General Discussion

@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()

hello this is alice comment by alice sec

Current BCF-API (the buildingSMART standard used to communicate with BIMcollab) does not support custom fields. The support is planned in a future version.

@JSN said in Names of ITOs are getting trunca...:

An addtionaly method in the interface for setItoDefinition would be highly appreciated. Calculate only seems to switch to a given <ItoDefinition> if there really was a recalculation performed … so my workaround to improve the usability for working with lots of ITOs is not really satisfying me so far.

At the very least, please allow us to improve the usability ourselves.

I am experiencing a very similar issue so I start thinking this doesn’t only apply to the rule mentioned above.
In fact this seems to be of general nature.

In my case I’m working on a ACC-connected Solibri-coordination model containing 30 models (aproximately 300k objects) I do need to rely on updating the single models on a regular basis. Starting a new fresh Solibri-project every 3 weeks isn’t an option.

Just as described above I experience that previous issues do remain in the results and the viewport stays the same even though the issue is resolved.
The number behind the result are giving me a clue that there actually are less issues than displayed in the viewport.
So I accidently discovered this work-around: since I was sure that certain issues where resolved I deleted the connected slides for the results. Without even re-running the check I suddendly see the correct clashes in the viewport.
This manual fixing is ruining my clash detection workflow from checking to presentation.
What is more this is by far not sustainable to follow up on the 500+ongoing issues.

Dear team at Solibri: Are you aware of this bug? When will this be fixed?
Is there anything we’re doing wrong?

Did you managed to resolve this issue?

can you share IFC of a specific floor in your building?
It relly depands on the way you modeling.
for example, do you have a space that represents the entire apartment? you can use this to check …

@Mario , Thank you.

I found Rule 208, but its results are inconsistent, so I opened a bug report and I’m waiting for support.

Hi Ville, you can use the ‘Checked Components’ View for this. It’s available from the ‘Views’ pulldown menu in the Layout bar.
71c88623-2881-4e49-8d54-dcfb1858c072-image.png
You use the ‘Checked Components’ View in combination with the ‘Checking’ View:

Perform a Model Check Select a Rule in the ‘Checking View’ The ‘Checked Components’ View will list the components that were handled by the Rule. The components can by organised in various categories: ‘Checked Components’, ‘Passed Components’ & ‘Failed Components’ But also: ‘Accepted’ , ‘Rejected’ & ‘Undefined’ You can visualize the components in the list in the 3D View by selecting one, or multiple rows

010abaf2-6660-4e98-aee3-a14900abfb04-image.png

This View is indeed especially helpful for ‘debugging’ Gatekeeper Rules. It gives you insight into which components have been checked and which components are passed on from the Parent Rule to the Sub Rule.

Thnak you @Matti

solved!

Hi,

I would like to reopen this topic. I’m using Solibri version 25.3.2.65.

I realized that Solibri just seems to calculate Areas and Thickness when IfcCovering contains Predifined Type as CEILING. When it is used other Predifined Type like CLADDING, FLOORING, INSULATION, etc then Solibri doesn’t calculate the those quantities. But basicly this are the same elements. Why and how to go arround this issue so one can get those quantities for all IfcCoverings?

Nuno

image.png

There are some open issues with Solibri quantities.
I could not find reported case about space perimeter.
Please send report and small sample to [email protected].

@Mvandenbrink said in Model Color changes (still) not respected till today?:

@tonigyllenberg Are model color changes fixed in the 25.6.0 beta release?

Unfortunately not yet for the June release. Keep a lookout for these in the later releases this year.

@yb_ Which version are you working with?

With 25.3.1 we implemented improvements to the visualizations with API rules, which affect also CDM. We have the next version (25.6.0) coming out next week with some more goodies, so might be good to wait for that.

In any case, performance related issues are on the list this whole year. If you have not yet, please log this issue with our support team at [email protected]. It would be good to reproduce the issue, and provide also the log files.

Kind regards,

Toni