General Discussion

Solving my own question. According to this, it’s a symbol for error, and it means that the rule is being “blocked” because some of the preconditions for the rule did not pass. Now I got something to work out…

BTW - I skimmed that page searching for answers, too, but I was looking for picture of the symbol on the page. The problem was that the pictures are rendered super tiny on my system when viewing with edge. There’s just miniscule “points” visible next to the list… Maybe something to fix on the linked page?

In Revit it’s nog visible, I don’t have any filter enabled in Revit. When I use BIMcollab or any other IFC viewer it’s not visible.

@matti-kannala said in Rule #9 Checking Properties in PropertySets:

@thomas-riedel said in Rule #9 Checking Properties in PropertySets:

ll other PropertiySets are reco

Just quess that this could be a whitespace issue?
You could open this IFC to text editor and see if there are white space in Pset_owAllgemein.

@Matti-Kannala Thank you this is the problem!

Hi
Please send us your .smc file containing the rule to [email protected] for further investigation.
Thank you.

Thanks for answering.
The “GA…”-model above is “Architectural”, while the “BO…”-model is set to “Inventory”.
But this mixup happened in the process of rebuilding the SMC model and short naming structure with some dummy files to reduce loading and classification time, so maybe the architecural model was’nt always present.

My original problem with this:
Federated floors are used in some of my checking rules and are listed as
[(short name)] [floor name].
What happens, if - in the lack of the correct fed. floor - I define a rule using
“(BO-00-K) 2. Untergeschoss”
and then the BO model is removed/substituted/renamed/has renamed floors/whatever?

I live a life in fear 😧

–
Stefan

@chris well, the MEP planners are doing great job with us, however it is better to develop a rule so we can have the PFVs controlled, but you are right, it is very hard to find someone who can do it right.
The 222 rule will check if the PFVs are into the min. or max distance from the slab, but it will not check how many numbers there are after the comma. Thank you 🙂

@dopay

Then you should consolidate your labels as desired and the unused items should vanish afaik.

@jeroenkoomen Okay. Good workaround. Thanks!

But i really like to check that in solibri and not in Excel 😉

Hi. I have added an internal issue (#3573) about this.

@Maxime-Sabbagh , @Sebastian-Nybäck
The support has let us know that the only solution would be to upgrade to Solibri 9.12 because they will not be implementing any more upgrades to the BCF Server connector of 9.10 or older. I’m going to call them tomorrow (helpdesk) to see if there is any way though to fix this, because I’ve even had the issue that I’m getting a synchronisation report which says that everything has been uploaded, but when opening the Bimcollab browser site I don’t see any new issues.

The Wall has a relation with the Opening of type VOID, and the Window has a relation with the Opening of type Filling. You can put this two columns in a ITO.

Thanks for reply. I want the same function as Rule 203 has. But not for PropertySets/Properties, but for attributes = upload list od needed attributes on specific elements and check if they exists or not.

Wink wink 😉

@lhoward BIMTrack is doing a lot better then Trimble Connect it seems.

It removes the elements, and the viewpoints/ports and thus certainly the markups or sections.

4aaac25d-2084-4c26-95da-afe79d493877-image.png

Okay. Thank you very much for your response.

I will have an eye on the save point. I really didn’t made that… Thanks.

@inatofalvi It’s a pipe not a covering. When I add the contents of “components 2” of the rule into the basket (=) I see all the pipes, including those not identified as clashing with the walls . It’s almost as if the rule only checks horizontally.