C3D-RAISE SURFACE

[cturlington]

Hello,

I am using C3D 2015. 

I have a surface that I renamed and raised 4 ft by moving from 0,0,0 to 0,0,4.  I sampled the surface in a profile to compare the two surfaces.  The profile is set 1:1, no exaggeration.  The dimension style I am using does not have any scale added to it, it is also 1:1.  However, the two surfaces dimension as 8 ft of separation, instead of 4 ft that I would expect.  I even drew a line between the two surfaces in profile and it listed as 8 ft long.  Thinking that I made a mistake in my typing 8-feet instead of 4-feet, I moved the surface to 0,0,-4.  When compared in the profile again, the two surfaces were coincident.  So I have to ask, why does this discrepancy of 4 additional feet occur between my two surfaces when I only raised the surface 4 feet? 

[redtransitconsultants]

Moving the surface like you have is not the proper way to do a raise lower and will not effect the surface definition. The proper way is to go through Toolspace, Prospector, find the surface, expand down to it's definition, right click on edit and choose Raise/Lower...

Additionally, you could click on the surface and on the Surface Contextual Ribbon tab select Edit and find Raise/Lower...

[doni49]

RTC,

I have to disagree with the notition that it will have no effect on the definition.

I just performed a short test in which I created a blank surface, added several break lines (polylines) at elevations ranging from 0 to 5.  Then I MOVED the surface from 0,0,0 to 0,0,4.  The Statistics tab showed min elevation to be 4 and the max to be 9.

When I looked at the definition tab, it said that I had TRANSFORMED the surface (parameters said "Move by 0,0,4").

Then I used the Raise/Lower command that you and I are both used to and RAISED the surface by 5'.  Statistics show min is 9 and max is 14.

Defintion tab shows both the "Transform" and the "Raise".

I too have never "Raised" a surface by MOVING it but it does in fact accomplish the task.  I'm attaching my test file file for comparison.  This was done using C3D 2014 SP2.

But that still doesn't answer the original question about the profile.

Post your dwg file and someone will take a look.

[doni49 · Accepted solution]

I just had a thought about what could be causing this.

When you moved the surface up, are you sure you didn't also move the breaklines (and anything else that defines the surface)?

If you were to do that, the surface would already be rasied by way of raising the definining elements and then you transform the surface by raising it again.

That's the only thing that comes to mind without seeing your file.

[cturlington]

Thanks for the responses.  I moved just the breaklines as indicated earlier (instead of moving the surface object) and the surface re-triangulated to the break lines at the proper elevation.  There is a similar result when moving a profile object...

[redtransitconsultants]

I apologize, I stand corrected then. I assumed moving the surface vs raise/lower was causing the issue. I agree, please post the drawing so someone can take a look.

[doni49]

---

@redtransitconsultants wrote:

I apologize, I stand corrected then. I assumed moving the surface vs raise/lower was causing the issue. I agree, please post the drawing so someone can take a look.

---

No apology needed (at least not as far as I can see).  I think we all realize it was offered in an attempt to help.  As I said, I've never adjusted a surface in that manner and I wasn't sure what it would do.  But I was curious enough to find out.

[neilyj666]

I think I'd use the raise/lower civil 3d specific commands over the vanilla autocad MOVE just to be on the safe side...:)

[Anonymous]

Hi,

When I use the raise lower command under edit, it does not appear to change my surface elevations.

Any ideas?

Thanks

[Joe-Bouza]

Is it possible the surface displayed is not the surface you are editing or it is part of a composite that is not set to rebuild automatically