General Discussion

@alexander-joslyn exact the same way i will handle it😊

@boosolini Ich würde die Abstandsregel verwenden. Ich weiss gerade die Nummer nicht mehr und habe keine Zugriff auf Solibri. Da kannst du sagen seitlich von Türen > Abstand xyz mm

Hi. Do you mean the 3 doors the space has should be considered as exits? I think in your picture the door at the end of the blue line signifies an exit and the 3 doors out of the space don’t matter for that exit route. Essentially they all form the same route.

@ifc-ghost
Hi,

Solibri does not have official certification for users. Participating in Solibri trainings via HQ, is noticed with simple “diploma”. Solibri Certification program grants Certifications only for our partner networks´ qualified trainers.
Out Certification program will be updated during the spring 2022.

@lasse-lindqvist

Hi, thx for the hint however the mystery probably has been solved, but let me explain.

I have a template file last saved with 9.12 which contains ressources my colleague needed.
It seems like he has opened this file with 9.10 and saved the ruleset from there to his disk (? - not totally sure if he just took the cset and made a copy or really opened a 9.12 file with 9.10 as I guess this won’t be possible)

In his project running on 9.10 he loaded the ruleset and other ressources without any problems.
The ruleset he needs does not rely on custom informations - however a custom view was not working properly and that’s where I realized that he’s not on the latest version - then he performed the update.
Once finished the surprise came in and the error showed up once he tried to open the file he just saved minutes ago twice (cause you never know …) …

So, I checked the custom information as you suggested but did not really have a clue what’s the matter as I did not really make sense in this context. But as the custom view was working now and one of the previous save files of the project also opened successfully without a warning he took the pill and started over again to recreate the latest steps. Then he realized that adding the ruleset (he saved once saved with the old version, see above) brought him back the same error again as he tried to add it now …

That’s when we realized that this was probably the reason why the file got corrupt. At least I know now what happened and the it was basically our fault as he had an outdated version but it still surprises me that he could “lock himself out” without a warning. Especially as the ruleset itself has actually nothing to do with custom information here but seems like just was created with a newer version.

@marchi said in Result Summary (Excel Report) and the lost Gatekeeper Rules:

I agree, there should be at a least the visual reference in a column if this is a gatekeeper, maybe even with an number 1-4 representing the options for gatekeepers

Just saw this after your reply to the other topic.

Yes I agree, there should be some kind of indicator which at least highlights the gatekeepers - I am not so sure anymore about the concept I provided above some time ago regarding the hierachy level (aka in which column) the gatekeepers should be as the folder structure should still be identifiable as it is - idk, but what I want to say is, that if changes are made, then it should be well thought trough.

@nexling

I was able to reproduce the issue with the component distance. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a workaround using the various distance method and found the Free Area In Front rule has the same behavior. My tests are in this file attached:
Assembly Test Example.smc

Please send an email to [email protected] so that I may attach your information to the issue logged with our development.

Thanks,

It works, but not fine. After the check the rule says ‘ok’. But when I click on the rule tool (step 1 in picture below) I have to click on the value’s (step 2 and 3) and afther that I see my result in color.

So I don’t know where the collors are fore,… but not for my wishes 🙂

304a4294-14a6-4e98-a302-7ad37fb829d0-image.png

Good catch, thanks for notifying 🙂
Corrected!

@ricardo Thanks for your reply, I got your point. You might have a different workflow.

In our case, we need to check both architectural and structural models to make sure they are identical because the architect is responsible for the final model.

In your case, do you have the structural engineer in-house? are you both working on the same model?

@bbeata said in JavaScript error:

%(#000000)[%(#373737)[Anwendungs-Build-Nummer: 9.12.8.33
Das Modell wurde mit einem Build mit der Nummer gespeichert: ?
java.io.EOFException: Unexpected end of ZLIB input stream

That sounds actually more like a corrupt file due to saving issues.
Check your backup files!

https://society.solibri.com/topic/847/application-build-error?_=1643630446648

It filters your input case sensitive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_sensitivity

ok. so much thanks.

@mvandenbrink Great thanks

@john-lipp said in Understanding Model locations:

I did some experimentation to further understand how these locations are reported in the dialogue, and it seems Solibri creates these “scattered” locations in a sort of 1000m X 1000m grid. I created a matrix of 20 X 20 walls spaced 100m apart, and the widely scattered dialogue created 4 separate locations grouping 100 of the walls into each.

I thought that maybe if you had a wall 990m and a wall 1000m from the 0,0,0 origin, Solibri would consider that 1 single location, but the Widely Scattered dialogue will still warn you if you open the 990m and 1000m wall test files with two locations.

I guess that basically sums up the observation I made some time ago too.
https://society.solibri.com/topic/1625/scattered-model-treshold?_=1643222400268
Fun fact is that it happens within the same model.