AutoCAD Civil 3D

[#1]

OK my memory appears to be correct here.  When creating profile sheets you have no control over the profile view height or width.  The software will create the view to fit the size and scale of the viewport from the sheet set template.  If the Split option is unchecked then the datum will be set to suit the lowest elevation within the station range but it may not be tall enough, and you'll have to fix it manually.

Generally I've found that it is necessary to tweak the profile views in the sheets anyway to fit the labels etc.

[#2 · Accepted solution]

Steve,

While I agree with you on that's what happens, I'm not sure I agree that what "should" happen.  Most of our projects are a mile or more and with the tool in it's current configuration I have to adjust the datum for every profile view except the first one. We don't have enough grade around here to use the split profiles much.  I think if the "automatic" setting were available to be used for each profile view, there would be much less work involved.  I just don't think the program yet knows how to read that information for each view.

[#3]

---

LisaPohlmeyer wrote:

Steve,

While I agree with you on that's what happens, I'm not sure I agree that what "should" happen.  Most of our projects are a mile or more and with the tool in it's current configuration I have to adjust the datum for every profile view except the first one. We don't have enough grade around here to use the split profiles much.  I think if the "automatic" setting were available to be used for each profile view, there would be much less work involved.  I just don't think the program yet knows how to read that information for each view.

---

Lisa it sounds like something in your system is not working the same way that mine does.  I tried a quick test on a design file and I've attached two screenshots showing the profile views created for the sheets.  In this part of the world I have to split profiles more often than not (this example has about 275m vertical in 7,100m of alignment)  With the split option turned off I get one profile view that failed completely (datum = 0) but for the rest the software has made sure that the datum accommodates the lowest elevation within the station range of that view.  With the split option turned on I got a different result; the profiles aren't quite displayed the way that I want them but this is a good starting point for editing them.

You don't agree that this result is what should happen, or am I misunderstanding you?

[#4]

Steve,

With the split on the views don't look too bad.  With the split off however, you've got several that don't even include the entire profile, and with the given grade change, I understand some of that.  But, what about the one that doesn't have any profiles  displayed at all?

I've attached screen caps of mine as well. (Since I could only attach 3, I eliminated the "split on" as there wasn't much difference.  As you can see by the PV settings dialog, the PV datum is set by the minimum elevation with no option to set the Automatic setting.  I've also attached an image showing the overall PV which was created using Automatic height setting.  I think the point of this thread is to understand why (or why not) the PVs for the sheets can't work in a similar manner.  For the overall, I don't have to make any adjustments to see my profiles or labels correctly.  For my PVs for the sheets, I have to adjust almost every one, every single project.

[#5]

Steve,

What I find interesting as well, is that even though the height settings for my overall PV are set to automatic, the elevations that are actually used are the ones that are shown in the User Specified section of the dialog.  I never noticed that before.

[#6]

Good morning Lisa,

Given the limitation of the viewport specified in the sheet set the profile views created by the program have to be a specific height.  If they were allowed to be as tall as necessary to accommodate all of my profile then they're simply not going to fit on the page.  The software has to compromise somewhere, and given that we're forcing it to hold the view datum to the minimum elevation then this is the result.  In your case it may be appropriate to use the mean elevation option, it should balance the space above and below the profiles better.

For the first PV which didn't work properly, I suspect that the problem has something to do with the fact that the alignment and profile extend approx. 100m beyond the start of that PV.  For other design files it works correctly so I haven't worried about it too much.

It all comes down to the height limit coming from the space available in the viewport on the sheet template.  If the PV height is allowed to be automatic then it's probably not going to fit. Outside of the solutions already available the only way I can see to fix it would be to allow the program to change the vertical exaggeration for each view.