Skew Corridor

[amoncif]

Hi Community,

Is there a straightforward way to create a skew corridor in Civil 3D? I find it quite challenging to model a skewed channel using Civil 3D, as my current method requires defining multiple baselines and corridors just to create a simple skew.

In comparison, other products it make this process much simpler. I'm wondering if there's a more efficient approach in Civil 3D that I'm not aware of.

This issue is also relevant in bridge design.

[Joe-Bouza]

I think your only path is to end the  corridor at say 0+055 and finish with FL

[ChrisRS]

I agree with @Joe-Bouza for the current workaround.

I think the 'Trimming a Corridor' topic on the "RoadMap" will address your needs. 

It is not yet 'in progress' but has advanced to the 'next' tab.

Be patient, then continue to be patient.

[nkiakas]

Hi @amoncif 

What other products make this process much simpler?

I am interested to take a look

Thanks

[cyberflow]

Saw this post yesterday and decided to share what i do sometimes when project managers really want to see a bridge in the X-Sections and want us to make magic happen

It ain't a cute workflow, i'm warning you, but it works.

So the idea is to keep modeling and keep the perpendacularity of the modeling going on, right ?

So you'll need to create a 2nd alignement that is perpendicular to the skews bearing and then make that tie-in to the "TC" and "CT" of the road so it can resume normal perpendacularity with the mainline alignment

On the assembly you'll need to target the main alignment and if you'll need to have offset alignment to target them as well because your baseline is not at all a perfectly offset alignment from the mainline

Here's a little sketch i've made to help you understand what i'm talking : 

So in case there's overlaps after the right abutment you can do an alignement on the north east side so it can model outwards the sections and not overlap and devide the region into 2 so youll have an exiting region

The important thing to respect to have those skews correctly modelled is to have the 2nd geometry perpendicular at their skew position

Hope this workflow helps, it aint cute but it works.

P.S. If you have bridge beams to model or anything, you'll need to have a lot of offset geometries from the main one so it stays consistent with the x-y positioning or it's going to be modelled in skew

P.S.S. I was one of the users to propose the triming - Since, you might have guessed, while doing this workflow i always say to myself would be easier with a trimming corridor fuction.

[amoncif]

hi

[amoncif]

I can't communicate the product name here , if you are interseted you can conact me in my personel mail so i will send you the name of the prodcut 

[amoncif]

Thanks , that's might be the best solution either than  create multiple FL and LBL 

[cwr001]

It hasn't moved its place over the course of several releases while being one of the items with the most upvotes.

I've asked about it in the "What is the Civil3d team working on"-sessions but there's nothing concrete so this might really take ages and ages.

Along with the crappy bowtie-functionalities, this is one of the main obstructions for producing quality corridors.

(Just wanted to rant a bit. :))

[ChrisRS]

---

@cwr001 wrote:

It hasn't moved its place over the course of several releases while being one of the items with the most upvotes.

I've asked about it in the "What is the Civil3d team working on"-sessions but there's nothing concrete so this might really take ages and ages.

Along with the crappy bowtie-functionalities, this is one of the main obstructions for producing quality corridors.

(Just wanted to rant a bit. :))

Feel free to rant, but I am just the messenger.😁

Re: "... might take ages and ages."

• I understand your position. I often feel that I have more workarounds than workflows.
• I did suggest being patient, followed by more patience.

The last several releases have concentrated on performance, new features, and the cloud. 

• Apparently, there have been measurable performance improvements, but that is under the hood and not very noticeable.
• I am not a corridor guy, but there have been substantial corridor improvements in the last couple of releases.
• The significant new features like ACC, Grading Optimization, and Info-whatever are not helpful to me, but that does not mean they are not valuable.
• I think the cloudification of Civil 3D forced the development team to ferret out and clean up sub-optimal code. This may have some benefits for earthbound users as well.
• I would like to see a rebalancing of the Interoperability vs Operability development investment.

As a child, I never understood one of my father's favorite sayings:
"It's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."

Maturity*, having helped my wife rear four seemingly stable adult children, and decades of using AutoCAD and Civil 3D have led me to understand it.

It is better to have an issue on the roadmap than not.

* At 71, I choose not to use the term old age.

[cwr001]

No worries, I've just wanted to emphasise your point that it might take a long time! I think you were spot on. 🙂

I agree with everything you've said and maybe it's my not so mature age but I'm unhappy about a roadmap feature that's seemingly just up there to pacify users.

If you are involved into BIM projects that require the creation of IFCs, the FL-workflow falls short and while I think @cyberflow's approach is really neat, it shows the hurdles you have to take to get something done that really feels like something that should be achievable in 2024.

I'll work on my inner peace, there's no alternative, really. 🙂