General Discussion

@Anees-Alomar 👍

The topic is quite old (said Solibri) but still active until today.
While I was performing a check on my model came up with the same problemt that was facing in October. In the meantime I got an advice from @marchi to create Slides not on the category of the problem but directly on the problem, meaning the triangle (underneath the category). Sadly this did not help, since problems are still somehow connected to old components that should not be there anymore.

In my newest example I demonstrate you the case with the height between two components. On the left is the old file where I had created the slide, whereas on the right is the todays check.

699f367d-c34a-4ef1-994b-c0049d10acc9-grafik.png

In the old case, the Decke2.1 and Decke 1.3 where in conflict. In todays model this conflict does not exist anymore but Solibri tends to see a problem here, hence identifying the old slide as a problem (triangle). If you look closely, the Decke1.3 does not exist anymore in the components list, but other slabs are there which do not pose a threat to Decke2.1. I have also checked, the GUIDs for the other slabs is not the same as the old slabs.

In my opinion, Solibri is not able to sort problems here. If a slab has new problems, then the old ones should not be documented. This showcases that old problems still remain active, even though newer components are causing problems with the old ones.
Is this a bug I am facing since the last year, or am I doing something wrong in my workflow?
@Solibrians any thoughts on this?

Thanks so much for this. It looks like this setting was one of those little things that Windows has hidden to gradually streamline the OS (not altogether a bad thing), but this particular set of options has missed my attention until now!

Great @Matti-Kannala! That’s work fine!

I was using the Property Group ‘Relations’, that’s the problem… When i’m using the Property Group ‘Location’ > ‘Nearest Space’ i can check the model on the property ‘Top Elevation’ with the correct value. Fixed! 👍

Thanks for your answer!

“but what if there is no intersection beam in the middle?”

The visualization under the parameter shows a case when there is an connection to other beam.
In case you don’t have it the the allowed area is not having that gap.

@Matti-Kannala Thank you~

ooh now I understand the problem. It worked, Thank you!! 🙂

Thank you! That works 🙂

Hi Matti, thanks for your reply, I use this rule to check if each room has a door, but we have many rooms as open space and don’t have doors. So my question was: is it possible to check “only rooms that are closed with at least 4 walls”?

That sounds good, thanks for the fast responds.

/Henrik

No problem, glad to hear it helped!

Thanks!

Will be much appreciated.

ASAP. The fixing is already in progress.

Also trying a list of values doesn’t take zero:

Screen Shot 2020-04-29 at 03.59.19.png

Thanks for the replies!

I ween quite busy lately, but now I’m back with this problem. I checked that link and it was helpful for me to get started.

In my case, there is a lot of different spaces overlapping, such as gross areas etc. I managed to exclude them by modifying the classification.

I got the spaces listed and their furniture listed below the spaces (the curtain rails are furniture in this model). Now the problem is that in some spaces contain a lot of furniture (like 100 pieces). Is there any way to filter what furniture elements are included (by classification or something like that) since at this point, I’m only interested in the curtain rails (in most spaces there are no curtains or just maybe 1 or 2 elements out of 10 to 100) and this is quite messy with all the elements included?

85c16f78-5215-4642-ae78-a88e8639cbe8-image.png

Thanks in advance,

Antti