General Discussion

That should be possible with SOL #231 and some classification work.

bc84704e-777f-48f1-b2e9-e1842f1972ef-image.png

In this quick example the Slab has 9m^2 in a 16m^2 space.
The condition is that the Slab in the same space should be at least > than 90% of the Space Area (which would be the 14,4 m^2). In you case it would then e.g. be <= 0.3 I guess.

99997a5b-ca7a-4f96-bcc0-37ff9527f12a-image.png

to be honest, 5h on a workstation and 8h on a laptop…still it is way too long to check!
On the other hand more then 200k elements is also not the lightest model.

I have a model with around 50k and it takes me up to 10min running on [email protected] and 32Gb RAM.
I think it also depends which rules are you using since in my experience some take much faster time then others.

@jsn @lvsteijn

BCF API doesn’t support “default” viewpoint. When loading issues from a BCF Server like BIMcollab the server returns a list of viewpoints. Solibri shows the first as default in BCF Live View.

https://github.com/buildingSMART/BCF-API#451-get-viewpoints-service

Does you classification give colours to objects? If so, I believe, that it overides the coulours of ITO.

@mathieu-farine

Ok, i understand. Unfortunately the degree is not currently possible to adjust.

Meaning that this is turning into a feature/improvement request in the existing rule 🙂 : https://society.solibri.com/category/18/feature-requests

Br,
Lauri

@agroni said in Minimum space requirement:

You misunderstood me because I did not speak about optimizing the space.

Well, probably because you described the task like the following in the first post, without giving much details.

I am trying to figure out a way to calculate the minimum space requirement around an object. (…)

So, from your other posts now I better know what you want to achieve

If I can model something physical for a space requirement, I don’t actually need solibri to check for collision. I could also do it directly in Archicad or even visually control in 3d if everything sits correctly. 🙄

To sum this up simplified,
// you want to check your containers
// they have four sides
// 3 are equal distance x, and on the e.g. front they need more space, so x+y

An idea. Would it eventually be a possibility to use #226 with some modelling support?
You could use it 2x
// first to check for distance x on all four sides
// secondly, which checks for the extra distancy x+y, just on the front side - wasn’t there a possibility to do so?

Edit: Ok, this was just possible for walls and I think there is no other rule where you can just specify the fron, isn’t it?

So in my eyes it would be actually the best approach if #226 gets a remake where you can specify the checked sides of the component a bit better - it needs a new look anyhow as the description is very poor as discussed elsewhere …

@agroni said in Defined Type Check:

I am curious in which instances in your opinion does the #230 not work???

Well, the example from Paola above demonstrates it - it seems to me that this rule does not work and I just even tried it to test again - with the same result and I don’t see any mistake in this quick example.

25fc005a-a6d4-482a-a1b3-f66dab3fa825-image.png

But then again, I am pretty sure I have also used it as you described it and ran into the same weird results a while ago - searching for alternatives for such use cases I now always rely on #203 as I lost my faith in #230 in that specific context.

@jsn said in Objects should not to be in the model:

use SOL 230

In some cases the rule #230 can be used without classifications.

This example shows checking of invalid spaces:

266e38d8-0a07-462d-a967-7756f3db259c-image.png

@andyb Hello, where can I find more information about this job.

That’s indeed poorly explained.

I have not used it a while but I once created some notes for me to remember how it works and it basically should be like the following:

a812264f-3e5a-432d-8d23-5d8e0fcfb777-image.png
The first value (row) is always giving the Limiter - let’s ignore it for a second.

The second and the third values define the basic bounding box range. So if you define here nothing or 0 then e.g. the component Width is taken.

If you do not use the limiter, than it makes sense to just work with min or max values.

If you however, want to set an offset, or a tolerance then you us the limiter values and now min and max makes sense. E.g. You set the width to 0 and the limiter to 500 (or -500) then the bounding box will change accordingly.

So for the Height this would mean, you set a Limiter of (+) -100 to lower (or raise) the bounding box accordingly and then give it a maximum height to specify it (and not just use the component height).

a03081f2-6ec7-4e14-817b-7b339ec6a84a-image.png

If you would use on the other hand the following settings for the mentioned example above, then rule would be passed, as the object is about 966m away and due to the limiter setting it “jumps” 999mm forward and checks the remaining 999 to 2000 mm.

3643d664-3db3-49a9-b7a1-29357f366d47-image.png

So the rule is not that simple, and actually it is very easy “to mess it up by yourself” when you type in non-logic values, and then there is no warning sign or error message. Combined with the poor documentation, wrong translations (e.g. german) this is something which should definitely be improved. I am even not sure if my interpretation is fully correct, but with this information in mind you should be able to play around a bit and find out which settings suits your needs best.

Edit:

So for your given example, the following should do the job if I understood correctly.

05954c3b-0197-4968-87e7-7f8958819e7d-image.png