You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I tested the ClashDetectionService time consuming with MEP.ifc which in "IFC-files-master". It tooke over 150s.
It consist of client.getModel(...)——30s, offlineGeometryGenerator.generateForAllElements(pluginManager)——120s and clashDetector.findClashes()—— 15s.
Now I get the model Object by DownloadByOidsDatabaseAction.execute() which could get the model Object within 1s. Also, the model has contained geometry info and no need to call the "offlineGeometryGenerator.generateForAllElements(pluginManager)".
Of course, the ClashDetectionService Plugin didn't call the method "generateForAllElements" except in test method. But it wouldn't work without the call in BimServer1.4-2015-11-04 ——uhm, yeah……I ran the code in 1.4 after some modify.
This means the ClashDetectionService time consuming will be within 20s which the original time consuming over 150s.
Is there a problem with this idea?@rubendel
kind regards
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I tested the ClashDetectionService time consuming with MEP.ifc which in "IFC-files-master". It tooke over 150s.
It consist of client.getModel(...)——30s, offlineGeometryGenerator.generateForAllElements(pluginManager)——120s and clashDetector.findClashes()—— 15s.
Now I get the model Object by DownloadByOidsDatabaseAction.execute() which could get the model Object within 1s. Also, the model has contained geometry info and no need to call the "offlineGeometryGenerator.generateForAllElements(pluginManager)".
Of course, the ClashDetectionService Plugin didn't call the method "generateForAllElements" except in test method. But it wouldn't work without the call in BimServer1.4-2015-11-04 ——uhm, yeah……I ran the code in 1.4 after some modify.
This means the ClashDetectionService time consuming will be within 20s which the original time consuming over 150s.
Is there a problem with this idea?@rubendel
kind regards
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: