grading objects in Land Desktop???

[Anonymous]

At my previous company, I used to have the Civil Design Package. Now, all I have is the Land Desktop w/o the civil design part. Is there still a method of easily creating grading objects and calculating cut/fill volumes?

Thanks,
Scott

[Anonymous]

HI Scott,

You don't have any design tools without Civil
Design.

However, you can use an LDD work
around.

Draw your surface boundary using the 3D polylines
commands as you would if you were going to use a grading object.

Then use the Create Kerb command to create a new
polyline so far away that it is on the opposite side of the EG surface. 
(You need to do cut and fill separately).

Build a DTM from the 3 polylines you've drawn and
do a composite surface calculation.  Draw the zero contour and then rebuild
the model using the contour line as a boundary.

It's kludgy, but you will get an answer out of the
system without having to do any calculations.

size=2>

--

Laurie Comerford
CADApps

href="http://www.cadapps.com.au">www.cadapps.com.au

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

"scott_hicks" <
href="mailto:scotth@piengr.com">scotth@piengr.com> wrote in message
href="news:f19c6cb.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f19c6cb.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

At
my previous company, I used to have the Civil Design Package. Now, all I have
is the Land Desktop w/o the civil design part. Is there still a method of
easily creating grading objects and calculating cut/fill volumes?

Thanks,
Scott

[Anonymous]

Tough luck, Scott. Without CD you get no grading
objects. Seems you have discovered a new question to ask when you go on your
next job interview.

Not to rub it in, but trying to do Grading Objects
without CD is like trying to move about a 100,000 yards with a Bobcat. You can
do it, but will you retire before you get the job done?

You might try asking your supervisor how they do
grading without using CD? You sound like you're in for an uphill battle to
"sell" the concept to them.
--
Don Reichle
"King of
Work-Arounds"
Ifland Engineers, Inc.

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

"scott_hicks" <
href="mailto:scotth@piengr.com">scotth@piengr.com> wrote in message
href="news:f19c6cb.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f19c6cb.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

At
my previous company, I used to have the Civil Design Package. Now, all I have
is the Land Desktop w/o the civil design part. Is there still a method of
easily creating grading objects and calculating cut/fill volumes?

Thanks,
Scott

[Anonymous]

scott_hicks wrote:
> At my previous company, I used to have the Civil Design Package. Now,
> all I have is the Land Desktop w/o the civil design part. Is there
> still a method of easily creating grading objects and calculating
> cut/fill volumes? Thanks,
> Scott

You still have Terrain, but hand crafting grading is unpleasant. Push
hard for the Civil package. Explain that the paltry seeds invested will
bear rich fruit of increased productivity, accuracy and joy. You don't
have to explain what a clunker the grading package is, it's better than
nothing.

rs

[Anonymous]

Bob,

Have you tried using the Daylighting tool instead of a Grading Object? I'm
finding it very useful for producing Toes/Tops of slopes lines which I then
convert to 2D polyines to accept a linetype generation. You can also use the
3D polys produced by Daylighting instead of the THOUSANDS of breaklines
produced by maybe two or three Grading Objects. Yes, I like lots of
definition for my Terrain Models.
--
Don Reichle
"King of Work-Arounds"
Ifland Engineers, Inc.

"TCEBob" wrote in message
news:2FD1D429017FCA3B58E15032AF4A5E6B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> scott_hicks wrote:
> > At my previous company, I used to have the Civil Design Package. Now,
> > all I have is the Land Desktop w/o the civil design part. Is there
> > still a method of easily creating grading objects and calculating
> > cut/fill volumes? Thanks,
> > Scott
>
> You still have Terrain, but hand crafting grading is unpleasant. Push
> hard for the Civil package. Explain that the paltry seeds invested will
> bear rich fruit of increased productivity, accuracy and joy. You don't
> have to explain what a clunker the grading package is, it's better than
> nothing.
>
> rs
>
>

[Anonymous]

Don Reichle wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Have you tried using the Daylighting tool instead of a Grading
> Object? I'm finding it very useful for producing Toes/Tops of slopes
> lines which I then convert to 2D polyines to accept a linetype
> generation. You can also use the 3D polys produced by Daylighting
> instead of the THOUSANDS of breaklines produced by maybe two or three
> Grading Objects. Yes, I like lots of definition for my Terrain Models.
>

I confess, I can't seem to make daylighting work for me. My biggest
frustration just now is a seeming inability to extract the daylight line
from the grading object. It seems like a simple request, it should be
there -- it MUST be there, I'm just overlooking it. Right?

rs

[Anonymous]

Hi Bob, The daylite command is useful - sometimes I just dont need a GO.
However, the GO unlike the DL command is much more visual when varying the
daylite slope. But the same results are attiainable thru both command.

Joe
"TCEBob" wrote in message
news:1751B3FEC7D5C2DA8EFE5334195FBCC8@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Don Reichle wrote:
> > Bob,
> >
> > Have you tried using the Daylighting tool instead of a Grading
> > Object? I'm finding it very useful for producing Toes/Tops of slopes
> > lines which I then convert to 2D polyines to accept a linetype
> > generation. You can also use the 3D polys produced by Daylighting
> > instead of the THOUSANDS of breaklines produced by maybe two or three
> > Grading Objects. Yes, I like lots of definition for my Terrain Models.
> >
>
> I confess, I can't seem to make daylighting work for me. My biggest
> frustration just now is a seeming inability to extract the daylight line
> from the grading object. It seems like a simple request, it should be
> there -- it MUST be there, I'm just overlooking it. Right?
>
> rs
>
>

[Anonymous]

Hi Don, I increase my daylite projection interval just prior to creating
break lines. It helps reduce somewhat.

Joe
"Don Reichle" wrote in message
news:A475F20BF6FC404753D94F1B28E20BE8@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Bob,
>
> Have you tried using the Daylighting tool instead of a Grading Object? I'm
> finding it very useful for producing Toes/Tops of slopes lines which I
then
> convert to 2D polyines to accept a linetype generation. You can also use
the
> 3D polys produced by Daylighting instead of the THOUSANDS of breaklines
> produced by maybe two or three Grading Objects. Yes, I like lots of
> definition for my Terrain Models.
> --
> Don Reichle
> "King of Work-Arounds"
> Ifland Engineers, Inc.
>
> "TCEBob" wrote in message
> news:2FD1D429017FCA3B58E15032AF4A5E6B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > scott_hicks wrote:
> > > At my previous company, I used to have the Civil Design Package. Now,
> > > all I have is the Land Desktop w/o the civil design part. Is there
> > > still a method of easily creating grading objects and calculating
> > > cut/fill volumes? Thanks,
> > > Scott
> >
> > You still have Terrain, but hand crafting grading is unpleasant. Push
> > hard for the Civil package. Explain that the paltry seeds invested will
> > bear rich fruit of increased productivity, accuracy and joy. You don't
> > have to explain what a clunker the grading package is, it's better than
> > nothing.
> >
> > rs
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

I personally prefer the grading object (just switched to it and I like it)
over daylighting. Here are my reasons:

1) It's simple. You set up the settings and apply the grading. If you do
several of them, it's very fast.

2) It's more accurate. Using daylight lines, it will only project the
vertices to the target whereas the GO will interpolate vertices at critical
points. Try this, draw a polyline across you existing surface, say 200'
long, at an elevation close to existing grade (use only two verticies) and
daylight it to the existing grade, very inaccurate, now create a grading
object for that same polyline and you will get a great looking daylight.

3) Corners. Daylighting does not handle corners at all whereas with a
grading object, corners work out great (most of the time).

4) As much accuracy as you want. I usually don't use the projection lines
in my surface so when I'm ready, I explode the GO and there is your daylight
line and any projection lines you may deem necessary. Simply add them to
your surface then delete the rest (or undo the explode and your grading
object is back).

I'm sure some will disagree with me or have more reasons why grading objects
are great. Just try them out for yourself and then decide.

Brian

[Anonymous]

Hi Brian, Me too, I just like keeping the other options available.

By the way How do "you" keep them organized in the drawing. I use a no-plot
layer


"Brian Hailey" wrote in message
news:62824A74FBD2D858116A1B23D9E033CE@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I personally prefer the grading object (just switched to it and I like it)
> over daylighting. Here are my reasons:
>
> 1) It's simple. You set up the settings and apply the grading. If you
do
> several of them, it's very fast.
>
> 2) It's more accurate. Using daylight lines, it will only project the
> vertices to the target whereas the GO will interpolate vertices at
critical
> points. Try this, draw a polyline across you existing surface, say 200'
> long, at an elevation close to existing grade (use only two verticies) and
> daylight it to the existing grade, very inaccurate, now create a grading
> object for that same polyline and you will get a great looking daylight.
>
> 3) Corners. Daylighting does not handle corners at all whereas with a
> grading object, corners work out great (most of the time).
>
> 4) As much accuracy as you want. I usually don't use the projection
lines
> in my surface so when I'm ready, I explode the GO and there is your
daylight
> line and any projection lines you may deem necessary. Simply add them to
> your surface then delete the rest (or undo the explode and your grading
> object is back).
>
> I'm sure some will disagree with me or have more reasons why grading
objects
> are great. Just try them out for yourself and then decide.
>
> Brian
>
>

[Anonymous]

Hi Joe,

I usually don't have them in the "base" file. I create a working file for
my own personal design and xref in the base. This working file never gets
attached to any drawings that get plotted out and by having this working
file for my design, it leaves the "base" open for others to work in. I've
played around with querying in the linework but when a query is active, the
base can no longer be accessed by anyone other than querying and I don't see
that happening any time soon in this office.

Brian

"Joe bouza" wrote in message
news:C2DFE50B9B51AB3BCCA714E155C46D96@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Hi Brian, Me too, I just like keeping the other options available.
>
> By the way How do "you" keep them organized in the drawing. I use a
no-plot
> layer
>
>
> "Brian Hailey" wrote in message
> news:62824A74FBD2D858116A1B23D9E033CE@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I personally prefer the grading object (just switched to it and I like
it)
> > over daylighting. Here are my reasons:
> >
> > 1) It's simple. You set up the settings and apply the grading. If you
> do
> > several of them, it's very fast.
> >
> > 2) It's more accurate. Using daylight lines, it will only project the
> > vertices to the target whereas the GO will interpolate vertices at
> critical
> > points. Try this, draw a polyline across you existing surface, say 200'
> > long, at an elevation close to existing grade (use only two verticies)
and
> > daylight it to the existing grade, very inaccurate, now create a grading
> > object for that same polyline and you will get a great looking daylight.
> >
> > 3) Corners. Daylighting does not handle corners at all whereas with a
> > grading object, corners work out great (most of the time).
> >
> > 4) As much accuracy as you want. I usually don't use the projection
> lines
> > in my surface so when I'm ready, I explode the GO and there is your
> daylight
> > line and any projection lines you may deem necessary. Simply add them
to
> > your surface then delete the rest (or undo the explode and your grading
> > object is back).
> >
> > I'm sure some will disagree with me or have more reasons why grading
> objects
> > are great. Just try them out for yourself and then decide.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Hi Brian I pretty much do the same with a slight difference so many people
to work on the same job seamlessly if your interested let me knoe and I'll
expand.

Joe


"Brian Hailey" wrote in message
news:05174E70B8410F389245606F94E4B6FA@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Hi Joe,
>
> I usually don't have them in the "base" file. I create a working file for
> my own personal design and xref in the base. This working file never gets
> attached to any drawings that get plotted out and by having this working
> file for my design, it leaves the "base" open for others to work in. I've
> played around with querying in the linework but when a query is active,
the
> base can no longer be accessed by anyone other than querying and I don't
see
> that happening any time soon in this office.
>
> Brian
>
> "Joe bouza" wrote in message
> news:C2DFE50B9B51AB3BCCA714E155C46D96@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Hi Brian, Me too, I just like keeping the other options available.
> >
> > By the way How do "you" keep them organized in the drawing. I use a
> no-plot
> > layer
> >
> >
> > "Brian Hailey" wrote in message
> > news:62824A74FBD2D858116A1B23D9E033CE@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > I personally prefer the grading object (just switched to it and I like
> it)
> > > over daylighting. Here are my reasons:
> > >
> > > 1) It's simple. You set up the settings and apply the grading. If
you
> > do
> > > several of them, it's very fast.
> > >
> > > 2) It's more accurate. Using daylight lines, it will only project
the
> > > vertices to the target whereas the GO will interpolate vertices at
> > critical
> > > points. Try this, draw a polyline across you existing surface, say
200'
> > > long, at an elevation close to existing grade (use only two verticies)
> and
> > > daylight it to the existing grade, very inaccurate, now create a
grading
> > > object for that same polyline and you will get a great looking
daylight.
> > >
> > > 3) Corners. Daylighting does not handle corners at all whereas with
a
> > > grading object, corners work out great (most of the time).
> > >
> > > 4) As much accuracy as you want. I usually don't use the projection
> > lines
> > > in my surface so when I'm ready, I explode the GO and there is your
> > daylight
> > > line and any projection lines you may deem necessary. Simply add them
> to
> > > your surface then delete the rest (or undo the explode and your
grading
> > > object is back).
> > >
> > > I'm sure some will disagree with me or have more reasons why grading
> > objects
> > > are great. Just try them out for yourself and then decide.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Hi Brian,

Your statement that the grading object is more accurate is not true. Both
calculate the batter intersection at user set distances from the originating
polyline. They simply have different ways of defining the spacing. To use
your example add a grading object to your 200 foot long line and set the
spacing parameter at 200'. You'll get the same answer.

Repeat the GO with a spacing of 5'.

Then add vertices to the polyline at 5' intervals and redo the daylighting
process.
You'll get the same answer again.

There can be little argument on the ease of use issue and other advantages
of the GO. In particular the ease of using alternative corner treatments
and automatic volume balancing.

--


Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au


"Brian Hailey" wrote in message
news:62824A74FBD2D858116A1B23D9E033CE@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I personally prefer the grading object (just switched to it and I like it)
> over daylighting. Here are my reasons:
>
> 1) It's simple. You set up the settings and apply the grading. If you
do
> several of them, it's very fast.
>
> 2) It's more accurate. Using daylight lines, it will only project the
> vertices to the target whereas the GO will interpolate vertices at
critical
> points. Try this, draw a polyline across you existing surface, say 200'
> long, at an elevation close to existing grade (use only two verticies) and
> daylight it to the existing grade, very inaccurate, now create a grading
> object for that same polyline and you will get a great looking daylight.
>
> 3) Corners. Daylighting does not handle corners at all whereas with a
> grading object, corners work out great (most of the time).
>
> 4) As much accuracy as you want. I usually don't use the projection
lines
> in my surface so when I'm ready, I explode the GO and there is your
daylight
> line and any projection lines you may deem necessary. Simply add them to
> your surface then delete the rest (or undo the explode and your grading
> object is back).
>
> I'm sure some will disagree with me or have more reasons why grading
objects
> are great. Just try them out for yourself and then decide.
>
> Brian
>
>

[Anonymous]

Laurie Comerford wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> Your statement that the grading object is more accurate is not true. Both
> calculate the batter intersection at user set distances from the originating
> polyline. They simply have different ways of defining the spacing. To use
> your example add a grading object to your 200 foot long line and set the
> spacing parameter at 200'. You'll get the same answer.
>
> Repeat the GO with a spacing of 5'.
>
> Then add vertices to the polyline at 5' intervals and redo the daylighting
> process.
> You'll get the same answer again.

Only if the GO is set for "Fixed Incremental Spacing." Set it for
"Automatic Spacing" and the GO will set points on its daylight line
anywhere the surface changes slope plus the normal incremental points,
making the GO more accurate.

[Anonymous]

Hi cdg,

You're right. It's a detail I hadn't noticed as I usually use spacings
about 10% of my typical survey spacing. Thank you.

--


Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au


"cdg" wrote in message
news:3FFEE3623DE23D1EFD83CE2763CCFF54@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Laurie Comerford wrote:
>
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Your statement that the grading object is more accurate is not true.
Both
> > calculate the batter intersection at user set distances from the
originating
> > polyline. They simply have different ways of defining the spacing. To
use
> > your example add a grading object to your 200 foot long line and set the
> > spacing parameter at 200'. You'll get the same answer.
> >
> > Repeat the GO with a spacing of 5'.
> >
> > Then add vertices to the polyline at 5' intervals and redo the
daylighting
> > process.
> > You'll get the same answer again.
>
> Only if the GO is set for "Fixed Incremental Spacing." Set it for
> "Automatic Spacing" and the GO will set points on its daylight line
> anywhere the surface changes slope plus the normal incremental points,
> making the GO more accurate.
>

[Anonymous]

Please expand. I'm always looking for new ways to do things around here.

Brian

"Joe bouza" wrote in message
news:2BEE21BF1A76773BF4E7C20F8CB1919A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Hi Brian I pretty much do the same with a slight difference so many people
> to work on the same job seamlessly if your interested let me knoe and I'll
> expand.
>
> Joe

[Anonymous]

Thanks cdg,

I didn't realize you could change that. Looks like I learned something new
today. Time to go home.

Brian
"cdg" wrote in message
news:3FFEE3623DE23D1EFD83CE2763CCFF54@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Only if the GO is set for "Fixed Incremental Spacing." Set it for
> "Automatic Spacing" and the GO will set points on its daylight line
> anywhere the surface changes slope plus the normal incremental points,
> making the GO more accurate.
>