General Discussion

@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!

Hi. It is true that currently in 9.12 versions working on the same file is problematic. An upcoming version brings improvements to this (https://society.solibri.com/topic/1194/upcoming-solibri-version-testers-wanted) allowing concurrent usage of a single project file. It does not yet provide any warnings for concurrent changes, but if users coordinate, it is possible to work with a single file. And later versions can bring better coordination to this (based on demand).

@jsn
Sometimes is works after you update the model, to open a classification settings and click OK.
Than the rules thinks there are changes made and will check the new model good(more time)

Hi @JSN

I reproduced this issue and sent it to R&D.

If you multi-select a slide that has a label or responsibility set, that responsibility gets “Stuck” as being selected when you multi-select other slides, even across other presentations.

I have found in limited testing, that you can workaround the issue and still multi-select slides to set responsibilities in the communication layout by carefully watching the Responsibilities and Label columns in the Issues view while you click the incorrectly displayed responsibilities and labels in the Issue Details.

@sander-Eikelboom I send you a response to your e-mail on why the rule is not working.

Summary for whom is interested: With the original setup none components were checked. I looked like rule 9 requires a component match for both Components to Check and Allowed Property values.
In this specific case is therefore the solution to add a row to the allowed property values for the component type “object”.

The reports form solibri i imported them as a query in a other exel sheet.
With some fomula we make a good dasboard of it with a pivot table

1 issues can contain a lot of failed components.

So we used te Checked/passed/failed/accepted componets to make the dasboard
dasboard.JPG

@_c_
In the rule you can also define the report.
There stand Component/Type/Location ‘on’.
So the geometry isn’t changed, but for example the type

@mario-calcagnini
-And to clarify for everybody else; i had to pick Rule 203 to be allowed to declare the “any” operand from my Excel list. Just like mario said.

Hi Richardo!

Yes, everyone is using Solibri, but I think we found the problem. Seems to be a difference somehow if the BCF file is saved with 2.0 or 2.1. So for 2.1 it shows all objects, but when saving with 2.0 it isolates the objects as intended. Does not make to much sense for me, but at least it works with 2.0 🙂

@lasse-lindqvist I did find the log files, one of them is an “error” log file, so I will send it over to Solibri. Can’t really understand what it’s saying 🙂

@Lauri-Luoma Of course! The information I recive dfrom MagiCAD, was to have the “Export port definitions” activated in MagiCAD 2021 and with IFC 2x3. With IFC 4, it might be a bit trickier, meaning that it should be included in the export, but it can be that the information can not yet be read by Solibri. f0d3e194-c67d-4f14-aa10-9efc5215a3d8-image.png

@lasse-lindqvist That is so helpful, thank you so much!
I was beginning to think i would have to make a ruleset that outputted all components, just to get that list…😊

Did you see the replies here?
https://society.solibri.com/topic/1078/no-predefined-type-for-ifcbeam-in-solibri/7?_=1632761849501
Is it showing in an ITO?

Do I have a bad feeling that Solibri is not getting correctly the IFC Schema in the USERDEFINED level?

Good question …

@konrad
Thank you, got the email from Nava. Will aim to resolve it this week.