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
452 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 21 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

James, The popular belief is that Texas does indeed have mountains. But that is only because the New Mexico mountains are so high you can see they from west Texas. Don't tread on us (just come here and spend your money)! sc "James Wedding" wrote in message news:4051d21b$1_3@newsprd01... > 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.
Message 22 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi Steve - I guess the real question relates to working with 3D arcs/splines (including parabolic vertical curves). What I was referring to in the tessellation is as follows: LDT/Civil Design grading - create a curve that you want to grade in Civil Design. When you grade this object the program has a setting that defines the increment that grading projections will be created along the arc. A small increment is more accurate, but higher in overhead. I would imagine that you want to keep the 3D geometry (almost like a mechanical part) that you shape with 3D offsets based on the exact 3D geometry. Specifically I am talking about modeling an alignment that has a parabolic curve. DAS "Steve Cannon" wrote in message news:4051e260$1_1@newsprd01... > 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 23 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

The Deck House, not the Landing! Wrong place.MMMMm breakfast burritos. -- James Wedding, P.E. IT Manager Jones & Boyd, Inc. Dallas, TX XP/1 on P4-1.6/512 LDT2004+C3D
Message 24 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

>(just come here and spend your money)! Do you know how BAD I want to do that? I went to school in Lubbock, and loved NOTHING more than ditching class to drive to Ruidoso on Friday, getting up for breakfast at Deck House, skiing 'til my knees were shot, dinner at Casa Blanca (?) and driving home on Sunday. My wife gets all wistful anytime we think about those great trips. It's just not feasible from Dallas. This is a great thread, sorry to hijack it for my roll down memory lane! Delete at will, Anne. :-P -- James Wedding, P.E. IT Manager Jones & Boyd, Inc. Dallas, TX XP/1 on P4-1.6/512 LDT2004+C3D
Message 25 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

sneaking in one last one ahead of the chainsaw... Ruidoso is nothing but bunny hills. No respectable snow snake would be caught in terrain that flat. Go to Taos for more challenging skiing - wait a minute, we stopped going there because all you see on the slopes is Texans. Try Los Alamos for an out-of-the-way but delightfully challenging experience. Stop at Sadies in Albuquerque for the real-deal carne-adovada sc
Message 26 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Dave, I guess my condensed version from the previous post is that the sampling increment depends on what the resultant object is to be used for. If it, or the resultant surface is going to be used for TC labeling, the vertical curve sampling needs to be much shorter (tighter) than the sampling increment along a horizontal curve. This is because we need TC elevations to within 0.01'. But we do not need the whole alignment sampled at that increment - horizontal curve sampling should be independent of vertical curve sampling. If the resultant object is just intended for earthwork, then we can get by with a much longer (looser) sampling increment through the vertical curve (vertical +/- 0.1'). sc "Dave Simeone" wrote in message news:4051e90b$1_2@newsprd01... > > Hi Steve - I guess the real question relates to working with 3D arcs/splines > (including parabolic vertical curves). What I was referring to in the > tessellation is as follows: > > LDT/Civil Design grading - create a curve that you want to grade in Civil > Design. When you grade this object the program has a setting that defines > the increment that grading projections will be created along the arc. A > small increment is more accurate, but higher in overhead. > > I would imagine that you want to keep the 3D geometry (almost like a > mechanical part) that you shape with 3D offsets based on the exact 3D > geometry. Specifically I am talking about modeling an alignment that has a > parabolic curve. > > DAS >
Message 27 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Wouldn't it be sweet if Civil3D kicked it up a notch and allowed for the creation of a "curb-and-gutter" object, and when sampling sections along a centerline, the sampling routine knew to sample pc, pts, highs, lows, driveway intersections, et al from the curb-and-gutter object! sm -- scott mceachron total cad systems - dfw "Steve Cannon" wrote in message news:4052033e$1_1@newsprd01... > Dave, > > I guess my condensed version from the previous post is that the sampling > increment depends on what the resultant object is to be used for. If it, or > the resultant surface is going to be used for TC labeling, the vertical > curve sampling needs to be much shorter (tighter) than the sampling > increment along a horizontal curve. This is because we need TC elevations > to within 0.01'. But we do not need the whole alignment sampled at that > increment - horizontal curve sampling should be independent of vertical > curve sampling. If the resultant object is just intended for earthwork, then > we can get by with a much longer (looser) sampling increment through the > vertical curve (vertical +/- 0.1'). > > sc > > "Dave Simeone" wrote in message > news:4051e90b$1_2@newsprd01... > > > > Hi Steve - I guess the real question relates to working with 3D > arcs/splines > > (including parabolic vertical curves). What I was referring to in the > > tessellation is as follows: > > > > LDT/Civil Design grading - create a curve that you want to grade in Civil > > Design. When you grade this object the program has a setting that defines > > the increment that grading projections will be created along the arc. A > > small increment is more accurate, but higher in overhead. > > > > I would imagine that you want to keep the 3D geometry (almost like a > > mechanical part) that you shape with 3D offsets based on the exact 3D > > geometry. Specifically I am talking about modeling an alignment that has a > > parabolic curve. > > > > DAS > > > >
Message 28 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Gee, Doug, cut the programming folks some slack. If it were as easy as you make out, don't you think it would have been done already? I'm glad for the steps in the right direction that they are taking at the moment, and by that I mean that they are listening to our input, not the quality or qauntity of the tools they are producing. -- Don Reichle "King of Work-Arounds" Ifland Engineers, Inc. "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 > >
Message 29 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

OK, Steve... Inquiring minds want to know. What is your reasoning behind such tight tolerances for sampling in Horz/Vert? Unless you are doing a significant amount of runways in America, I can't imagine why you need such tight control. When the curb contractor sets up his string line for the curb machine to follow, unless they're going around a curb return the tightest spacing I've ever seen is 25 feet. -- Don Reichle "King of Work-Arounds" Ifland Engineers, Inc. "Steve Cannon" wrote in message news:4052033e$1_1@newsprd01... > Dave, > > I guess my condensed version from the previous post is that the sampling > increment depends on what the resultant object is to be used for. If it, or > the resultant surface is going to be used for TC labeling, the vertical > curve sampling needs to be much shorter (tighter) than the sampling > increment along a horizontal curve. This is because we need TC elevations > to within 0.01'. But we do not need the whole alignment sampled at that > increment - horizontal curve sampling should be independent of vertical > curve sampling. If the resultant object is just intended for earthwork, then > we can get by with a much longer (looser) sampling increment through the > vertical curve (vertical +/- 0.1'). > > sc > > "Dave Simeone" wrote in message > news:4051e90b$1_2@newsprd01... > > > > Hi Steve - I guess the real question relates to working with 3D > arcs/splines > > (including parabolic vertical curves). What I was referring to in the > > tessellation is as follows: > > > > LDT/Civil Design grading - create a curve that you want to grade in Civil > > Design. When you grade this object the program has a setting that defines > > the increment that grading projections will be created along the arc. A > > small increment is more accurate, but higher in overhead. > > > > I would imagine that you want to keep the 3D geometry (almost like a > > mechanical part) that you shape with 3D offsets based on the exact 3D > > geometry. Specifically I am talking about modeling an alignment that has a > > parabolic curve. > > > > DAS > > > >
Message 30 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi Dave, In terms of graphic presentation, if a "chord" approach is used then probably all that is needed is a "chord offset" parameter, both vertically and horizontally. For plotting purposes this value can probably be quite large as at the usual plot scales it will appear smooth to the eye. Say I plot with a line width of 0.18mm at a scale of 1:500. This would translate to 500*0.18= 90mm, say 100mm or 4" However for design purposes it should be far more accurate. I would want to snap to this object and have full double precision accuracy. We certainly don't want to have issues with offsetting it when at large coordinates such as happens with polylines. -- Laurie Comerford CADApps www.cadapps.com.au "Dave Simeone" wrote in message news:4051e90b$1_2@newsprd01... > > Hi Steve - I guess the real question relates to working with 3D arcs/splines > (including parabolic vertical curves). What I was referring to in the > tessellation is as follows: > > LDT/Civil Design grading - create a curve that you want to grade in Civil > Design. When you grade this object the program has a setting that defines > the increment that grading projections will be created along the arc. A > small increment is more accurate, but higher in overhead. > > I would imagine that you want to keep the 3D geometry (almost like a > mechanical part) that you shape with 3D offsets based on the exact 3D > geometry. Specifically I am talking about modeling an alignment that has a > parabolic curve. > > DAS > > "Steve Cannon" wrote in message > news:4051e260$1_1@newsprd01... > > 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 31 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Laurie, It sounds like we are on the same page. I just wanted to re-iterate that no 'design' data - horizontal or vertical should be derived from the tessellation samples - it should all come from the alignment object itself. The only purpose for sampling is the creation of the surface. But then this in itself puts limitations on what the surface can be used for. sc "Laurie Comerford" wrote in message news:40521e62_3@newsprd01... > Hi Dave, > > In terms of graphic presentation, if a "chord" approach is used then > probably all that is needed is a "chord offset" parameter, both vertically > and horizontally. For plotting purposes this value can probably be quite > large as at the usual plot scales it will appear smooth to the eye. Say I > plot with a line width of 0.18mm at a scale of 1:500. This would translate > to 500*0.18= 90mm, say 100mm or 4" > > However for design purposes it should be far more accurate. I would want to > snap to this object and have full double precision accuracy. > > We certainly don't want to have issues with offsetting it when at large > coordinates such as happens with polylines. > > -- > > > Laurie Comerford > CADApps > www.cadapps.com.au
Message 32 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi Steve, You're right. I should have added a third parameter for building a DTM. In this case the kerb face is probably the critical item. We have to consider the typical kerb face width and ensure that this is modelled reasonably. Face widths here vary from nominally vertical to upwards of 50mm and I would expect similar around the world. Where the kerb is on a horizontal curve this can only be handled if the sampling points are on the same radial line, but even so the chord offset should be less than half the face width to produce a reasonable model. I would be seriously upset if due to an inadequate design DTM my drainage design process picked up pavement level when I wanted it at top of kerb level. -- Laurie Comerford CADApps www.cadapps.com.au "Steve Cannon" wrote in message news:40522464$1_1@newsprd01... > Laurie, > > It sounds like we are on the same page. I just wanted to re-iterate that no > 'design' data - horizontal or vertical should be derived from the > tessellation samples - it should all come from the alignment object itself. > The only purpose for sampling is the creation of the surface. But then this > in itself puts limitations on what the surface can be used for. > > sc > > "Laurie Comerford" wrote in message > news:40521e62_3@newsprd01... > > Hi Dave, > > > > In terms of graphic presentation, if a "chord" approach is used then > > probably all that is needed is a "chord offset" parameter, both vertically > > and horizontally. For plotting purposes this value can probably be quite > > large as at the usual plot scales it will appear smooth to the eye. Say I > > plot with a line width of 0.18mm at a scale of 1:500. This would > translate > > to 500*0.18= 90mm, say 100mm or 4" > > > > However for design purposes it should be far more accurate. I would want > to > > snap to this object and have full double precision accuracy. > > > > We certainly don't want to have issues with offsetting it when at large > > coordinates such as happens with polylines. > > > > -- > > > > > > Laurie Comerford > > CADApps > > www.cadapps.com.au > >
Message 33 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Don, Pretend you are a designer. You need to know the elevation of the top of the curb at a lot line projection. Assume the relevant spot location is within the limits of a vertical curve along that curb. Unless your sampling was smart enough to know to take a sample exactly at that spot (ala per Scott's curb and gutter object), your projected elevation could well be outside specification tolerance parameters. What it comes down to, is just exactly what the sampled data is going to be used for. sc "Don Reichle" wrote in message news:40521f0b$1_1@newsprd01... > OK, Steve... > Inquiring minds want to know. > > What is your reasoning behind such tight tolerances for sampling in > Horz/Vert? > > Unless you are doing a significant amount of runways in America, I can't > imagine why you need such tight control. When the curb contractor sets up > his string line for the curb machine to follow, unless they're going around > a curb return the tightest spacing I've ever seen is 25 feet.
Message 34 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Excuse me?? Snow in Texas??? FOFL - she laughs looking out the window at the drifts in Maine. Anne - reaching for Husky and John Deere tractor/snowblower key Steve Cannon wrote: > > sneaking in one last one ahead of the chainsaw... > > Ruidoso is nothing but bunny hills.
Message 35 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

They may be listening (though I am not totally convinced on that one) but they are NOT producing. My company decided two years ago that even THEN Land Desktop was way behind in its functionality, particularly with interactive 3D design objects and routines aimed at the civil engineering user compared with alternative software and decided to switch. The alternative has intersection objects; it has drainage links that work; it produces HEC-RAS models which work immediately with HEC-RAS etc. Autodesk MUST produce more and faster if they want to get back into the game. Doug Boys
Message 36 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Surely this issue would be handled by including sampling parameters as a property of alignment objects. Then the user could choose and adjust the value "on the fly" to get the required result. These parameters would control the accuracy of query results and the plotting and display accuracy. This is done now with circular objects in display lists. I notice that Dave was talking also about representing 3D grading lines as splines. This would be a logical extension but let's get these objects working with standard historical horizontal and vertical geometry first. Civil engineers will have enough trouble getting to "grips" (pun intended) with moving IPs interactively on the screen before they try manipulating spline control points. (Mind you, animated film designers and producers have no trouble and have gone way past engineers in these skills.) Doug Boys
Message 37 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I believe they get it every year, at least in North Texas. But then again the state used to be so big that it extended North into what is now southern Wyoming. And I remember living in Houston during the 60's and it snowed once or twice there during my childhood. And just for the record Guadalupe Peak in West Texas rises to above 8000 feet. And what's the height of Maine's tallest peak? Of course any self-respecting Texan knows that even the moon is bigger over Texas. :-) -- Don Reichle "King of Work-Arounds" Ifland Engineers, Inc. "Anne Brown" wrote in message news:40523065.48A095F1@autodesk.com... > Excuse me?? Snow in Texas??? FOFL - she laughs looking out the > window at the drifts in Maine. > > Anne - reaching for Husky and John Deere tractor/snowblower key > > Steve Cannon wrote: > > > > sneaking in one last one ahead of the chainsaw... > > > > Ruidoso is nothing but bunny hills.
Message 38 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Snip>The alternative has intersection objects; it has drainage links that work; it produces HEC-RAS models which work immediately with HEC-RAS etc. Sounds like we are discussing E____ P____. They didn't always have the attitude of listening to the user base, but since they decided on that course of action, their product has taken on noticable improvements, like you allude to. But if you check their DG you will find their product ain't perfect either. They aren't at liberty to discuss their R&D department's plans either. It just seems that the folks in NH have finally realized that while the Dark Side is powerful, coming back into the Light will win you more friends in the long run. For which they have my applause and encouragement to keep up the good work. -- Don Reichle "King of Work-Arounds" Ifland Engineers, Inc.
Message 39 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Steve; Thanks for the mild rebuke, but I haven't had to pretend for a while now. OK, following your hypothetical illustration; Knowns: Lot Corner Point Horizontal Alignment Vertical Alignment To my understanding of C3D the second two data strings know their relationship to one another. The first data bit can be assigned a relationship to the two strings through the magic of Label Styles. I haven't heard specifically, but can we assume that the folks in NH are wise enough to include a function that would add/subtract a user-supplied amount from the Z value produced at a certain station (that station calculated by said Label Style relationship on the Point) on said alignment data string relationship, and then apply that Z offset calculation as the Z coordinate value at said Point? About ten years ago there was a COGO application called VANGO (now defunct) that had that ability. You wouldn't need such a computing intensive operation as what you earlier described IF that function were in place. So did I make an erroneous assumption regarding our friends in NH? -- Don Reichle "King of Work-Arounds" Ifland Engineers, Inc.
Message 40 of 47
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Doug, I agree, but I also worry about the plethora of style options for any given object. The current convolution of style options is already mind-boggling, and as we add more and more options for any given object, I see the design process being bogged down in a quagmire of complexity that really has nothing to do with traditional grading concepts. You got to remember the operators are just simple civil engineers. What about one overall C3D setup option where the user presets the desired horizontal and vertical design tolerance. Let internal background algorithms determine the sampling intervals that will deliver that tolerance throughout the product. sc "Doug Boys" wrote in message news:40528103_1@newsprd01... > Surely this issue would be handled by including sampling parameters as a > property of alignment objects. Then the user could choose and adjust the > value "on the fly" to get the required result. These parameters would > control the accuracy of query results and the plotting and display accuracy. > This is done now with circular objects in display lists.

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

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report