the path change to the Shared Resources might be a similiar approach.

@BvanDalsum At the moment most of the settings are stored in Windows registry. (If you’re a Mac user, please let us know and we’ll let you know where they are.)

You should be able to store the settings by making a copy of your registry under the path “HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\JavaSoft\Prefs\com\solibri”

Hope this helps.

Hi Modeler123, yes it is.

For example, if you work with coodrination cubes. In the BIM models, a cuboid is modelled that marks the insertion point of the model. If the cuboids of the individual compartment models are all exactly on top of each other, the positional correctness of the models is guaranteed. This procedure is also sometimes referred to as the “cube test”. To do this, you check for exact duplication, e.g. with Rule 234 Component inside Component.

Best Regards on behalf of Solibri

@Zdeněk The message is about storage size limit. Are you able to create a new issue in Trimble Connect web UI? The problem might be with this one issue. Typically viewpoints might take a lot of space. How many components are visible/hidden in the issue? If both of those numbers is large, the viewpoint takes a lot of space. You could try to limit the number of visible components to just a few relevant ones and then try again.