Compare room footprints between models

Alex.J

Hi all

I’d like to compare room footprints from different models (electrical vs architectural).
I’d like to allow a high tolerance.
I tried rule 234 but it’s still returning a lot of noise. Hence I want to compare only the room with the same numbers.

Any idea how I could achieve that? Room numbers are written identically.

I’d be thankful for any insights…

Matti

If there is not too many rooms in the model: then make a ruleset with rule 234 instances for each room. One rule checks one room number.

Alex.J

Thanks for your reply @Matti
unfortunately I have 1400 rooms… so making one rule per room number is not viable (it would also be a pain to maintain it when room numbers are changed)

marchi

hi alex,
#234 is a good choice, but have you tried #223/#224 with vertical tolerance?

Alex.J

SOL/223 and 224 don’t work. It seems like they ignore rooms.

john.lipp

You could use Rule 171 to check areas or perimeters of rooms are the same. However, since you need a tolerance, you’ll need a way to analyze the differences.

You could pin ITO in the Checking Layout, set the selection basket to the failing components and view their areas/perimeters to see their differences. In the ITO set the selection basket to those with large differences, and in the results filter by selected to only create issues for those.

The out of the box area and perimeter quantities works to eye ball the values, but you can also use the attached javascript ITO that reports variance between footprint and volume of spaces grouped by room number. This should also work with other components (e.g. rectangular columns) that should have similar footprints.

Footprint and Volume Variance.ito
Room Counts by Area and Perimeter.ito
Component Property Values Must Be Consistent.cset

Alex.J

Thanks @john-lipp, that’s an interesting approach.
For now I will stick to rule 234 and go by floor, this seems to be quick enough. I still have to sort out a lot of false positives but it’s probably easier than juggling back and forth with the ITO.

I’ll keep in mind this ITO for other use cases though!