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

Fix the bug that affects the ends of the corridor surface

Fix the bug that affects the ends of the corridor surface

I have noticed that there is still a bug when creating corridor surfaces. It seems a bit random.

At one end or even both ends of a corridor the corridor surface will fall to elevation 0. It can be resolved by tweaking the alignment line or tweaking the corridor length.


However It is still frustrating trying to fix it and surely it shouldn't be happening in the first place.


What behavior do you want it to do?


The current behavior is that the corridor looks to the baseline profile to determine what elevation should it build from. If the elevation is not found the corridor uses zero. 


There are three scenarios that I can think of off of the top of my head to resolve this:


  • Doesn't build the corridor section and ignores it.
  • Assumes the grade based on the last profile segment or the next profile segment depending on if it is the beginning or end of the corridor. 
  • Assume fuzzy logic in the code and if the corridor region goes to 10+15.01000 and the profile goes to 10+15.00001 that the program recoginize it and then apply the profile elevation at 10+15.00001 at corridor 10+15.010000.

Problems arrise on do you follow these rules on the interior of the corridor? How does the program draw the corridor feature lines if the section is not drawn? 


I vote for the third option, but what is the acceptable variance? 


Thanks for that.

I think the third option is the most logical and relevant to what I have experienced.



I think when you create a corridor it should automatically pull the start and end stations from the profile. The user can then override if they want.

If overridden, there should be an option to set it back onto the profile end point.

It would be good if a warning box popped up saying there was a difference between corridor and profile start and/or end chainages.

Like @troma said, I think it should recognize that there's no profile and not try to create a corridor there.


Until such time as they make that happen, AT LEAST show a dialog box warning the user that the corridor extends beyond the profile.


I agree with @troma about being able to automatically pull the start and end stations from the profile and have the option of an override. A notification that the corridor extends beyond the profile is a good idea too, that would at least give an indication of what is going on.


Just thought: Have you ever had the problem where the corridor goes on past the end of your alignment?

No, of course not. So why should it go past the end of my profile?


Does anyone have an example of an occasion when this is the desired behaviour?


@CADMonkeeJim  @Civil3DReminders_com  @neilyj666  @doni49

If I am doing a reconstruction project I build from the centerline, but don't need a baseline profile at all so I'll create a dummy profile because Civil 3D requires it. My elevations are then taken from my targets of my subassembly to get me from the centerline to the location of work to be performed. All slopes are then built off of the target elevations.


In this case if my centerline changes my dummy profile won't come along for the ride and in this case I do need the corridor to go past the end of the profile. 


The solution to this case would be to remove the requirement for a profile in a baseline or allow the dummy profile to be tied to the beginning and end of the alignment. I'd prefer the first option as the solution.


Interesting workflow.



Agreed. Have the corridor pull the profile station limits. A pet peeve, a corridor at elevation 0 because the alignment is longer then the profile. Which for me happens frequently.

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