Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
I've noticed some very strange behavior with topography, that's making me scared to trust any of it. This problem is reproducible:
1. create a graded region
2. create a new building pad
3. move this building pad
The Fill values go absolutely haywire, and as far as I can tell, have no connection to the actual geometry whatsoever (and if it does, I can't imagine what may be).
There shouldn't be any fill value; it's a hole and there should be thus only cut geometry.
It's reporting fill in the second row of the schedule (which is the main new topography being cut) and it’s reporting a net gain in material rather than a net loss. But the value for the fill material just seems to jump around all over the place.
Edit: Sorry I didn't see your whole reply in my email.
I see the cut value "jumping", but that's to be expected since the terrain in sloped. The "depth" of the hole is relative to a level -- not relative to top of Toposurface.
I agree and the cut value is behaving as expected, but when I move the pad in the video the fill value jumps from :
1.33 to 0.00 to 2.29 to 1.15 to 5.11 to 0.71 to 2.25 to 5.71
It's a hole, right? So the new topography should not be deflecting at all, let alone getting bigger in volume.
Or am I misunderstanding how building pads work?
My other thought was maybe the building pad is too small for it to make an accurate calculation? It tried this with a 10m x 10m (as opposed to 1m x 1m) building pad and the behavior seemed a little more in line with what was to be expected. But this of course isn't great if I need to use them for such small things like cutting stairs into terrain, etc.
The calculated cut and fill volumes are approximate, but usually within plus or minus 2 percent accuracy. I've been using this function for years and have had no great disparities come up between calculated projections and as-built. Still, I don't see an issue in your video. There is zero fill consistently being reported.
