General Discussion

@simo_z said in Two-finger touchscreen gestures:

@Matti Kannala

Thanks for the answer, but it didn’t work.

Best Regards
Simone

thanks for the awesome information.

@lauri-luoma Thank you, yes, I make a lot of use of classifications, and also the duct dimensions from component properties (still, this may not always be available, and I’ve come across some unit problems even there).

However, being a heavy user of classifications in many aspects, I find building a classification for something so simple as Bounding Box dimensions overkill. The classifications also all require some processing time at model update, which gets multiplied when the HVAC models are split into separate IFCs per storey. The above rule itself processes this very quickly, when set up correctly, and only at the moment necessary for running the checking, which seems optimal…

But perhaps disabling classifications, or loading them automatically on demand, is something you are thinking about for future releases (I can of course manually unload/load these at the time of checking, but that again is unnecessary steps in the workflow).

Yeah okay thanks. I actually use the comparison function at least once a day and this feature would save me a lot of time . This time saving would allow me to look at more projects each week so having this as an improvement would really increase my efficiency. Would love to see it incorporated soon! - cheers

Hi. This is possible at least via the Java API: https://society.solibri.com/topic/563/information-api

We actually even have it implemented with the API in our examples: https://github.com/Solibri/api-examples/blob/master/info-examples/src/main/java/com/solibri/smc/api/examples/HasFailedChecking.java

Being such a common question, it might make sense to add it to the normal properties I guess.

this is a cool explanation @Wafa
thanx 👍

@thudelicious
sadly this rule does not include a filtering as other SOLs do. Maybe a cascade rule could do the job…

@mathieu-farine
That is a good tip. A more efficient way would be to exclude the Fittings instead of including all the necessary components.
I am a bit cautious with excluding components in certain spaces. I prefer to get some components more instead of excluding some that might have a big impact. Still, this will only reduce the number of these measurements by a small fraction. Or maybe do you know a better SOL to check the net height of pipes against the floor?

Hello @Zeraxel !

You could try the last exception option to exclude ducts that are not fully going through the wall, like this:

044e3200-c2f2-4276-a89a-886fae47b5ef-image.png

Hope this works,

Lauri/Solibri

@89jaka Hi! Try to answer.

You need to open Information Takeoff feature and use Classification view.
When you create New Classification, you need to include components, and in properties you need to choose Relations Property Group. In Relation field you need to choose necessery relation, also direction field (either, for example) and component type. I use Any, by default.
In operator field you must choos “is not empty”.
Next, in classification rules you need to change or add new column and choosing filtering property, e.g. Federeated floors in Location Group.

Try to show in screenshot below. Good luck!

2021-08-12_19-00-34.png

Hi Karouite,

The Identification tab in the Info view does not represent a Property Set.
If you are using a Rule to check information, maybe you can use an other rule f.i. Propertyvalues must be from Agreed list. #SOL/9

Good luck!

@lasse-lindqvist said in Interpreting the Checking Summary Report Stats:

It is definitely possible to change it so that Rejected trumps Undecided/Accepted and Undecided trumps Accepted. That would make the math always match.

Exactly

Is there compatibility considerations for some users if numbers start to mean something else now? Do some users prefer the current way of calculating the numbers?

True, and if you ask me it would make the most sense if there would ideally be both to satisfy all kind of needs. Meaning that as already pointed out there should be Accepted/Rejected/Undecided Components reflecting the truly failed components and Accepted/Rejected/Undecided Component issues reflecting the absolute number as it already does to deliever the the big picture. As it makes a difference if a component has an overall e.g. Rejected status because it failes in 10/10 or just in 1/10 cases.

I answer to myself, the problem was that the rule parameters dialog was rendered under the tools bar, so it was not visible, so weird that in that moment all dialogs was rendered there, thank you to have tried to help me

@JulianJ
This is the bitter part, working with proprietary software. First they let you taste the apple, and later you need to pay. This does not happen only with solibri but for other software vendors it is even much worse.
Therefore in this case you will need to switch your workflows to other means, whether it is Navisworks or even BIMcollabZoom. But keep one thing in mind, that the other software someday in the future will also put you in the same situation. Then the story begins again for a new software search…
Solution: OpenSource 😉

Thanks very much.

While doing a thorough search I have found out that this happened also last month with the previous version of Solibri.

4350dda2-f54e-4868-808e-3bbc59c31f8f-grafik.png

@anees-alomar I can not post a file because i am not the owner of the autoring-file.

I found out a workaround…

@dijvar-pekerman This one?

https://help.solibri.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500008794741-Why-am-I-requested-to-enter-an-MFA-code-at-login-

Thanks for update!