General Discussion

SOLUTION: User was not logged-in/user information was not visible in the Settings/General.
Removed tick in the box “Remember me” then closed Solibri. Was promted to log-in, then…TADAA

I would call this a bug…?

Boug-bounty? 🙏

Using it would be faster if it was in a single rule filter in addition to the normal filters, because there you likely do some other filtering as well. So for example for door rule you would only have to check if it is in the selection basket for all the doors, not for all the components.

Of course it is cumbersome to add the property to all subrules, maybe it is not suitable for your case either.

One alternative is to have a custom rule. A custom rule that returns an issue for all components in the selection basket, or all components not in the basket. Then this rule can be used as the gatekeeper rule.

Hi @naveedzargar ,

I’ve shared one example how to check this in this thread, you could test if that would give you correct results: https://society.solibri.com/topic/289/gatekeeper-check/

This should be able to be set in the “Coordinate Base” setting of the IFC Export Setup in the later versions of Revit. In the earlier versions, the IFC export was always set to survey point (shared coordinates).

https://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2022/ENU/?guid=GUID-E029E3AD-1639-4446-A935-C9796BC34C95

If things aren’t lining up, you may need to publish or acquire coordinates in your project.

You also are able to move a model in Solibri by right-clicking it in the Model Tree and clicking Move or Rotate Models: https://help.solibri.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500006891481-Moving-and-Rotating-Models

@sander-eikelboom said in Free space in front of components can be halved?:

Maby it will help you to find the decompossed elements?

In my model there are curtain walls. I surch for window components that had decomposed forwards curtain walls.

Mybe this will help.

Curtain walls:
curtain walls.png

windows with decomposed forward curtain walls.
decomposed windows.png

Hi Sander,

I have tried to recreate this situation by creating a curtain wall with a custom window in it (frame and glass panel), and using your settings for the ruleset.
If I understand correctly from your post, by using this decomposes rule, the check should be able to differentiate between the window frame and the window panel, being able to only search for the window panel , for example?

To be fair, I do not yet understand what the result should be by using this decompose rule there. Could you please maybe post the “Results” information and the “Relations” information here?

I have made a few pictures of what I have made, the results however dont seem to differentiate between the individual parts of the window, rather still the window as an entire element:
Unbenannt.JPG
Unbenannt_1.JPG
Unbenannt_2.jpg
Unbenannt_3.jpg

Thank you for your help with this

@lauri-luoma Thank you!! Can i set this as an accepted soution or anything?

@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.