General Discussion

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?

@JMann many thanks, I tried it and It is working, great 👍

Thank you very much for your answers. I always use option number 1 myself and simply superimpose the data set in other viewers to be on the safe side. There everything is displayed correctly. Number 2 is then only the solution to this problem for now (if one even notices the problem, which is almost impossible for larger projects).

I’ll wait for further feedback, maybe someone else has this problem.

Thanks a lot

Hi. It is not possible to check “contains” with OR logic, only exact contents with the “One of” operator. So if exact matching is enough for you, you can use the following

205e77f4-732d-461b-b89a-236dc6a5dd4c-image.png

But if exact matching is not suitable, one option is to use the new Information API (requires basic Java development skills https://society.solibri.com/topic/563/information-api) which can be used to create any arbitrary logic. In this case the custom information would define a new property ContainsXYZJ and would return true if one of them was contained in the original Name property. This new ContainsXYZJ property could then be used to filter only those components that have ContainsXYZJ as TRUE.

@mwhdejong To my knowledge Autodesk has a Shared Parameter file that should work for both Doors and Windows, though I am not 100% certain. I’d have to check to be sure (currently very busy with projects).

You can also check the Autodesk SourceForge / Github page to see if there is any additional information there.
Hope this helps!

Autodesk GitHub: https://github.com/Autodesk/revit-ifc/issues
Autodesk SourceForge: https://sourceforge.net/p/ifcexporter/discussion/general/

ec59d10a-be7f-4f86-ab02-cc72c79b1a9e-image.png

@shapeless

description
The description fields shows the description value of element defined in the IFC model…

system
The system field shows which system the element belongs.
It is usually available for building service elements like ducts and pipes.
The system can be e.g. “Outgoing Air”.

3e5259dc-413d-4c01-8a06-44ee8d35052d-image.png

model categories
The model categories field shows which model categories the model of element belongs.
It is filled only when the user have set models to categories.
They can be edited using the command from popup menu of the model tree.
The model categories can be e.g. “Building Services”

c5941283-df05-4920-8d19-09c55fdfbb13-image.png