AutoCAD Civil 3D Wishes

[#1]

It would be awesome if we could combine grading criteria into sets for quick
application. For example we often need to create curbs which require a
gutter, top face and top back. Currently each grading criteria has to
applied one at a time. If we could create a curb set, we could apply the
gutter, face and back all at once. We might want to include sidewalks or
shoulders in various sets as well. Ideally, if it would be possible, we
could combine sets into other sets. For example we might have a curb set and
various sidewalk with shoulder sets. To create a sidewalk with curb set we
could combine a curb set with a sidewalk set. This could come into play in
other scenarios which require typical grading criteria such as ditches,
berms, ponds and walls.



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5038 (20100418) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[#2]

Hi Neil,

Once you reach this level of complexity (and apparently linear
complexity), presumably an assembly and a corridor design would be the
correct solution rather than a grading solution which many users are
still reporting as less stable than corridors.


Regards


Laurie Comerford

neilw wrote:
> It would be awesome if we could combine grading criteria into sets for quick
> application. For example we often need to create curbs which require a
> gutter, top face and top back. Currently each grading criteria has to
> applied one at a time. If we could create a curb set, we could apply the
> gutter, face and back all at once. We might want to include sidewalks or
> shoulders in various sets as well. Ideally, if it would be possible, we
> could combine sets into other sets. For example we might have a curb set and
> various sidewalk with shoulder sets. To create a sidewalk with curb set we
> could combine a curb set with a sidewalk set. This could come into play in
> other scenarios which require typical grading criteria such as ditches,
> berms, ponds and walls.
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5038 (20100418) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com

[#3]

I agree. I've tried the corridor technique which has it's merits, but the
downside is you have to use profiles to adjust the grading. In most cases I
need to tweak slopes and elevations in plan view so it becomes a bit of a
chore to grade with corridors. What would be an even better solution is to
be able to apply subassemblies to feature lines.

[#4]

Hi Neil,

Different viewpoints. To me one of the downsides of features line
editing is the fact that it is not in a profile view and the joy of the
corridor is that you are editing a profile with the relevant existing
surface information visible as well as other profiles if you choose to
add them.

Also, once you move into a corridor, you have vertical curve
functionality readily available.


Regards


Laurie Comerford


neilw wrote:
> I agree. I've tried the corridor technique which has it's merits, but the
> downside is you have to use profiles to adjust the grading. In most cases I
> need to tweak slopes and elevations in plan view so it becomes a bit of a
> chore to grade with corridors. What would be an even better solution is to
> be able to apply subassemblies to feature lines.

[#5]

Yes those are plusses for corridors. For parking lots we rarely use vertical
curves so that is usually not important. Where corridors fall short is when
I need to add a quick elevation point on a feature line or if I want to
apply relative grades or elevations between adjacent feature lines such as
at the edge of pavement across the driving lane. Then the corridor becomes
an encumberance as I have to split up my screen and use transparent commands
or a pencil and paper to calculate the location and elevation for the PI in
the profile. With feature lines I can use elevation points and the relative
and adjacent elevation tools much more efficiently.

[#6]

I think your wish is a good one, I just wish they'd take your concept further. I think we need curb objects, pavement objects, sidewalk objects, etc... that worked together to model a surface and the base objects making them up could be feature lines that act like grading criteria sets. Having them as objects could have benefits in providing quantities easier than representing them through polylines, lines or arcs.

Christopher

[#7]

I think a corridor is generally a bad idea for Neil's scenario. Many times
you'll have 90 degree bends or small radii which cause havoc with corridors.
His wish is valid. And you most certainly can edit a feature line in a
profile view; as long as it's projected into the view.

--
Matt Kolberg
Global CADD Systems - A division of Cansel

"Laurie Comerford" wrote in message
news:6375888@discussion.autodesk.com...
> Hi Neil,
>
> Different viewpoints. To me one of the downsides of features line
> editing is the fact that it is not in a profile view and the joy of the
> corridor is that you are editing a profile with the relevant existing
> surface information visible as well as other profiles if you choose to
> add them.
>
> Also, once you move into a corridor, you have vertical curve
> functionality readily available.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Laurie Comerford
>
>
> neilw wrote:
>> I agree. I've tried the corridor technique which has it's merits, but the
>> downside is you have to use profiles to adjust the grading. In most cases
>> I
>> need to tweak slopes and elevations in plan view so it becomes a bit of a
>> chore to grade with corridors. What would be an even better solution is
>> to
>> be able to apply subassemblies to feature lines.

[#8]

I like the curb, sidewalk object idea. It would be handy if you could apply the "assembly" to a feature line style.

[#9]

I wasn't aware of the ability to edit FL in profile. That opens up some new
approaches for me. Thank you!

And yes, corridors have several limitations that I didn't mention. Generally
I find more minuses than plusses for the corridor approach to grading.

[#10]

If I understand your idea stacy, I can see several issues with it. If you
applied an assembly globally to all feature lines of a certain style, which
side would the grading get applied to? You would probably end up having to
delete a lot of the results and do it manually. Also how would it handle
transitions or variations? To me it would rarely be useful.

To add to the original concept. in teh case of ditches, if a grading set
could be set up to apply the grading to both sides of a FL, we could save
sets for ditches that apply a bottom width, minimum depth, berms and
daylighting to both sides of a FL all in one shot. Wouldn't that be cool?