General Discussion

@Harmen-Jorritsma,
Nogmaals dank voor je antwoorden.
Wat Sparingen betreft:

Wil graag controleren of de sparingen (Rond, Vierkant) voldoende (project specifiek) afstand hebben t.o.v. elkaar en wanden / vloeren randen. of alle installatie componten zijn voorzien van een sparingen,
zoals voorbeeld van UK rulset SUK/1002.

@Harmen-Jorritsma said in Solibri center Company Extensions:

@Mvandenbrink @tonigyllenberg

Is de Company Extension not only available In Solibri Office?
https://www.solibri.com/nl/producten

image.png

Generally speaking yes, this is how it has been communicated. However, the setup gets a little bit more complex when we speak about e.g. a Solibri Office license holder who is using Site.

OK. Do not think there is a possibility to check if grids are the same in models…
Would not recommend it either to have a solibri model where all models have grids because of the limitations Solibri has in how grids are projected…

@Pasi-Paasiala Perhaps a dialog box for comparison could appear just before model update? At the moment of update there are 2 versions of the same model in solibri. Perhaps thats the fine time for comparison.
If after comparison user could reject update, that would save so much 🙂

I use it in a different context and noticed the same. I was also wondering why there are two different types of BREPs which look like the same?
Actually I don’t have them in all models and without reading this I would still scratch my head and wonder why I am missing stuff.

image.png

There is another discussion quite similar to your topic. I’ve alson been trying to solve this, still unsuccesful (mostly due to lack of learning time). But I suggest you take a look at this thread, maybe you’ll get some ideas:
https://society.solibri.com/topic/2947/clash-detection-ignoring-provisionforvoid/6

Additionally, exporting all Classifications and ITOs (once the link to a save location is broken ) one by one is a monkey job. Why is there edicated user friendly “Export all” functionality?

I mean, there is not even a “Select all” option …

image.png

Nedlees to say that I have to select the path over and over again. And suddenly it just aborts because the OS does not allow me to save the classification names in the file system.

d2c26668-6f3c-4d0d-b609-efa171f8b9c5-image.png

Leading me again to the old question why ressource save names are not saved and it is so hard to give them a different name in the consecutive workflow.

And if the process aborts, I have of course to select all the ticks again and again and again.
But the best part is - in the end there are some files even missing and I have to manually resave them anyhow.

@tonigyllenberg sent the files now.

Happens here aswell, been like this for aslong as I can remember.

@Solibrians Any updates on this?
We’re facing the same issue again with a project that has large linear expansion.
Would it be possible to define and control the origin of the section planes in a better way?

@Harmen-Jorritsma Hi @Harmen-Jorritsma Thank you for your response. I think that will be a useful tip to catch anything misplaced outside the building envelope. I am trying to catch BW hole Generic model elements which are no longer required.
It almost requires a rule not intersecting with an MEP system and a wall or a fire wall to identify floating elements within the building.

Hi Harmen,
Thanks for your quick reply.
We will use the backup file and make sure that we don’t shut down the computer immediately after saving in future.

This is so useful, thank you

Hi Simon, thanks for the response. I had done your suggestion in adding the additional column in the template and populating from the ITO but hadn’t thought about the comparison rule. Will give that a go!

@Matti I did end up contacting the support, but they said I shouldn’t have been able to install an offline license, as it didn’t show up in our company account and we don’t have the right license. I accidentally did… I just let the 14 days timer run out and got my online license back.

@jakub-rusin

Is this still valid?

The visability of the selection contrast has been improved a while ago! Thanks.
I added the follow up post to this topic as I thought it might be a good fit here.

@phuc-nguyen yes, it is component.getFootprint().getArea().getMinimumBoundingRectangle()
Even if it is axis-aligned like getBoundingBox().getSizeX() and Y(), the values are not equal to Component.getBoundingBoxWidth() and getBoundingBoxLength()