General Discussion

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

I deleted that file, but get same error when I log in

Hi @89jaka

I created an IFC with all the various IFC Classes along with an ITO that reports the Ifc Entity, Ifc Type and Component in Solibri.
78cd7002-829f-457d-902b-550d837712c9-image.png

It is attached: Ifc4_Classes.zip

Note that the predefined type also determines the component in Solibri. For example, for a slab:
f63669c9-15c1-4dca-9792-ecf0a4d58796-image.png

@Matti-Kannala Thank you for your response. I cannot even see sample IFC available in Solibri. I would contact solibri support.

Hi @zeraxel

I was trying to reproduce this and found some interesting anomalies.

If you run the check prior to a space existing in that location, if you add the space later on, the result still won’t report the space when you update the arch model with the space. In order to get the space in, you would need the result to dropout and recreate.

If you create a copy of your SMC to test, you could remove and open the ruleset to see if the spaces are then reported.

If not, maybe it is the case that those components don’t have a nearest space relation to a space.

You can check this by selecting a component, and looking at the relation tab in the Info View. I assume that relation is where the location is coming from in the result.
04e4cba6-672a-46b3-9485-3fc94ea30244-image.png

I’ll log the issue with the location information not updating in the results when there is a change to the spaces.

@jsn Esri ArcGIS Pro. Recent improvements mean that we can bring the IFC straight in. Sometimes we use FME (By Safe Software) to append addition data to the model in GIS.

We also build Esri web apps to make a database that links to the building masses via a Unique ID. , and then can add data by simply filling out fields on a web browser. The IFC then is the source of geometry and GIS manages the data. Just need an ID that matches in the IFC file and the GIS database.

Hi @matheuspascual96

You should be able to create a classification that points to the PorpertySet in the Classification rules and has that specific description (value).

You can then use that classification in the Model should have components rule to check that at least one component in one or all models exists that has that property.

The Required Property Sets sounds similar, but would require all components you set in the component filter to have a property defined rather than the requirement of at least one.

Anyone has found a solution for this issue?

Thank you @jsn
It is a very nice way around to get it done 👍

Afaik this “comment” column is more for manual evaluation of the report summary and I guess it is empty on purpose.

Hi @frederik-juulsen

I tried to reproduce the issue as similar to what I saw in your screenshots; however, the electrical opening that clashes vertically up through the structural wall is still found in my tests:
cc6d138a-cda6-4fb8-9225-3dcd47f10ad6-image.png

I set my parameters and disciplines the same as your rule parameters:
37d84378-0e9d-44cf-a00d-48d2a33c277f-image.png

If you load your structural and electrical IFC models in this SMC does the opening then clash with the wall?

If you save out the cset from this smc and load it into your SMC to test your files, does they clash with your files?

Here is my test file with the cset: STR_Wall_Vs_ELEC_Opening.smc

@Harmen-Jorritsma yes, sorry about that, I didn’t think of that. But thanks!