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: 

Showing breaks in Profiles

49 REPLIES 49
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 50
ctbertschy
6975 Views, 49 Replies

Showing breaks in Profiles

I believe I have done my due diligence in searching for the best method to tackle a finished ground profile as shown in the attachment.  The attachment was done with LDT.  The only answer with civil3d was to explode a copy of the profile and then break it while displaying labels and the original profile as hidden.

 

I am interested if there is a better method that does not use wipeouts or funny masking techniques.  Any method that can extract a poly object from the profile would also be nice.  More often than not, we need to trim, break, dis-joint, and custom tweak profiles,  This was super easy with LDT.  There will be a complete finished ground profile for corridors... so any drama with attempting to use the actual data object by chop it with drama is not really required.. .unless someone has an easy way of doing it.  I have yet to run across a fine example of a drafted product that did not use poly linework instead of the direct data.

 

Am I missing something or is civil3d?

 

Thanks for any guidance

Tags (1)
49 REPLIES 49
Message 41 of 50
jmayo-EE
in reply to: jmayo-EE

"We only need to label surface profiles like they we layed-out profiles if a surveyed.."

 

Wow. That should be, We only need to label surface profiles like they were layed-out/FG profiles if a surveyed...

John Mayo

EESignature

Message 42 of 50
Joe-Bouza
in reply to: jmayo-EE

Smiley Surprised These things happen. You beat Bill to the punch though Smiley Tongue

Thank you

Joseph D. Bouza, P.E. (one of 'THOSE' People)

HP Z210 Workstation
Intel Xeon CPU E31240 @ 3.30 Hz
12 GB Ram


Note: Its all Resistentialism, so keep calm and carry on

64 Bit Win10 OS
Message 43 of 50
Joe-Bouza
in reply to: Jeff_M

Hi Jeff - I'm still confused. My questions to clarify the intent were not answered very clearly.  And the ratio of views to replies indicates how vague this was

Thank you

Joseph D. Bouza, P.E. (one of 'THOSE' People)

HP Z210 Workstation
Intel Xeon CPU E31240 @ 3.30 Hz
12 GB Ram


Note: Its all Resistentialism, so keep calm and carry on

64 Bit Win10 OS
Message 44 of 50
troma
in reply to: jmayo-EE

Joe, I guess I have some humble pie to eat.  That does work.  I was wrong to say it didn't.

My only objection to this method then is the same as my objection to John's: it involves the creation of a FG or 'proposed' surface, and running a profile on it.  This is cumbersome: it adds a lot of data to the drawing and slows the program down.

 

(In 2008 C3D, when profiling a surface, if you added labels to that profile, closed out of the drawing and reopened, the labels disappeared.  The only labels that would stick around were the ones on a "layout profile"; i.e. one drawn in profile view, not from a surface.  I presume this has been fixed by now, but I haven't tried it in a long time.)

 

 

I suppose the only other way around this is to have multiple profiles.  One plots, the next doesn't, the next one does etc.  Sounds like a nightmare for design I know, but you could add (small) non-plotting grade labels too, so that you can visually see that one profile is connected to (snapped to, or has the same end point as the next's start point) and at the same % grade as the next one ( and therefore could be 'driven' etc as one continuous profile).  And it gives you the flexibility of plotting, not plotting, adding one label set to the plotting ones, a different label set to the non-plotting.

 

Still not sure which I'd prefer; that one I just said or the CONVERTLINEWORKTOMASKBLOCK.  But I'm sure I wouldn't want to use a surface profile.


Mark Green

Working on Civil 3D in Canada

Message 45 of 50
Joe-Bouza
in reply to: troma

Troma, I'll have a slice with you. The whole time I had the impression that surface profile were what was being targeted for solution.

 

"What a long strange trip its been" Smiley Wink

Thank you

Joseph D. Bouza, P.E. (one of 'THOSE' People)

HP Z210 Workstation
Intel Xeon CPU E31240 @ 3.30 Hz
12 GB Ram


Note: Its all Resistentialism, so keep calm and carry on

64 Bit Win10 OS
Message 46 of 50
wdbar
in reply to: jmayo-EE

Good discussion and much confusion!

 

I was looking for a solution in there somewhere but never saw it.  

 

Is there a way to maintain the labels of a profile when it has been broken (erased a tangent or VC)?  

 

The only solution I can see currently is to CONVERTLINEWORKTOMASKBLOCK a tangent between the breaks.  I'm currently fighting the pain of having to insert breaks in a long profile that has been labeled and made pretty.  I lose all labels upstation.

Message 47 of 50
troma
in reply to: wdbar

I thought I'd tried that, and read back a little.  It's there in message #29 of the discussion: doesn't work.  Won't add labels to any part past the break, though it does consider it part of the profile when you select it.

 

Don't mess up your drawing, especially if you've already prettiefied it!  The mask is the only way I know of.

 

(Unless you want to just explode all your labels and explode the profile.  Then you can just delete as much as you like!  You've also sunk your self for any future revisions to alignment/profile/assembly/corridor......)

 

Come on AutoDesk, there's got to be a better way to handle this!


Mark Green

Working on Civil 3D in Canada

Message 48 of 50
LyleHardin
in reply to: troma

Reviving a 5 year old thread... Kind of a crazy one at that...

A user here is looking for a solution to 'break' an existing surface profile. He's trying some of the above mentioned methods.

I, personally, would do it by copying the viewport looking at the profile effectivly making two or more viewports looking at the same area in modelspace. Then freeze the profile layer in one viewport, but not the other. Copy and stretch more viewports as necessary. Not ideal, but it would work.

Message 49 of 50
chris.bertschy
in reply to: LyleHardin

I have seen that done before.  We have not been able to use it with proposed profiles due to our use of profile hatching.  The hatching still displays on the profile grid layers.  It is a real mess. 

 

FYI, 5 years later, regarding masking of layout profiles, the CONVERTLINEWORKTOMASKBLOCK no longer works for us with 2015.  Very ironically it still works for all objects except layout profiles.  Fancy!  We have had to resort to regular wipeouts and a faux grid block behind the profile to replace grid.  It gets sandwiched somewhere between the wipeout and the objects we need to plot on top of the grid.  It can be a real headache due to draworder and our plotting with lines overwrite on.

 

Joe Bouza mentioned a good solution for existing profiles being split.  Just sample using different stations.  Another good workaround is to map features to the existing ground at the sampling offsets.  Then project those to the profile and use a style that looks like your sampling styles.  You can then break the feature accordingly where you need the breaks.  I use this method when I need meandering offsets used for existing profiles.   I use the method Joe mentioned when I only need to show a sampled profile between certain stations. 

 

Best of luck, 

 

 

Message 50 of 50
Joe-Bouza
in reply to: LyleHardin

I would do it by multiple sampling(s). I don't recall what I said 5 years ago but it is too easy to sample surface profiles from point A to Point B and from Point D to Point E to get the break

Thank you

Joseph D. Bouza, P.E. (one of 'THOSE' People)

HP Z210 Workstation
Intel Xeon CPU E31240 @ 3.30 Hz
12 GB Ram


Note: Its all Resistentialism, so keep calm and carry on

64 Bit Win10 OS

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

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report