General Discussion

Hi Toni @tonigyllenberg

Thanks for the reply.
I was using the “Check Model” Feature and didn’t work out.
I tried making new rulesets (with same properties) in new smc file and it was still the same.
And then, I deleted the Property Value and added the same value again and it was ok.
This one project is now good but I still don’t get the cause of the problem.

Sincerely, Pann

@cpreidel indeed, thanks anyways!

Hi, thanks for replying.

The last two pics are from “the same” file - with updated models of course.
Some more things:
It only occurs within those HVAC files generated with “mh-BIM” (“mh-Software” is a german company), files from other packages (Archicad, Revit, Trimble Nova) are not affected.
While preparing the file for upload some weeks ago, I realized that the false positives are changing or vanishing depending on the models loaded by the time of checking.
Currently there are 9 files from mh-BIM loaded. One of these checked in a separate file probably wouldn’t show the error.
So a file with only those two elements wouldn’t show this error too.

–
Stefan

Hi @jcosandey,

Maybe your problem is solved by now.
I had some thoughts about this problem too (I need it for a project with some colleagues of yours).

My guess is that solibri doesn’t consider your structural slab as inside the one of the two architectural slabs.
Maybe it understands only one protrusion at the time, I don’t know.
Hence no checking.

You could have your 3 errors by using the intersection rule (#1).
The strange thing is that this considers the big slabs as inside each other…
Have a look!
Screenshot.png
Screenshot1.png

What do you think about it?
Best regards 🙂

Mathieu

Hello @gkbell5,

Usually the error indicated here is related to a problem while saving the file. In Solibri 9.10.8 we have made improvements to the saving feature, meaning that files saved with 9.10.8 should no longer have this issue (or the issue frequency should dramatically be reduced).

Unfortunately, this does not help files saved with older versions, for which the workaround @Joel described above is the best solution.

Kind regards,

Toni on behalf of the Solibri team

Hey @cpreidel

I am aware that I have suggested kind of a “MacGyver approach” which may not be the most robust one but which probably would have served as a quick win. So, thx for elaborating the technical background and I am really curious how “hooking into this communication to send additional commands on top.” would work out.

However, I would have to discuss this with my colleagues and I guess that due to the current situation there is less time for dedicating hours on a developing purpose for such a feature which is actually classified as “pretty nice to have” but not as an “absolut must” at the moment.

Nevertheless I would be interessted to hear more about the concept you have in mind (e.g. via Python) to gain a clearer picture.

Many thx.
Julian

The door rule #208 searches only slabs and stairs under the doors (not coverings) at the moment.
The distance must be less than 1/10 of the door height, otherwise there will be this “missing slab” result.
The slab or stair under the door must horizontally overlap at least a bit, otherwise the slab is not found.
I believe this result type is added for bringing up the most obvious cases that might harm the results of the other checks in this rule.

The distance rule #222 would be better for checking the distance of door bottom level and floor.

Note:
The max threshold parameter in the table is for different check. This check is making sure that the door accessible and not having too high threshold (Schwellehöhe). The door threshold is taken from property sets usually.

Bounding Box in Classifications might not be possible (btw, can any Solibrian tell us why?) but what about bottom area? I guess the vertical bars have just a very small one and this might help you to distinguish them via classification settings if there is no property or special naming which could help you here.

Another possibility might be to use nested rules as there is indeed the possibility to check for Bounding Box Values. So then I would suggest you to go for two hierarchies, one for the Vertical bars and another one for the Horizontal ones. Both of them would contain the same subrule which is either #222 or #234 and only checks the passed components of the main rule.

c87b69eb-2868-4593-a08d-008efe6615f6-image.png

Although I do not really understand why you have to know first if it is vertical or horizontal for checking as you can also define in the rules which dimension (x/y or z) the min and max spacing should be. If it just for classification ok, but actually it should not limitate you can filter them out in ITOs as well using the same method - there you can tick the bounding box values as we know.

Also do you know how to edit multiple rows of an ITO manually? => You mean changing the classification manually there based on what you see? You could try to preserve the order and match the ITO with the classification table e.g. with the GUID. Then export both excel and fix it there with copy paste. When done, import it again. However, this might be not the smartest way, or even a bit adventurous, but should work too.

@JSN said in Synchronizing Presentations with BCF Server (BIMcollab):

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his cattle, nor his issues he created, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s. 😉

hahahahahaha 😂
This sentence would look very beautiful in a BEP 🙂

@Ricardo said in How do you handle Issues in Solibri?:

We use multiple presentations in Solibri in which we ‘filter’ the issues. For example, we use several presentations divided per design phase, but we also have a presentation just for the issues that are closed. This makes it more managable for ourself, but also easier to synchronize to BIMcollab.
Issues can easily moved between presentations with ctrl x / ctrl v.
You could do the same for issues that are assigned to a specific person or company, by filtering when syncing from BIMcollab.

Could you elaborate this a bit more? I am just guessing but it seems like you have 1 master-presentation which is always updated from your checking results but then how are you ‘filtering’ by issue details? Also, when you manually cut/paste them from one presentation to another, how are you going to keep them up-to-date as then you cannot update them anymore with checking results … or is this filtering and sorting all done via the bimcollab workaround?

Actually what I am looking for is a simple workflow where I can have various presentations (with the possibilities to update) for different disciplines, but it seems not so easy to achive this in a userfriendly way … or am I missing something fundamental?

Hi Niek,

You can use the Comparison Rule 231 to check differences between just the volumes of elements, you can then untick the GUID to check elements with similar Type, Location and Geometry, I’m not completely sure on how this works but worth a shot,

Un tick “geometries” and add “volume” to the compared property. This will then only report on volume differences of elements.

Capture.JPG

Hi. I am not too familiar Revit Area Plans, but the space grouping isn’t directly related to it, but works through geometry and classifications.

In its most simple form, space grouping starts by finding spaces that are classified with a classification called “spaceGrouping”. This classification has special handling in the classification view in that it changes display name to “Space Grouping” when defined.

After the spaces to be grouped are defined by the classification, the grouping itself is done based on the geometry of the spaces. A “Groups” relation is created for the spaces:
a97db158-ba1b-4d9a-ad76-a6b9603c8b80-image.png

and the direction of the relation tells if the space contains or is contained by the other space.

So the short answer is: it is possible to group spaces for any model as long as spaceGrouping classification is provided.

Hi. The next (currently unreleased) version of the Java API will support modifying issues so creating a custom rule to modify issues would be possible, even though not really the intended use of rules.

Hey Mats,

if you only want to check the quantity (e.g. volume) you can try the rule #234 as a workaround:

Bildschirmfoto 2020-07-08 um 18.00.48.png

The rule is created to check whether e.g. reinforcement is located in a wall correctly. But I use this rule for a lot of different checks, whether the inner component is located in an outer component. Maybe is not a perfect solution for your case – but suitable until the new function is added to #206. I would activate both checks and set “0 mm” to “Max.” at “Beliebige Flächen” = “any surface” (sry for not changing the language for the screenshot – I’m in the middle of a check).

Hope that works!

@dothedew

If the pipes are having property sets with diameter that should work in your case.

a93edf59-6635-4e33-bc24-f7c19d174dcd-image.png

a4b5812b-dc87-4262-9e8f-7f47a74b04d6-image.png

I can confirm this is a bit tricky. I remeber that I was having troubles with it when I tried to change it. I just made a quick check and it seems like that there is something either not properly working or it is just not user friendly at all.

Made a quick test and just copied the auto-text rows with a rather similiar outcome.

d6b3eb42-b1aa-4131-9fa8-a0ceff0a9f0e-image.png

After that test I had the idea that maybe it’s just not possible to assign auto-text multiple times and tried to shift elements. Then I got a similiar result like you did. So, what are we missing here?