General Discussion

@remco Hi,
yes, I was thinking this would be an option, but I would rather not have reconfigure all my other bimcollab connections and settings…
Seems like removing a connection should also remove the API keys associated with it? But that’s not the case.

@Solibrians

Can someone of you tell me why this infomation isn’t in the excel output?

@skay thx

@lvsteijn said in Excel Report Worksheet Name:

I am looking for the ability to set the Worksheet name in a Excel report in a template.
Is this possible, or can this feature be added?

Which Solibri report(s) you are referring? Could you add a screenshot?

@jeroenkoomen ah too easy thanks :). Weird preset that used a mix of units. I need to over the defaults and also if we can install our own presets on all users.

one more attempt:
Einheitenpfeil in nähe gleich benannte Räume.smc

Ok I see what you mean now, in the file which actually contains the building elements the Arrow has only a relation to the Stairwell room as it is placed in this room but only points the the aparment it represents und shares just the one Attribute.

I will keep looking at the possiblity of using the door for grouping the Rooms.

Best regards,
Nathan Ashton

It would be also good to have an official sheet with the proper translations of the component names when you are not using Solibri in English as this is sometimes a bit confusing. Does anybody knw if such a helpful documentation is available too?

Hey @Niels,

if I understand correctly you could use Rule #232 (Manual Checking Rule) to “presort” those components which belong to a specific model by creating issues for those. The manual checking rule creates issues for all components which fulfill the component filter (see screenshot). If you configure the filter to create issues for any component which belongs to a specific model and specify the gatekeeper, that any component with an issue is taken forward by the subrules, this might do what you want to achieve?!

96d39037-ec4e-444a-aae9-a93f2ed8fb94-image.png

Cheers
Cornelius

See

https://society.solibri.com/topic/1134/pdf-drawings-overlap-transparent-elements/3?_=1616760771725

Thanks guys, I can see there are some possible workarounds here. I would probably prefer an alternative that is not dependent on parameters (or as least dependent as possible), both because our files are rather large already and as a general rule I prefer to avoid it if possible. Would be great if there was a built in feature for this, so you can make a rule to only include horizontal and sloped pipes for instance. It would make it a lot easier to make rules that give more meaningful results in many cases.

But maybe a parameter based classification is the easiest way to go, that would work for all pipe sizes I guess. Using the bounding box reduces the need for adding new parameters as the diameter already is defined, but then the setup needs to include all possible sizes. The main key for me at least is simplicity, so maybe the parameter approach is the simplest at this point. But would be great if regular filters also can be used on “properties that at not defined properties” but still can be read directly from the model if was a native feature of Solibri

Ohh, I’d love that! 😍

–
Stefan

@zdeněk said in SOL/17/1.6:

I dont want to prescribe specific “component type” to each layer. I simply wanted to write * as it is possible in second column.

Well, this ain’t gonna work with that rule as it validates elements and not layers. Furthermore if you put an asterix then this …

Report of this rule tells me if the layer is missing in model or missing in BEP. But know I have to develop which component can be in which layer.

… wouldn’t work either as you check all elements (which are on different layers I guess) at once and therefore you would kinda get a weird result as this rule just has been created for the opposite purpose.

However you could probably use a different rule to achieve what you want. E.g. check all the layers of all elements with #230 and if there is no match you are informed.

c5482233-2f73-46f7-be31-27e16c7c2e68-image.png

Looks like an issue with invalid geometry:

Bildschirmfoto 2021-03-18 um 16.02.44.png

Can somebody confirm, that invalid elements are not checked at all?

Thanks for the quick reply Lasse

Seems like it´s time to step up my solibri game then 😉

@lasse-lindqvist
Thank you for your reply. I understood the meaning of it!

Alright thanks, thats what I thought.
Would be nice to just right click on a ruleset and just run that particular rule for the whole model though 🙂