It still amazes me after all these years that one cannot simply rotate a profile view. It has to be literally, the only Civil 3D object that cannot be rotated. It can't possibly be that difficult to give us the option between UCS and View like a lot of other labels and objects.
It is so frustrating to have your design in one axis and your profiles stuck in World UCS. I know you can create two model space views and twist the profile but if I wanted to work in a tiny little viewport I would switch back to my old17" monitor. Btw, working through the viewport in paper space in not a viable option either, although I know Autodesk must love this. I guess I could also export data out and XREF it back in to rotate it but that's a PITA too!
Jon
@Grimes_MG wrote:
Next time, just write "Jon there isn't a way to rotate your PV" and be done with it.
With due respect to your post, there is a reason that many people do not just do what you propose above.
In many cases, a person thinks they know what they want, but sometimes a better answer is available. So many times we do ask "why do you want to do that?" so that other alternatives can be explored, not to ridicule the OP.
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
― Henry Ford
" If Jon wants his profile view rotated than by golly he should be able to rotate is profile view"
I don't agree with that at all. What if I want to fly my car should I get upset because the maker didn't put wings on my car? We are not working with LDD or AutoCAD we ar using C3D and it is a very different tool.
Besides if he wants to rotate the view so he can work just like he did with some other program he can but when you force C3D to work like the old programs you lose funtion and waste time. Jon just doesn't want to change his workflow to what id recommended. So be it.
John Mayo
Please do not tell me you are one of those guys that rotated LDD profile grids jmayo? People that did that use to drive me nuts.
On topic, I think the OP has a good point. Why not be able to rotate a profile view? Not exactly sure the full reason of why. I would just use the vports command with a 2 view horizontal and a way I go. I mean the commands you would have to use are about the same amount to do it this way anyway. Oh wait I do do long profiles this way 😄
Oh I think you know the answer is no. At least not with Softdesk, LDD or C3D profiles but if I only had AutoCAD to work with (no civil eng'g functions) and I had to manually draft cross sections I might use something like this.
John Mayo
Add me to the 1% who would like to be able to rotate PVs in model space. Current project is a strip of land oriented north-south and our plans will be printed on 24x36 LANDSCAPE. Thus, there will be a -90d ucs rotation. Should I leave model space in ucs world plan and go back and forth to the viewport to ensure placement (we're in post conceptual stage, so labelling is needed in design file)? I do work through vp sometimes but I notice things get "funky" when I do that, especially when maximizing viewport to do work. In my opinion, staying in model for object creation seems to allow the software to process better and to output features that are less likely to need auditing or to create fatal errors down the road.
What's wrong with just leaving MS in WCS and then creating another UCS for the plan view should you need to work on that (in the orientation that you see it on the sheet)?
You could also create two tiled viewports and set the proper UCS in each one, then jsut stay working in MS.
IDK if you read this entire thread, but my "plan" view and my "profile" view are in separate DWG files, so I can keep both of them in the proper orientation for editing.
@bcsurvey wrote:Add me to the 1% who would like to be able to rotate PVs in model space. Current project is a strip of land oriented north-south and our plans will be printed on 24x36 LANDSCAPE. Thus, there will be a -90d ucs rotation. Should I leave model space in ucs world plan and go back and forth to the viewport to ensure placement (we're in post conceptual stage, so labelling is needed in design file)? I do work through vp sometimes but I notice things get "funky" when I do that, especially when maximizing viewport to do work. In my opinion, staying in model for object creation seems to allow the software to process better and to output features that are less likely to need auditing or to create fatal errors down the road.
Why are you keeping the profile view in the same drawing as the plan view? Best practices is to keep them in separate using data shortcuts. That method works great. Even if you keep them together you can use the plan production tools to create the viewports and profile layouts for you.
Both of you seem to be saying that "best practices" in this case requires splitting the data out to multiple drawings. With the increasing power of cpus these days, that may be true. My impression of best practices involves, among other things, keeping to a minimum the number of dwgs I need to work with. My profile view is in the same dwg as plan because that's where the related data is located, plain and simple.
The overarching issue here, and I think what caused the OP so much angst, is that considering all that C3D CAN do, it's surprising at least, to think that rotating the PV in model speace CAN'T be done. Yes there're more ways than 1 to skin a cat, but perhaps all that would have been needed earlier on in this thread is for the OP to get confirmation, even implicitly, that this process SHOULD be an option in software as comlex as this. An earlier post mentioned this as well. But instead, he's getting barraged with YOU-GOTTA-DO-IT-THE-WAY-THE-SOFTWARE-WAS-DESIGNED, which will piss anybody off, especially those that have pulled as much patience from way down deep as was needed to have maneuvered their way along this far with C3D . . .
Mark Green
Working on Civil 3D in Canada
John Mayo
Both of you seem to be saying that "best practices" in this case requires splitting the data out to multiple drawings.
I never claim anything I do is a "best practice", except for me. ---- It works for us, but maybe not for others. We prefer to have multiple drawings so we can have multiple people work on the project at the same time.
...., but perhaps all that would have been needed earlier on in this thread is for the OP to get confirmation, even implicitly, that this process SHOULD be an option in software as comlex as this.
Who's to say what SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be in the software? We all do. And we all have varying opinions. Regarding directly addressing the question vs. asking "why do you want to do this?" - I addressed that earlier in this thread.
Joe Bouza
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
Joe Bouza
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
I posted this idea to the Ideastation if you want to vote for it.
Have you added this to the Civil 3D Idea Station? I don't need it but there's no harm in asking.
Nevermind. I see it's already been done.
Allen Jessup
CAD Manager - Designer
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
Looks like the post in the Idea Station supports the OP's point of view as well.
Sorry for this late response but I got pulled away never got back to it.
"What if I want to fly my car should I get upset because the maker didn't put wings on my car?"
Keep the straw man in Wizard of Oz. I don't think the OP's request is so outlandish as this. Let me make another analogy using the car:
What if the next big step in automotive technology required, unbeknownst to most, that you now had to push a button before making a turn (not talking about turn signal), or perhaps for triggering the cycling switch on your AC? There would be an uproar of drivers asking "Why do we have to do this?" The answer would be related to that most recent big step in automotove technology.
I'm currently at peace with the profile views being confined to WCS, but such a strong defense of the software in light of what is clearly a legitimate and viable request by the OP seemed to stray from an objective consideration of the issue.
Thanks
This isn't an issue for me and I'm slightly off topic but I just wanted to make sure you're aware of the station tracker tool (analyze tab) which eliminates the need to have a section or profile projected directly below a plan.
Sorry if that's already been said or already known.
take care
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.