Community
Civil 3D Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Civil 3D Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular AutoCAD Civil 3D topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Civil3D 2005

46 REPLIES 46
Reply
Message 1 of 47
Anonymous
453 Views, 46 Replies

Civil3D 2005

Does anyone know if anything new is going to be implemented in Civil3D 2005? Perhaps a website? I'm really looking forward to being able to attach a grading object to a vertical alignment. Along those lines, will 2005 be a download or will it be shipped? Brian
46 REPLIES 46
Message 2 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi Brian - Unfortunately we're unable to discuss details on timing/scope for any future products so there's no website that I can point you to. However there are some pretty reasonable assumptions that you can make. If (hypothetically) a future (hypothethical) Civil 3D product was built on AutoCAD 2005 it would need to have the same deployment requirements as AutoCAD 2005 (i.e. there would be a full installation, so no download option). As a general observation, to me it appears that overall feature maturity/quality (particularly with grading) and road/corridor modeling (sectional design) are the most common/highest priority requests from our users. One could assume that we use this information to define the highest priority items in our list of requirements for future product plans. How, when, or even if this turns into shipped product can't be discussed publicly. We'll make sure your request for the ability to grade off the vertical alignment is on our requirements list. (again, no promises on when/if/how/etc) Now that I think about it - your request is a pretty specific "feature" request. I'm very interested in the details of the task(s) that you're trying to complete. That way we can properly prioritize and scope/spec features. Your request is to grade off a proposed profile. Is this because the current product doesn't have corridor modeling capabilities? Is your request that you need to be able to model a road, channel, etc that has ben defined by horizontal and vertical alignments? Does the need to grade off a profile become less important if there is dynamic corridor modeling functionality in the product? Is there something else that you are doing that may require a different solution? Thanks for the feedback and sorry that I can't give you the details that your looking for. Dave S "Brian Hailey" wrote in message news:404e28d2_2@newsprd01... > Does anyone know if anything new is going to be implemented in Civil3D 2005? > Perhaps a website? I'm really looking forward to being able to attach a > grading object to a vertical alignment. > > Along those lines, will 2005 be a download or will it be shipped? > > Brian > >
Message 3 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi Dave, Wow! That sure is a wordy (or not) way of not saying anything (or something). :) Around here we don't do a lot of roadway design that isn't part of a subdivision and typically, we don't have to do cross sections for these roads and, hence, I haven't taken the time to learn the template processes. What I typically do is to design the centerline of the roadway and import that into my plan as a 3d pline, offset it to define my road section and use those 3d plines to build my surface. The nice thing about doing it this way is I can go into each intersection and manually design them with breaklines and I get a very accurate surface. What I would like to see with Civil3D is having grading objects attached to the vertical alignment so that when I change the design of the roadway, the grading objects will change along with it. I was thinking I would define the grading objects along the entire alignment except within the intersections. Taking this a bit further, perhaps I could use the grading objects to grade an entire block of homes. For example, I have four roadways in a rectangular shape surrounding a group of homes. I attach a grading object to the vertical profiles and have it do the following: 1) 17' at -2% to the edge of asphalt 2) 2' dropping 2" to the flowline 3) 6" raising 6" to the back of curb 4) 4' at 2% for the sidewalk 5) variable distance at 2% until it joins with the other grading objects. Obviously, this wouldn't work for all blocks and each one would have to be looked at individually but, it's something to think about. Brian "Dave Simeone" wrote in message news:40507c28$1_3@newsprd01... > > Hi Brian - Unfortunately we're unable to discuss details on timing/scope for > any future products so there's no website that I can point you to. > > However there are some pretty reasonable assumptions that you can make. If > (hypothetically) a future (hypothethical) Civil 3D product was built on > AutoCAD 2005 it would need to have the same deployment requirements as > AutoCAD 2005 (i.e. there would be a full installation, so no download > option). > > As a general observation, to me it appears that overall feature > maturity/quality (particularly with grading) and road/corridor modeling > (sectional design) are the most common/highest priority requests from our > users. One could assume that we use this information to define the highest > priority items in our list of requirements for future product plans. How, > when, or even if this turns into shipped product can't be discussed > publicly. We'll make sure your request for the ability to grade off the > vertical alignment is on our requirements list. (again, no promises on > when/if/how/etc) > > Now that I think about it - your request is a pretty specific "feature" > request. I'm very interested in the details of the task(s) that you're > trying to complete. That way we can properly prioritize and scope/spec > features. Your request is to grade off a proposed profile. Is this because > the current product doesn't have corridor modeling capabilities? Is your > request that you need to be able to model a road, channel, etc that has ben > defined by horizontal and vertical alignments? Does the need to grade off a > profile become less important if there is dynamic corridor modeling > functionality in the product? Is there something else that you are doing > that may require a different solution? > > Thanks for the feedback and sorry that I can't give you the details that > your looking for. > Dave S > > "Brian Hailey" wrote in message > news:404e28d2_2@newsprd01... > > Does anyone know if anything new is going to be implemented in Civil3D > 2005? > > Perhaps a website? I'm really looking forward to being able to attach a > > grading object to a vertical alignment. > > > > Along those lines, will 2005 be a download or will it be shipped? > > > > Brian > > > > > >
Message 4 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi Dave, > Does the need to grade off a profile become less > important if there is dynamic corridor modeling > functionality in the product? Is there something else > that you are doing that may require a different solution? I do not wish to speak for Brian, I am sure he will offer his own take. But as a site designer, the marriage of a grading object to a profile (and alignment) is the most important grading feature that has never been addressed in either LDT nor C3D. You guys have always treated corridor design and site design as two distinctly different disciplines, when in fact, the designer often needs to use common methods. The approach would be to use 'quick' alignments for much more than traditional roads and channels. As a site designer I may want to layout the swale or berm in plan view, but input or modify the vertical data for that swale in profile. Then attach various grading objects that describe the ditch/berm and any associated features, then control the whole grading by the profile(and alignment). Stationing may be arbitrary as opposed to absolute. Having to go through the whole corridor process by defining templates would be an exorbitant waste of time. As I design the back of a cul-de-sac or a return, I may want to layout the curb in plan view (arc), add some elevations to the end points, and then view that arc in profile to add a pvi add the back of curb with a vertical curve. A grading group could be made to represent the sidewalk and row. and I could see my grading change as I change the profile. In fact, for local residential roads in subdivisions, forget corridor design altogether (at least for preliminary design) Layout a CL alignment, define a FG profile, attach several dependent grading objects to the alignment that define the road section, and play with profile while querying the grading group. Now you are designing a road in 2d and 3d at the same time. I suppose you could even take it a step farther and attached pad grading to the grading group, since most pad grading is controlled by roadway top of curb elevations. In LDT 3d polylines have limitations - no arcs in 3d. Designers really need to work in profile and plan at the same time. We get around this by converting 3d polys back and forth to alignments and profiles using our own routines. But we are restricted by the definition of the 3d poly. In C3D, you could have a feature lines, made up of arcs and tangents, and hopefully controlled by alignments and profiles. So we can have curves that have elevations. By attaching alignments and profiles to feature lines to grading objects, you provide a very simple process for grouping simple grading objects to define a more complicated design, that is controlled by the alignment and profile. You also need to supplement features lines with many more interactive ways for the designer to edit and manipulate the elevation directly from plan view, that result in the profile being changed, that result in changes to the grading group. sc
Message 5 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

And what's the problem with using the 3D Polyline tools in the Terrain pull down. They are capable of creating "short chord" curves all day long. Yes, Steve the process you've described would be the ideal, but check out the tools that we have now and you will discover the solution, most times. I know for a fact that you're capable of "thinking outside the box". Whoa, I just had an epiphane! Inside said 3D Polyline tools is the ability to fillet a 3D Poly. Why can't we use that to help us create curb returns? We can get the 3DPs from the templates that establish the grade of the gutter flowlines into and out of the intersections. Then create a separate 3DP with a vertex point at the horz/vert PI of the curve. Then fillet that 3DP with the proper radius of the curb return and Viola! you've got the basis for all the rest of the curb return geometry. I can't wait to give it a try! I'll bet some fancy programmer could take that concept and make some serious money with it! Now, if I only knew how to accomplish that. Maybe whoever takes the idea would share the royalties with me. Sure, dream on! -- Don Reichle "King of Work-Arounds" Ifland Engineers, Inc. "Steve Cannon" wrote in message news:40508db2$1_2@newsprd01... > Hi Dave, > > > Does the need to grade off a profile become less > > important if there is dynamic corridor modeling > > functionality in the product? Is there something else > > that you are doing that may require a different solution? > > > I do not wish to speak for Brian, I am sure he will offer his own take. But > as a site designer, the marriage of a grading object to a profile (and > alignment) is the most important grading feature that has never been > addressed in either LDT nor C3D. You guys have always treated corridor > design and site design as two distinctly different disciplines, when in > fact, the designer often needs to use common methods. The approach would be > to use 'quick' alignments for much more than traditional roads and channels. > > As a site designer I may want to layout the swale or berm in plan view, but > input or modify the vertical data for that swale in profile. Then attach > various grading objects that describe the ditch/berm and any associated > features, then control the whole grading by the profile(and alignment). > Stationing may be arbitrary as opposed to absolute. Having to go through the > whole corridor process by defining templates would be an exorbitant waste of > time. > > As I design the back of a cul-de-sac or a return, I may want to layout the > curb in plan view (arc), add some elevations to the end points, and then > view that arc in profile to add a pvi add the back of curb with a vertical > curve. A grading group could be made to represent the sidewalk and row. and > I could see my grading change as I change the profile. > > In fact, for local residential roads in subdivisions, forget corridor design > altogether (at least for preliminary design) Layout a CL alignment, define a > FG profile, attach several dependent grading objects to the alignment that > define the road section, and play with profile while querying the grading > group. Now you are designing a road in 2d and 3d at the same time. I > suppose you could even take it a step farther and attached pad grading to > the grading group, since most pad grading is controlled by roadway top of > curb elevations. > > In LDT 3d polylines have limitations - no arcs in 3d. Designers really need > to work in profile and plan at the same time. We get around this by > converting 3d polys back and forth to alignments and profiles using our own > routines. But we are restricted by the definition of the 3d poly. In C3D, > you could have a feature lines, made up of arcs and tangents, and hopefully > controlled by alignments and profiles. So we can have curves that have > elevations. By attaching alignments and profiles to feature lines to grading > objects, you provide a very simple process for grouping simple grading > objects to define a more complicated design, that is controlled by the > alignment and profile. You also need to supplement features lines with many > more interactive ways for the designer to edit and manipulate the elevation > directly from plan view, that result in the profile being changed, that > result in changes to the grading group. > > sc > >
Message 6 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi Don, If only the fillet 3D polyline was that easy. Don't forget that vertically it just does a linear interpretation between the end levels. It would need to be modified to take account of the grades in the approach and departure legs and created a curved vertical profile to be fully useful. -- Laurie Comerford CADApps www.cadapps.com.au "Don Reichle" wrote in message news:4050bfec$1_2@newsprd01... > And what's the problem with using the 3D Polyline tools in the Terrain pull > down. They are capable of creating "short chord" curves all day long. > > Yes, Steve the process you've described would be the ideal, but check out > the tools that we have now and you will discover the solution, most times. > > I know for a fact that you're capable of "thinking outside the box". > > Whoa, I just had an epiphane! > > Inside said 3D Polyline tools is the ability to fillet a 3D Poly. Why can't > we use that to help us create curb returns? We can get the 3DPs from the > templates that establish the grade of the gutter flowlines into and out of > the intersections. Then create a separate 3DP with a vertex point at the > horz/vert PI of the curve. Then fillet that 3DP with the proper radius of > the curb return and Viola! you've got the basis for all the rest of the curb > return geometry. I can't wait to give it a try! > > I'll bet some fancy programmer could take that concept and make some serious > money with it! > > Now, if I only knew how to accomplish that. Maybe whoever takes the idea > would share the royalties with me. > > Sure, dream on! > -- > Don Reichle > "King of Work-Arounds" > Ifland Engineers, Inc. > > "Steve Cannon" wrote in message > news:40508db2$1_2@newsprd01... > > Hi Dave, > > > > > Does the need to grade off a profile become less > > > important if there is dynamic corridor modeling > > > functionality in the product? Is there something else > > > that you are doing that may require a different solution? > > > > > > I do not wish to speak for Brian, I am sure he will offer his own take. > But > > as a site designer, the marriage of a grading object to a profile (and > > alignment) is the most important grading feature that has never been > > addressed in either LDT nor C3D. You guys have always treated corridor > > design and site design as two distinctly different disciplines, when in > > fact, the designer often needs to use common methods. The approach would > be > > to use 'quick' alignments for much more than traditional roads and > channels. > > > > As a site designer I may want to layout the swale or berm in plan view, > but > > input or modify the vertical data for that swale in profile. Then attach > > various grading objects that describe the ditch/berm and any associated > > features, then control the whole grading by the profile(and alignment). > > Stationing may be arbitrary as opposed to absolute. Having to go through > the > > whole corridor process by defining templates would be an exorbitant waste > of > > time. > > > > As I design the back of a cul-de-sac or a return, I may want to layout the > > curb in plan view (arc), add some elevations to the end points, and then > > view that arc in profile to add a pvi add the back of curb with a vertical > > curve. A grading group could be made to represent the sidewalk and row. > and > > I could see my grading change as I change the profile. > > > > In fact, for local residential roads in subdivisions, forget corridor > design > > altogether (at least for preliminary design) Layout a CL alignment, define > a > > FG profile, attach several dependent grading objects to the alignment that > > define the road section, and play with profile while querying the grading > > group. Now you are designing a road in 2d and 3d at the same time. I > > suppose you could even take it a step farther and attached pad grading to > > the grading group, since most pad grading is controlled by roadway top of > > curb elevations. > > > > In LDT 3d polylines have limitations - no arcs in 3d. Designers really > need > > to work in profile and plan at the same time. We get around this by > > converting 3d polys back and forth to alignments and profiles using our > own > > routines. But we are restricted by the definition of the 3d poly. In > C3D, > > you could have a feature lines, made up of arcs and tangents, and > hopefully > > controlled by alignments and profiles. So we can have curves that have > > elevations. By attaching alignments and profiles to feature lines to > grading > > objects, you provide a very simple process for grouping simple grading > > objects to define a more complicated design, that is controlled by the > > alignment and profile. You also need to supplement features lines with > many > > more interactive ways for the designer to edit and manipulate the > elevation > > directly from plan view, that result in the profile being changed, that > > result in changes to the grading group. > > > > sc > > > > > >
Message 7 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Dave, I'd much rather see pipes added into C3D. We do a lot of municipal work with sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and waterline work. The roadwork stuff sort of comes and goes, but the utility work is our bread and butter. Having pipe objects that work like the profile objects would be a dream come true for us. Then to have the sheet set manager do our plan/profile layouts. Just my wish for how things were to work out. Shawn Caldwell Cad Manager Anderson & Associates, Inc.
Message 8 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Only for you Aussies. Most US "kerbs" are done with a straight grade between returns. The fillet 3Dpoly works just fine for our use. Really, we just grade to the return, the concrete guy forms a straight line or some such between them, and off to the rodeo. At least for all the commercial/SF jobs we've done. Your requirements are why we don't have a simplified intersection grading routine. You and all the other customers outside the US. Every time I've told Dan, et al how easy it is to do curb returns in the US, they just kind of sigh and tell me that they couldn't do that because all the international people would raise holy hell. -- James Wedding, P.E. IT Manager Jones & Boyd, Inc. Dallas, TX XP/1 on P4-1.6/512 LDT2004+C3D
Message 9 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi, On returns, we do not go to the extent that the Aussies do, but your over-simplification does not work for us either. Design of the return depends upon the algebraic difference of the intersecting grades, rather or not we are using a valley gutter, and the location of the return - a high side return is designed differently than a low side return. The intent is to keep the trickle flow in the flowline and headed in the desired direction. Some returns are as you say- straight graded, others will have different slopes and a VPI. Infrastructure plans require return quarter point elevations for both TC and FL - and these points are staked in the field for the concrete guys. The key is to make the intersection components easily and interactively post editable, and hopefully parametric. I would find this preferable to making the designer pre-define the whole design as one rigid intersection style. Every intersection is not going to be the same. Hopefully C3D is not designed only for Texans - but then you probably lump New Mexico in with the foreigners anyway. sc "James Wedding" wrote in message news:4050d288$1_2@newsprd01... > Only for you Aussies. Most US "kerbs" are done with a straight grade between > returns. The fillet 3Dpoly works just fine for our use. > > Really, we just grade to the return, the concrete guy forms a straight line > or some such between them, and off to the rodeo. At least for all the > commercial/SF jobs we've done. > > Your requirements are why we don't have a simplified intersection grading > routine. You and all the other customers outside the US. Every time > I've told Dan, et al how easy it is to do curb returns in the US, they just > kind of sigh and tell me that they couldn't do that because all the > international people would raise holy hell. > > -- > James Wedding, P.E. > IT Manager > Jones & Boyd, Inc. > Dallas, TX > XP/1 on P4-1.6/512 > LDT2004+C3D > >
Message 10 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi James, One of the issues is that most of the world has some degree of level change. My memory of the Dallas area was that anything higher than a metre above the surrounding plain would be called a mountain. What works in flat country does not work once the topography gets steeper. It's certainly true that the kerb returns are usually site adjusted despite the design. As Steve Cannon indicated a common form of documentation is levels at the quarter points. Typically here the levels are derived from a vertical design inclusive of curves. At the moment, we obviously don't raise enough hell as the intersection design tools in Civil Design are non-existent and Civil 3D yet to be seen. Find me a tool which enables me to pick two centrelines and an intersection layout type - fill out the relevant radii parameters, then get on with my life. Find me a tool which enables the complete vertical design of the intersection without writing numbers on a sheet of paper so I can re-input them later. (Whoops - I've got that one in Advanced Road Design) -- Laurie Comerford CADApps www.cadapps.com.au "James Wedding" wrote in message news:4050d288$1_2@newsprd01... > Only for you Aussies. Most US "kerbs" are done with a straight grade between > returns. The fillet 3Dpoly works just fine for our use. > > Really, we just grade to the return, the concrete guy forms a straight line > or some such between them, and off to the rodeo. At least for all the > commercial/SF jobs we've done. > > Your requirements are why we don't have a simplified intersection grading > routine. You and all the other customers outside the US. Every time > I've told Dan, et al how easy it is to do curb returns in the US, they just > kind of sigh and tell me that they couldn't do that because all the > international people would raise holy hell. > > -- > James Wedding, P.E. > IT Manager > Jones & Boyd, Inc. > Dallas, TX > XP/1 on P4-1.6/512 > LDT2004+C3D > >
Message 11 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Excellent feedback. Q - Historically we've generally "accepted" the tessalation of 3D vertical curves (ie, break the geometry into short segments) when working from a grading feature line. I'm guessing that ya'll - (I'm trying to learn to speak in Wedding's language - I've got "Ya'll" and "All y'all" down pretty nicely) - would like a smooth 3D spline. What is the requirement? The smoother the better? Engineers go to great lengths to have accurate vertical (profile) geometry. I'm guessing that the true 3D geometry should be carried through the grading of the EOP, Kerb (how's that all y'all Aussies?), etc geometry. Thanks DAS "Steve Cannon" wrote in message news:40508db2$1_2@newsprd01... > Hi Dave, > > > Does the need to grade off a profile become less > > important if there is dynamic corridor modeling > > functionality in the product? Is there something else > > that you are doing that may require a different solution? > > > I do not wish to speak for Brian, I am sure he will offer his own take. But > as a site designer, the marriage of a grading object to a profile (and > alignment) is the most important grading feature that has never been > addressed in either LDT nor C3D. You guys have always treated corridor > design and site design as two distinctly different disciplines, when in > fact, the designer often needs to use common methods. The approach would be > to use 'quick' alignments for much more than traditional roads and channels. > > As a site designer I may want to layout the swale or berm in plan view, but > input or modify the vertical data for that swale in profile. Then attach > various grading objects that describe the ditch/berm and any associated > features, then control the whole grading by the profile(and alignment). > Stationing may be arbitrary as opposed to absolute. Having to go through the > whole corridor process by defining templates would be an exorbitant waste of > time. > > As I design the back of a cul-de-sac or a return, I may want to layout the > curb in plan view (arc), add some elevations to the end points, and then > view that arc in profile to add a pvi add the back of curb with a vertical > curve. A grading group could be made to represent the sidewalk and row. and > I could see my grading change as I change the profile. > > In fact, for local residential roads in subdivisions, forget corridor design > altogether (at least for preliminary design) Layout a CL alignment, define a > FG profile, attach several dependent grading objects to the alignment that > define the road section, and play with profile while querying the grading > group. Now you are designing a road in 2d and 3d at the same time. I > suppose you could even take it a step farther and attached pad grading to > the grading group, since most pad grading is controlled by roadway top of > curb elevations. > > In LDT 3d polylines have limitations - no arcs in 3d. Designers really need > to work in profile and plan at the same time. We get around this by > converting 3d polys back and forth to alignments and profiles using our own > routines. But we are restricted by the definition of the 3d poly. In C3D, > you could have a feature lines, made up of arcs and tangents, and hopefully > controlled by alignments and profiles. So we can have curves that have > elevations. By attaching alignments and profiles to feature lines to grading > objects, you provide a very simple process for grouping simple grading > objects to define a more complicated design, that is controlled by the > alignment and profile. You also need to supplement features lines with many > more interactive ways for the designer to edit and manipulate the elevation > directly from plan view, that result in the profile being changed, that > result in changes to the grading group. > > sc > >
Message 12 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I've still not had a chance to try my epiphane, and so far I've not heard anything that has shot me down either. Except possibly that Yankee's weak attempt at Southern-speak. :-) If it's an approximation of a VC you want then just throw in some more PVI's on your trip around the kerb return. I support the efforts made to create better tools for us, but let's not skip over the ones we have already t'hand. And dare I mention the competition, but E____ P____ has a working model of Intersection Design at this very moment. And they have a pretty impressive dog and pony show to impress the masses. And as far as my experience with topography with relief goes, I cut my teeth working in San Diego, CA, USA. Not a town known for level areas, not even at the beach... Sunset Cliffs, etc. I'll have to catch the Instant Replay of the Dave & Dan Show tomorrow. Can't wait to hear Mr. Simeone decribe the pleasures of eating grits for breakfast! I'll bet even Laurie knows what they are, having had the pleasure of visiting the Great Lone Star State. Ya'll come back now, y'hear! -- Don Reichle "King of Work-Arounds" Ifland Engineers, Inc. "Shawn Caldwell" wrote in message news:4050ca9a_2@newsprd01... > Dave, > > I'd much rather see pipes added into C3D. We do a lot of municipal work with > sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and waterline work. The roadwork stuff sort of > comes and goes, but the utility work is our bread and butter. Having pipe > objects that work like the profile objects would be a dream come true for > us. Then to have the sheet set manager do our plan/profile layouts. > > Just my wish for how things were to work out. > > Shawn Caldwell > Cad Manager > Anderson & Associates, Inc. > >
Message 13 of 47
jlutterbach
in reply to: Anonymous

You guys need to check out a software package called MxRoad, formally MOSS. Everything is designed as plines, or STRINGS, as they call it. You've hit upon the BIG weakness of the template approach to design -- intersections. And it only gets worse when you're doing interchanges. It's amazing that template design methodology, which is based on 100 years of MANUAL civil design, has become king.

GO STRING Methodology! Now if they'd only make it object oriented too. -- jim


Message was edited by: jlutterbach
Message was edited by: jlutterbach
Message 14 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi, Moss was terrific in the 1970's and into the 1980's. After that the age of the code started to show. Although to you can create terrific designs with it and the theoretical model is great, have you ever seen a Moss/MX demo where they started by importing a survey as distinct from "we'll just call up this screen which shows what we did next". Did they supply accommodation and meals ? An interesting aspect of Moss is that it is very like an Autodesk Survey Fieldbook file. Many of the design things that Moss/MX does can be done with a Fieldbook. It simply takes a few years of training to get to understand and implement it. "jlutterbach" wrote in message news:20456793.1079054434380.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... > You guys need to check out a software package called MxRoad, formally MOSS. Everything is designed as plines, or STRINGS, as they call it. You've hit upon the BIG weakness of the template approach to design -- intersections. And if only gets worse when you doing interchanges. It's amazing this antiquated methodology based 100 years of manual civil design, has become king. > > GO STRING Methodology! Now if they'd only make it object oriented -- jim
Message 15 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi Dave, For the vast majority of road design (based on the ease of doing manual computations) horizontal geometry has been based on a combination of tangents, arcs and spirals (normally clothoid), while vertical geometry has been based on the parabola. I'm sure the cubic parabola would be a better theoretical model for the vertical alignment, but without getting into that discussion, it seems there is a limitation of human capability of designing the combined curve as one object. Until someone puts together an "object" which modifies the 3D behaviour while reporting: Cost - construction Cost - annual operating for the community as a whole Safe travel speed in dry weather, in wet weather, in snow conditions to suite much of North America, Europe and north Asia and only an area of Australia about the size of Switzerland. and allows the user to drag to it around in 3D, I think it is likely we will continue to do design the two more or less independently. The B-spline type curves may be viable for safe speed determination - possibly someone has a PhD in analysing this. If so, it hasn't come to my attention. However, unless there is a viable theoretical model, you probably need to stay with an object as described in the first paragraph. In terms of appearance in a drawing, there is a real limitation on using a tessellated 3D polyline. That is the real inability to grip edit it in a meaningful fashion. The alignment editing tools seem to handle this well in 2D, but for time reasons I haven't investigated the 3D dragging characteristics. -- Laurie Comerford CADApps www.cadapps.com.au "Dave Simeone" wrote in message news:4050ffc8$1_2@newsprd01... > Excellent feedback. > > Q - Historically we've generally "accepted" the tessalation of 3D vertical > curves (ie, break the geometry into short segments) when working from a > grading feature line. I'm guessing that ya'll - (I'm trying to learn to > speak in Wedding's language - I've got "Ya'll" and "All y'all" down pretty > nicely) - would like a smooth 3D spline. What is the requirement? The > smoother the better? Engineers go to great lengths to have accurate vertical > (profile) geometry. I'm guessing that the true 3D geometry should be carried > through the grading of the EOP, Kerb (how's that all y'all Aussies?), etc > geometry. > > Thanks > DAS > > > "Steve Cannon" wrote in message > news:40508db2$1_2@newsprd01... > > Hi Dave, > > > > > Does the need to grade off a profile become less > > > important if there is dynamic corridor modeling > > > functionality in the product? Is there something else > > > that you are doing that may require a different solution? > > > > > > I do not wish to speak for Brian, I am sure he will offer his own take. > But > > as a site designer, the marriage of a grading object to a profile (and > > alignment) is the most important grading feature that has never been > > addressed in either LDT nor C3D. You guys have always treated corridor > > design and site design as two distinctly different disciplines, when in > > fact, the designer often needs to use common methods. The approach would > be > > to use 'quick' alignments for much more than traditional roads and > channels. > > > > As a site designer I may want to layout the swale or berm in plan view, > but > > input or modify the vertical data for that swale in profile. Then attach > > various grading objects that describe the ditch/berm and any associated > > features, then control the whole grading by the profile(and alignment). > > Stationing may be arbitrary as opposed to absolute. Having to go through > the > > whole corridor process by defining templates would be an exorbitant waste > of > > time. > > > > As I design the back of a cul-de-sac or a return, I may want to layout the > > curb in plan view (arc), add some elevations to the end points, and then > > view that arc in profile to add a pvi add the back of curb with a vertical > > curve. A grading group could be made to represent the sidewalk and row. > and > > I could see my grading change as I change the profile. > > > > In fact, for local residential roads in subdivisions, forget corridor > design > > altogether (at least for preliminary design) Layout a CL alignment, define > a > > FG profile, attach several dependent grading objects to the alignment that > > define the road section, and play with profile while querying the grading > > group. Now you are designing a road in 2d and 3d at the same time. I > > suppose you could even take it a step farther and attached pad grading to > > the grading group, since most pad grading is controlled by roadway top of > > curb elevations. > > > > In LDT 3d polylines have limitations - no arcs in 3d. Designers really > need > > to work in profile and plan at the same time. We get around this by > > converting 3d polys back and forth to alignments and profiles using our > own > > routines. But we are restricted by the definition of the 3d poly. In > C3D, > > you could have a feature lines, made up of arcs and tangents, and > hopefully > > controlled by alignments and profiles. So we can have curves that have > > elevations. By attaching alignments and profiles to feature lines to > grading > > objects, you provide a very simple process for grouping simple grading > > objects to define a more complicated design, that is controlled by the > > alignment and profile. You also need to supplement features lines with > many > > more interactive ways for the designer to edit and manipulate the > elevation > > directly from plan view, that result in the profile being changed, that > > result in changes to the grading group. > > > > sc > > > > > >
Message 16 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I think we should be able to have an interactive string element which has its horizontal geometry defined with horizontal tangents and arcs and its vertical geometry defined by tangents and vertical curves that designers are familiar with but which displays the resulting 3D polyline as a feature or property of that object the same way that the surface objects display contours as a property. And the horizontal IPs and vertical IPs should be "displayable" also and allow the designer to move them interactively. I thought that's what Civil 3D was going to give us. It would be called an "Alignment Object" ? Where is it ? Haven't we waited long enough ? Come on Dave, what's going on ? Laurie makes a valid point that at present the designers don't quite know how to judge the correctness of the resulting grading but I think they will quickly get used to that. It seems that intersection designers are already designing by what "looks right" much of the time now particularly in hilly country. Doug Boys
Message 17 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

All right, all right, don't get me started on dater and drawrings. -- James Wedding, P.E. IT Manager Jones & Boyd, Inc. Dallas, TX XP/1 on P4-1.6/512 LDT2004+C3D
Message 18 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Steve, I didn't mean to belittle your requirements, by any means. We have to be nice to New Mexico, it's the next county in Texas. In any case, I just was saying that I just with the guys in Manchester would do SOMETHING anything to do curbs. My simple method doesn't work on everything (knuckles, flares, etc.,) but it would take care of a large number of cases. At this point, I just want a solution that covers some of my problems, and we'll figure out the rest as we go. -- James Wedding, P.E. IT Manager Jones & Boyd, Inc. Dallas, TX XP/1 on P4-1.6/512 LDT2004+C3D P.S. It's "y'all," the contraction of you and all. Put the apostrophe in the right place at least, Yankees. Geesh.
Message 19 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Dave, I had to re-read your post several times to try and understand exactly what you are asking: >Historically we've generally "accepted" the tessalation (tessellation?) >of 3D vertical curves ... when working from a grading feature line. Laurie seem to assume you were talking about the parabola in a profile view - and if this is the case, I am comfortable with the status quo graphical representation. However, it sounds to me you are talking about the sampling increment of 'Z' data to be placed in a potential grading feature line. Historically, I did know that either LDT or C3D had any routines that did this. The LDT 'Superimpose' profiles is the only existing AutoDesk routine that I know that samples a profile at an increment. If this is in indeed what you are asking - it scares me to think about the direction you might be heading! Background: Within LDT, we have written our own 3Dpoly to Profile and Profile to 3Dpoly routines. In going from Profile to poly we sample at all critical points: PI's, PC's and PT's in the XY alignment. We sample all PVI's locations from the profile. The routine requires a horizontal curve sampling factor and a vertical curve sampling factor that are independent - because of the nature of the mathematics. We make it user selectable - but more often than not we will use a 0.5' foot horizontal sample through a vertical curve and a mid-ordinate distance sampling criteria for horizontal curves of 0.05'. This can result in a large number of 3dpolyline vertices. The resultant 'tessellation' seems to be pretty good for terrain surface creation, but here are the other design problems we encounter with this approach: - The large number of closely spaced vertices can make grip editing and critical point location tough to id in plan view. - A 3d object looses 2d characteristics - for example you can no longer query horizontal curve from the object. - Plan lengths are replaced with True lengths on the object. Stationing is lost. Neither AutoCAD nor LDT provide easy to use tools for plan queries of 3d AutoCAD objects. - The large number of vertices make it difficult to locate true slope breaks. - For all the above reasons the designer needs keep two layers of segregated design data - one for plan work and one for 3d design work. It would be my hope that C3D did not go down the same path. As I sit here and type, I see that Doug just now expressed my very concern in his reply to Laurie above: > I think we should be able to have an interactive string element which has > its horizontal geometry defined with horizontal tangents and arcs and its > vertical geometry defined by tangents and vertical curves that designers are > familiar with but which displays the resulting 3D polyline as a feature or > property of that object ... This 'string' element could potentially be an alignment. It 'handles' horizontal manipulation. The present C3D problem I see is that the profile is not a property of the alignment, but instead an independent object. If the profile was a property of an alignment, whereby the user could right-click on an alignment and manipulate the 3d elements of the alignment by both graphical (profile) and tabular (sta-elev-pvi) means, we have the starting structure for the string object. If I queried a location in plan view along the alignment, I should also be able to get the vertical (z) spot data. If I 'snapped' to any location along the alignment I would also snap to the z coordinate, which is retrieved from the profile property. If you gave me plan tools, whereby I could change the elevation of a spot location on the alignment, that elevation would reflect in the profile property. If you gave me a tool to interpolate a slope between two horizontal vertices on the alignment, it would reflect in the profile property. There should be no reason I couldn't add a vertical curve in plan view. I could see a full range of interactive site design tools that allow you to modify a point in plan view based upon slope, grade, or vertical distance from other 3dobjects in the drawing. You could even have a routine similar to the LDT 'Curb' routine: pick the alignment, an offset distance (horiz) and offset distance (vert) that created a new OFFSET Alignment (say L1) and OFFSET profile that was based on the main CL stationing. OFFSET alignments also have their own associated profile property that could be manipulated after the offset. For that matter, the horizontal alignment could also be post manipulated with grips or whatever, while interpolating new 3d(profiles) by stretching or extrapolating. And of course, they key to real productivity is that the alignment can be used as a feature line for grading objects. As such, the alignment-feature line keeps its plan and profile features, and any tessellation required for tin creation is kept in the background and not even seen by the designer. Horizontal curves still appear as smooth arcs. Grips remain on the alignment only at critical stations. The programmers should be able to come up with internal algorithms for sampling such as mid-ordinate for horizontal curves, and a similar property for vertical parabolas based upon algebraic difference in slope and length of vertical curve. Never bother the designer with having to make tessellation sampling decisions - it should all be transparent to him. sc ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Simeone Newsgroups: autodesk.civil3d Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:09 PM Subject: Re: Civil3D 2005 Excellent feedback. Q - Historically we've generally "accepted" the tessalation of 3D vertical curves (ie, break the geometry into short segments) when working from a grading feature line. I'm guessing that ya'll - (I'm trying to learn to speak in Wedding's language - I've got "Ya'll" and "All y'all" down pretty nicely) - would like a smooth 3D spline. What is the requirement? The smoother the better? Engineers go to great lengths to have accurate vertical (profile) geometry. I'm guessing that the true 3D geometry should be carried through the grading of the EOP, Kerb (how's that all y'all Aussies?), etc geometry. Thanks DAS
Message 20 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Doug, Very well put. sc "Doug Boys" wrote in message news:4051c5aa_2@newsprd01... > I think we should be able to have an interactive string element which has > its horizontal geometry defined with horizontal tangents and arcs and its > vertical geometry defined by tangents and vertical curves that designers are > familiar with but which displays the resulting 3D polyline as a feature or > property of that object the same way that the surface objects display > contours as a property. > > And the horizontal IPs and vertical IPs should be "displayable" also and > allow the designer to move them interactively. > > I thought that's what Civil 3D was going to give us. It would be called an > "Alignment Object" ? Where is it ? Haven't we waited long enough ? Come on > Dave, what's going on ? > > Laurie makes a valid point that at present the designers don't quite know > how to judge the correctness of the resulting grading but I think they will > quickly get used to that. It seems that intersection designers are already > designing by what "looks right" much of the time now particularly in hilly > country. > > Doug Boys > >

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report