General Discussion

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 🙂

Is there still a limit within Solibri for the number of rows that can be exported? If I try to export the whole lot, it seems to fail to export and end up not responding. Even if I remove the color column. Seems to happen when the number of rows exceed a couple hundred thousands.

@daan Would it be possible for you to share that simple model?

@jacob-wangara said in BCF Live - Slides Created from Checking not syncing.:

If you are able to reproduce this all the time, please send us a video showing your workflow to [email protected] for further investigations.
Thank you.

Hi, with the one file from the workshop I could reproduce it also at least a second time. Have no time atm to record and document it but I will submit something asap!

Thanks for participating!

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 🙂