When generating a printout report that includes line hinges, the report currently lists every assigned line and surface for each hinge. For large models spanning whole floors or entire buildings, this produces a large volume of repetitive text that clutters the report (multiple pages and makes conditions less readable) — particularly when the line hinges are already visualized graphically.
It would be very helpful to have an option in the printout report settings to display only the conditions of the line hinge, without the full list of assigned lines and surfaces. This would mirror how unused hinges are currently shown in the report (condensed/summary format).
Why it matters:
Keeps reports concise and easier to read, especially for large models
Reduces unnecessary repetition when hinge assignments are already visible in the graphic
Gives users more control over report content and level of detail
Hello ColtonC, and welcome to the Dlubal Community!
Thank you very much for your feedback - it helps us continuously improve RFEM.
You are correct: the assignment of line hinges to surfaces and lines cannot currently be controlled separately. By right-clicking and selecting “Edit,” you can only filter or display line hinges by their numbers.
From my perspective, however, clear assignment is essential for a checking engineer or third party to ensure proper traceability. At the same time, your concern that the printout report could become very large under certain conditions (e.g., large models with a wide variety of line hinge types) is absolutely valid.
For this reason, I have documented your feature request in our system under RUS ID 6289. You can check the status in your Dlubal Center under “Development” → “Implemented Features.”
You can also refer to this ID if you submit further inquiries or discuss the topic with us.
However, the following feature shown in the images below might already help you better structure your printout report
Yes I definitely agree that there needs to be clarity and traceability for the checking engineer. For this reason I always place a clear picture of each line hinge type in a separate picture which allows the checking engineer to see things more clearly, as well as not have to cross check line # and hinge type from a table. This makes the table line assignment completely unnecessary and the reason for my request.
Your recommendation is helpful and is similar to what I do. However I use multiprint because then the views will actualize if I end up changing something. I imagine if I do an individual picture as you show that the print out report will not actualize correct?
you’re right. With my approach, only the future changes to the objects themselves are updated dynamically, but not the object list if new objects are added over time.
@maximilian.wittmann just to come back to this and the neccessity for a change to be done here (simple selection of including the called the line hinges in the definition table or not, just like member hinges).
Within my report 43 pages will have to be used just so I can show a table of the line hinges in my model. Quite frustrating for the size of the PDF. Just want to keep it on top of mind and request this change to be put through! Below is an example of page....
