Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Disabled region OR station range not modeled = no TIN surface.

Disabled region OR station range not modeled = no TIN surface.

This is a pain every time we disable (uncheck) some corridor Region or we want a corridor surface by lots. (2,3,4,... pieces of surface).


In this example, my corridor has 3 Regions. Second region is disabled, but:




Triangles are interpolated between the previous and next (both enabled) regions.


To solve this, I have to add a hide boundary to that corridor surface, but this is not dynamic.. I will have to edit the closed polyline which I use as hide boundary. Moreover, I have to add this hide boundary in each corridor suface (code Datum, code Top,...)


Corridor Surfaces boundaries (Boundaries tab in the corridor form) doesn´t consider this.


Sometimes, I need to create a surface by lots, for example, "traffic barrier" from station: 60 to 100, from 140 to 160, from 167 to 300...

But I don´t want a surface in these station ranges: from 100 to 140, from 160 to 167,....


Please, this is very important to treat with corridor surfaces. (create the same corridor surface by lots).




In my opinion, Civil 3D should erase TIN edges internally (not included, in this case, like Surface Editing operations) if they are placed in a disabled Region or in a "station range" not modeled. (do this every time that corridor is updated as the last operation in the process)


We don´t want interpolated TIN edges between enabled regions. This is a mess showing the TIN surface when there are some disabled region, because TIN is interpolated in these regions.





hopefully the imcorporen


Due to this operation could be very heavy  (checking if the middle point of the TIN line is in the disabled corridor Region station range)  , so it would take a long time to generate the result corridor surface, I think that a possibility could be an option (for corridor surfaces) if you want to get a "corridor surface by lots". This way, this operation is only applied by the user in those corridor surfaces which have this property activated (Yes/No).


In the "Surfaces" tab in the Corridor form, this new column, next to the "overhang correction" column:




As I said, this operation should be an internal operation of C3D (not an operation in the "Definition" surface) and it will be executed the last one. ( or before "add line" operation)






Another scenario:


Imagine that you create a custom subassembly with SAC which generates a topsoil surface (variable depth) with a "Surface link".


If some sections have "depth=0" then Surface link is exactly the same that Existing ground and I don´t want to create Topsoil surface there.


But... I have to create "surface link" with depth=0 because I can´t create a TIN surface by lots due to Civil 3D always INTERPOLATE between areas without no surface in the corridor....




There are 2 other scnerarios when TIN surface is interpolated and it is not created by lots.

In both cases happens according to the assembly.


Case 1:

You  current subassembly doesn't have a link between 2 links which have the same code link.


P1 (x=-5, y=0),  P2 (x=3, y=7),  P3(×=10, y=3), P4 (x=15, y=1).

Your subasssembly has 2 links (from P1 to P2,  and from P3 to P4)

Both links has the code "datum" (there is no l7nk from P2 to P3).


If you use this subassembly in a corridor, you will see that the corridor surface "datum" has surface data from P2 to P3 and this data is interpolated.

To solve this, you have to add manually a hide boundary from P2 to P3.


Case 2 :

Your subassembly create a link, with code link "topsoil", but this link is created only in some conditions, not always (you use Decisions in SAC).

Imagine that that link is created in the corridor station 30 and 50 but is not created in the corridor station 40. TIN surface will be from 30 to 50 stations....


This is a major problem.

A workaround could be reducing max triangle length in suface build definition, but it can't be used in every case (split size is too small etc).

As you pointed out already, this should be processed in corridor not surface definition.

Status changed to: Accepted

This idea is under consideration for a future version of Civil 3D. Please visit the Autodesk Civil Infrastructure Product Roadmap for details and to vote for this idea to indicate its importance relative to other items that are under consideration.

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

Submit Idea  

Answer Day

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report