Hi,
there are some issues with exporting schedule to docx:
The additional reinforcement is not considered when using variable lenght reinforcement.
When using compact table the reinforcement is not exported to schedule at all.
3)When using member multiplicator the variable reinforcement is not multiplied with member multiplicator.
Any news about fixing this problem?
@andrei ?
Hello @TomazSabec,
from all the points I am aware only about the variable rebars in compact tables which are not exported.
Also I cannot confirm if the fix is already out in the latest service pack, if not, then will come in the next one.
Please place this kind of questions/request to our support (at) sofistik (dot) com, we will be able like this to react faster than here in forum.
I will be investigating all of the points and if they are confirmed as issues, they will definitely get a fix in the next service pack → beginning of December.
Ok, I just think that way more people can get aware of the problem and be careful with schedule, so they don’t get calls from construction site like me. Thanks.
we encounter an issue while trying to fix point 1 and 3 together.
The report-browser schedule we noticed that is delivering wrong result => wrong amount of reinforcement, this means the feature that time was not thought to be implemented in this combination.
To be able to keep a logic for point 1) where you can add bars for a specific subposition, we think to complete the text from “Additional” input case to “Additional bars for each laying” this will solve the confusion → “where are this bars added? in which member? applies this for every layings?” The user will know at that point while he is about to add bars for a submark that this will apply for all the distributions(layings) he has in his drawing which are refering to that varying position.
Important note: we will not invest time to fix this in the report-browser schedule which is also wrong!
Thanks for replying and looking into issues.
If I understand correctly you will fix issues in points 2. and 3. for export in docx schedule in next service pack. I don’t really use additional bars (issues was mentioned to me by collegue of mine).
Currently I am comparing plb schedule and docx schedule just to be safe, because issues 2. and 3. don’t apply for plb schedule.
we will fix everything only in DOCX schedule, and to avoid confusion we will change/adapt the text for additional bars for the sub-positions.
so, if you have additional bars for a sub-position in a varying laying and this in separate members with different member multiplier in the report-browser schedule will be wrong => if you will compare it, you will get different results but the DOCX is the right one
