Pipe Diameter in Profile View

[tmino]

As it stands, if you view a pipe network in a profile view with no vertical exaggeration, you expect to see what is essentially an accurate long section in all directions.  However, rather than being applied perpendicularly from the centerline (or arguably the invert), diameter is applied strictly vertically.

Now, this made sense in the days of hand drafting when it was far easier in a vertically exaggerated profile view to simply measure the dimension vertically rather than determining how the exaggeration affects the perpendicular distance.  But with the computer doing the measurements, is this really a problem anymore?  I've debated that to some degree it's strange to consider that the crown of the pipe may be at a (slightly) different station than the invert, but this is simply fact in the field.  And I've also thought that it's nice to be able simply measure vertically in an exaggerated profile, but I can't remember the last time I dug my scale out of the drawer.

All the theory aside, the real problem appears when you try to profile a vertical, or even a near-vertical, pipe.  The fact that the diameter is applied vertically means that the vertical centerline is shifted the length of the pipe radius downward and upward.  In other words, rather than seeing the invert and crown of the pipe, you just see one line, though it's really two lines on top of each other.

I wrote this off for the last 4 years of basic Pipe Networks because I acknowledge that storm/sanitary outside the building is rarely designed vertically, but with 2013's release of the Pressure Pipe Network, I really expected Autodesk to change the way the profile views represented pipes.

Does anyone disagree with this idea?  Can anyone at Autodesk chime in?

[tmino]

Sorry everyone, I don't usually like bumping posts, but I've got to give it one more shot.

Has no one else had a problem with the way vertical pipes are represented in profile views?

Better yet, am I ranting for no reason, and there really is a way to change how the pipe diameter is drawn in profiles?

[castled071049]

An attached picture of your problem would help me and others visualize exactly what you are wanting. Let's take a look at a picture and maybe we can help.

[SethHall]

Hi tmino-

I think a screen capture would be helpful in visualizing what you are describing in your first post.

As for the behaviour of the Pressure Pipes, if you would like to see something change, or you have a suggestion for fucntionality, please follow this link to provide feedback: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=1109794 

[tmino]

Apologies, I didn't have e-mail notifications on so I really thought I just didn't receive any responses. I hope it isn't too late to revive this, but please see the attached screenshot. In this image, there is no vertical exaggeration to the profile.

But my point is that it shouldn't matter even if the profile did have vertical exaggeration. Since the horizontal doesn't get exaggerated/contracted, then this pipe which is 12" should occupy the space 6" before the stationing at its centerline and 6" after. The fact that this pipe ends up with no diameter proves that the software applies the diameter only vertically, which simply doesn't make sense anymore.

[jggerth1]

As an old schoold drafter who laid out many a mile of pipe profiles with ink on mylar, i'll disagree on a couple of points.

It's just as reasy to scale at an angle perpendicular to a line, as vertically at an arbitrary angle to the line.  Heck, it's probaly easier, since you're already set up to draw the angled CL or invert line on the mylar.  So the notion that manual drafters couldn't easily draw a 1:1 profile sans vertical exageration doesn't pass the smell test. 

second, when you are generating profile drawings, it's not about the model.  it's about communicating to the people in the field how and what to build.  Omitting vertical exageration would be unexpected, and likely raise questions.  It may make sense in a 1:1 profile, but in multiple decades of working in FLat terrain, the only 1:1 profiles I've ever cut were for typical typical sections (cartoons essentially) or details.  In both cases, there's no compelling need to incorporate the model, and a vertical or near vertical pipe has never existed in my typical sections.  Details are usually drawn using Arch units if they show critical piping connections anyway.

YMMV

[tmino]

I appreciate the response, but the question is with regard to how the software represents diameter horizontally. Perhaps the mention of vertical exaggeration confused the issue.

We often generate profiles for utilities distribution, in which vertical bends aren't uncommon. The vertical pipe in my example was really just to stress the issue, but if you have even a 45-degree angle the inaccuracy is clear. And it causes us to need to omit these pipes from the profile view and draw them manually, which isn't ideal.

Regarding the point on hand drafting however, I know I'm just stoking the fire here, but I'm skeptical. Because the vertical and horizontal scales are different with vertical exaggeration, it's fairly complicated to draw it correctly. Either you draw diameter only vertically or you exaggerate the diameter perpendicular to the pipe IL/CL. Neither are correct. If you did do it correctly, hats off to you, as you're a very skilled technician.

[cstringer-ns]

I'd say the issues arises from the inherent difference between what a profile is vs a section.  

You don't get the pipe displayed with perpendicular diameters because that's not what a profile is.  As you point out, the true perpendicular top of pipe sits at a different station. How can a single profile give you the elevation of two lines (T.O.P & FL) at two different stations?  That's just not what a profile is.