General Discussion

Spooky as it seems, I don’t think I can give you a hint here…🙄
I think our dear friend at Solibri might give it a look!

@sjv-wil Thx. That is the way i wanted 🙂

@bvandalsum It does work by changing the column "name " to “type”. Many thanks for your clear instruction!

@jsn said in Numeric Sorting in ITO?:

@ricardo
Right, that is of course correct that the first column takes the lead on the first sort level, - also for values, but on a second level (for the other columns) it is only possible to sort from A-Z but not in a numeric order.

Yeah, I guess it’s not possible but only for the first…
Maybe one for the feature requests?

Hi @agroni,

With enabling debug log, it always produces the initial logs even if the software doesn’t start. It was needed for understanding which version of Solibri you are using. As you have already provided that info, I still need your email address to verify the state. Please send it to support or to private chat.
Note that, this error message appears if the credentials are wrong/if you attempted to login several times with wrong credentials.
Thank you!

The model is located close the internal origin of the authoring tool and therefore also the building storey heights are referenced according to the project origin. The survey point on the other hand is used to ensure the correct location of the elements within the IFC as this is then decisive for the IfcSite and all the relative coordinates. How are you specifiying the IfcSite, solely within the project location settings or in the SP settings as well?

The situation here is however confusing me now totally as I have double checked it with another model which has basically the same setup and there the parameter are reflected correctly (beside a minor issue). In a third one it’s for whatever reason similiar to the screen from above.

4cd9ff6f-9f96-4c3a-b63b-0fb2f0d8a395-grafik.png

So, this is now something I have to investigate further to understand the reason of this habit. At the moment it’s not really causing a big issue, but it might and what’s worrying me is that I do not really know the reason for it. If you have an explanation for this I would be happy to hear your thoughts.

Apart from that, there is just one model loaded in Solibri and for some reason it gets “split up” between 2,9 and 3k - as solely this value seperates the five foundations from the rest - which fostered my suspicion that there might be an issue with the tolerance itself. Anyhow it could be also related to the other observation, but without an answer from Solibrians we won’t know for sure.

918407a4-afa4-47f4-8798-388c2e30c1a1-grafik.png

Hi @john-lipp,

Thanks so much for your suggestions, I tried them out and found the Property Rule Template with Component Filters as a Gatekeeper tricky, as it woudl disappear from my checked Rules view as soon as the check was done (after I adapted it to my own parameters), and the Comparison Between Property Values didn’t quite react to my Project parameters as expected.
However you brought me to a new idea of how to use the Manual Checking Rule :
8885a5f1-ae46-49b6-b966-1b308fc07d7b-image.png
I include all of my own models according to their category, and search the company PSet for Attribute values with more than 32 characters.

Best Regards, Nathan

Thank you @john-lipp for your reply, now I understand what this rule does.

That means this rule doesn’t report an issue if one side of the POV is not touching the wall surface and the other side does.

Then the question is, is there a rule to check if any side of the POV is not touching the wall’s inner side?

Puting the spotlight again on this topic as clicking through the issues and additionally to the permanent scrolling to check the slides, the constant switching between the tabs of the huge coordination (buttons) and the comment tab is also very annoying. It would be better to have the possibility to have it all in a view at the same time …

baf266ac-ace8-4286-b22b-b9ae0e9a0226-grafik.png

Thanks so much for the reply! Will have a good look and let you know if I run into any more issues. Thanks again.

@john-lipp
thank you for investigating this case.
There is always the possibility to built bits and pieces. The point of modeling polygonal elements helps quite a lot in the early design stages, where components must be changed multiple times.
Therefore, the possibility to extract the correct data from such components would be helpful.

Hi @YasmineD

I logged this as an enhancement to our development to add a <SLIDE_DECISION> keyword to coordination report templates.

The best workaround I can suggest would be to sort by checking decision by dragging that column in the Issues view to the left and multi-select and mark those with the same checking decision to use the “Report Only Marked” option in the coordination report options.

It would be a manual process, but you could then add the column and fill in the Accepted/Rejected manually and then combine the report to one.

Thanks for the reply @Lauri-Luoma ! 🙂

Oh you mean that I should have 3 rules of #231 where components to check should be “Any” (as I would like to check the whole model) and “Target Value” is my nr 4 while “compared components” should be respectively 1, 2 and 3? 🙂

Hi @zeraxel

I logged this issue with R&D for a request to filter the models in this rule such that only those with spaces should be checked.

I believe this rule was to be used with a single architectural model loaded rather than a federated model. As @JSN suggested, you can workaround these extra results that come from other disciplines through a gatekeeper.

@gju Hi! Do you try rule gatekeeper?

Check out great explanation about rule gatekeeper in Solibri: https://help.solibri.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409667867799-Part-5-Rule-Refinement-2-My-Second-Ruleset

So, you can use other rules to check only components that passed check or not passed.

fe140c0c-b78a-4d3c-a603-bd3e7473de1f-изображение.png

usBIM.viewer - same as solibri problem.
BIM Vision - not opened your file.
so even FZKviwever have the same geometry problems.

I trying to check your model with ifcCheckingTool_Lite_x64 (for some issues of ifc structure), so it has many problems with geometry representation.
2021-10-27_08-35-20.png

So i think it is not problem of Solibri, but problem of XBIM exporter. Check it yourself.

Hi @juan,

Great to hear Solibri is exploring 3D mouse support! 🙂 At the moment Solibri doesn’t work with the 3D mouse yet. Operating the rotary knob only results in zooming in-out. But not with the precision I’m used to with programs that already support the 3D mouse.

I think the 3Dconnection team can be approached to provide the necessary support. There are regular driver updates for the 3D mouse, which often include support for new programs. It is therefore suspected that both Solibri and 3Dconnection will have to do some work to realize support.

Hi @didierz

You should be able to use the Result Summary view to report the counts of components that pass/fail your rule.

First set up the rule as below: 7fec7ac6-e592-493b-b9a4-63ca61ce6dcd-image.png

Select whatever rule(s) you wish to report in the Result Summary View, and click Report:
113e311b-a498-4bb8-a16c-be822526fdf8-image.png

The excel report will include counts of the components that pass/fail: 5b3ff750-73a6-4f52-b87a-9cc344c7803f-image.png

More info on the Result Summary view is here:
https://help.solibri.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500004671222-Creating-Reports-from-Checking-Results