TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: dfarris75 on March 03, 2009, 03:29:38 PM
-
I am creating my cross sections along a roadway and where there are cross drains some aren't plotting the pipes and others show the pipe across the entire section view. Does anyone know what's going on here?
-
I am creating my cross sections along a roadway and where there are cross drains some aren't plotting the pipes and others show the pipe across the entire section view. Does anyone know what's going on here?
I know a guy that knows exactly what is going on here....
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=25270.0 (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=25270.0)
-
Err. Looky.
-
It appears to be adding elliptical representations of the cross drain pipe (where the pipe does not show) or something.
-
send me data...
-
Are you using two seperate styles for the structures that are showing up differently?
-
This is a pipe problem. I'm pretty much using the same style for all structures though.
-
You will want to set up separate runs, as this is the SAME problem that the linked user was having.
This is a case of the software not giving the user any control over the 'depth' of the slice that is taken at the section.
In this case one will probably want to create many separate networks to be able to effectively control what is and isn't visible in each section as well as the pipe display style being applied to the network within each section that one does decide to show the pipes in.
-
You're kidding. :? Would I have to create a different network for each crossing and then one network where it follows the roadway (ie - is parallel to the road)?
Is there a way to divide a network up into smaller networks?
-
:lmao:
I am not one known for kidding
:lmao:
seriously notice how autodesk gives us Fantastic control over pipe(s) and networks for profiles,
and then notice the lack of display control for ones section views...
-
for as few section as one has on this particular job, one might chose to use profiles instead of sections...
-
:realmad: What a !@$#% crock! I've sat here for a whole $#@!^& day putting these %$#@! pipe &^$#@ networks in this #!%#$ %$#@!%$ drawing and now you're !@#$% saying to do $#@!$ profiles instead of $#@!%# sections???!!! This !@#$ was supposed to be saving me $#@!^% time!!! Is this issue even !@#$%# documented anywhere other than at forums like this?! Surely there's a big red WARNING in the help file somewhere that instructs the user to break their pipe networks down into smaller networks and call them sub-networks or something.
So you're saying to go create alignments and profiles every where I have pipe runs? $#@!
How much did we (or our respective employers) pay for this software again?
-
I'm saying one has MORE control over pipes and pipe networks in Profile Views than one has in Section Views.
For the amount of work that I've seen in this case; it could be a toss between breaking your 'network' into sections along each major lateral, and or change in direction, and running alignments and profile views for same in this ONE case.
otherwise one could sample multiple sections at the same station.... in different sample line groups... could be done if not unwieldy to manage...and then stack the section views...messy...
I think there are meds for the C3D induced Turret's you are suffering from... :lmao:
-
Just curious and I don't have a drawing I can try this out on - What happens if you move your section lines just a little in front of the pipe as opposed to through it?
-
It disappears completely in section view.
-
Just curious and I don't have a drawing I can try this out on - What happens if you move your section lines just a little in front of the pipe as opposed to through it?
The pipe goes away...however the "FIX" can not be to move and relabel section lines so that the section shown is not the station as indicated....that sounds like a recipe for disaster.
-
Just curious, hence the "Just Curious." Didn't mean to rain doom upon your parade.
-
Just curious, hence the "Just Curious." Didn't mean to rain doom upon your parade.
Not about 'raining' any doom
just heading off what 'logic' that might flow from that particular line of thinking
and yes the section view station labels could be set to Round Off or Down to HIDE the inaccuracy....
what are we going to practice here?
Civil Engineering
Civil Guessing
Civil Approximating
-
God, you get on my nerves.
I'm all for accurate engineering, but there are some times when there just isn't enough time/money to start over and do it the "right" way. Sometimes work-arounds are the only way to get the job done on schedule and under budget. Unless there's a major difference in that little piece of surface then sometimes you have to fudge it to get the job done.
You hit a wall, you learn a lesson, you make a note to start off right the next time and then you get on with doing what works now.
Do you talk to your students like this?
-
I think you are missing a bigger point herein Lin-Z.
That being we pay for software that should function in a particular fashion.
The software should not force us to 'work around' this type of issue in this fashion, and the Engineering community should not buy into this type of logic. As it merely postpones, or delays when the real issue will ever be addressed by autodesk. As long as folks are willing to apologize for it's defects, and accept the 'work around' as needing to be 'the way' then we will continue to hit these walls and suffer through them for X number of versions. This isn't personal, it's professional.
And as to how I speak to my students, I do what ever is required to help them break Bad Cad habits, and Embrace C3D.
Whatever that takes, sometimes they might get even get mad at me, in the end they learn C3D. And that means I succeeded, even if they aren't my 'friend' afterward. Once the bruising goes away, we generally move forward in a productive POST training relationship.
Bad news is sometimes, somebody needs to tell them NO it isn't OK to define your labels so that they are UPSIDE DOWN and or BACKWARDS on the plans. They might not like it, however, it's a lesson they should have learned before they ever started drawing plans. And often they have vested hours in setting up their standards, and they are 'less than correct', of course no one wants to hear that message from anyone.
Sadly I often have to be that guy...it isn't as much fun as one might think it to be.
-
God, you get on my nerves.
If it's any consolation I get on my own nerves.
Take for example a users Template that for some reason is set up to output the bearings on lines as only degrees.
Now, I know of a way to 'fix' this bad setting.
However, I can not rest on the issue, because the 'fix' is really a fancy HACK.
Secondly, there is a lesson to be learned by finding out exactly where and what is causing this rounding of the line Bearings.
So every now and again I open a file from THAT template with the weird setting in it, and try to fix it without HACKING it.
I may not find that answer, however I do find other answers in the process.
Perhaps that makes me a little obsessive.
I think I want that in the person that trains me ; however that's just me.
And I'm sure I get on the nerves of some Surveyors, that claim their methods will not permit them to use line coding commands.
And then I show them that it can, should they raise to the task.
If they use C3D after the training great! If they still like me, Bonus!
Surely I can not be the only one that has this kind of crazy dialog with oneself and or with others.
C3D is expensive and it fails to function...
Why would we spend the money to buy the product, that is supposed to build this crazy cool dynamically linked model, only to be told to uh not really use the model... OK so why did we spend the money or build the model again?
Or to learn that the dynamic part of the model in regards parcels is an remains broken 6 years later?
Oh yeah, there's a work around...STILL!
This is about C3D; Lin-Z not my use of the word [one] or anything else. So let's stick to the product...
-
And just so everyone knows, I'm still very angry over the loss of valuable production time today. If I ever meet that Carl guy... I oughta :pissed:
-
Thanks Lin-Z! I now KNOW exactly (more testing will prove) what setting is or was controlling that pesky PI station report setting.
Very interesting, and now myself and the student that presented this buggered file, can learn something.
Even better his local autodesk dealer will learn something when we tell him where the setting is found, as he or she has been of no help on the issue.
-
OK I've tried doing a profile to replace the section and I'm getting a similar result. It does draw the pipe, however I'm still getting the extra pipe lines that extend across the whole thing. What gives? Surely I'm overlooking something.
See. Profile on left. Section on right.
-
And also, can you set it to draw the pipes so the inverts are at the inside wall of the structure rather than the center of structure?
-
the extra lines are pipe segments within the network....
they may need to be turned off with a Display or Style override; SEE Profile View Properties image above.
or they may want to be placed in their own Network entirely and then deselected for inclusion in the profile view when you create it.
or use the <S> for selected parts only option when drawing the pipe network in the profile view.
The center/center calculation is a known limitation, and I'm pretty sure a fix has been addressed for 2009 sp2.x (NOT your Version)
-
I have already turned off all other pipes in the network in that profile view. All that is on is the cross drain and associated structures.
Man the pipes functionality if severely lacking. I'm beginning to wonder if it's even worth all this effort, especially since we are on '08 and have NO plans to upgrade.
-
I have already turned off all other pipes in the network in that profile view. All that is on is the cross drain and associated structures.
Man the pipes functionality if severely lacking. I'm beginning to wonder if it's even worth all this effort, especially since we are on '08 and have NO plans to upgrade.
Select that pipe in profile...right click, and go to Pipe Properties, give it a style....a DIFFERENT STYLE, like No Display....have a nice day.
Now you are starting to understand some of the issues Din0 was having with pipes....; :roll:
-
Yeah. I had played around here and there with creating pipe networks in the past and now decided to give them a chance on a real project. What a headache. I guess if I had known the bit about breaking the networks down into smaller ones prior to then I wouldn't have had as much trouble, but then I am learning that the labeling functionality is also malnourished.
-
I just clicked the pipe in the provile view to find that it is the cross drain pipe. Both the real pipe as well as the extra flat pipe lines highlight when selected.
-
If I turn off the profile crossing pipe inside wall component in the pipe style the flat lines disappear.
-
again...some of those pipes will most likely want to be part of another 'network'
wether one uses sections or profiles...
-
Good thing I have a vacation coming up.
-
And also, can you set it to draw the pipes so the inverts are at the inside wall of the structure rather than the center of structure?
Yes, but only with great wailing and gnashing of teeth . . . somewhere in Land Lubber is a thread where I described the procedure - sorry but I have not the time to look for it right now. Bottom line is you will need to do some brushing up on your curse word vocabulary to work wall to wall with pipes . . . those namby-pamby little ones you used yesterday just won't cut it.
-
Just bleepin it all out in case the fcc is watching... :whistle:
-
Just bleepin it all out in case the fcc is watching... :whistle:
I read between the lines and letters . . . they still won't cut it
HERE (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=17898.msg216818#msg216818) is a brief description of what you will go through trying to design pipes wall to wall. And HERE (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=16512.msg200482#msg200482) is another one. They are both old posts but the problem was still in place the when I was trying out 2009. They claim that one of the latest service packs addressed at least some of this but I have not been able to check and confirm.
-
They claim that one of the latest service packs addressed at least some of this but I have not been able to check and confirm.
That would be the Service Pack that was near instantly removed from circulation, and now reappears as SP2.1.
Wonder might that not need to be SP 2.! as in Look out!
-
or perhaps two point OHHH <insert your favorite expletive here>, I wish I hadn't done that!
-
Pretty sure that IS what those that installed it did say... :roll:
-
Rusty, my current thoughts on pipes are quite mixed. I have used them in production since they were introduced and the most significant change I can recall was changing the display of the complete 3d framework for structures to the more familiar outline style that is now standard. I do not expect any further enhancements . . . they do not appear to be even on the low priority list at this time.
If you are designing a sanitary system with inverts at the center of structures, they beat the snot out of anything else I've ever used. If you are designing with round structures wall to wall either storm or sanitary, there might be some error in the pipe lengths unless you do some fancy workarounds with the label precision. I felt the advantages of using Civil 3D made the extra hassle worth the trouble. If you have a rectangular structure and need to have a true bearing and length for the pipes, the whole thing blows up and you are forced to resort to the extreme measures I outlined in that link. No matter what you do to make the pipe and structure appear correct, they will not survive any edit to the horizontal geometry and you will have to recreate the work around for at least the portions of the pipe run adjacent to the edits. Related to this, any of the interference checks are suspect and I presume them wrong. I still used Civil 3D for my storm design even though local criteria required design calculations match exactly to the construction documents. The constant reworking was still a superior choice to any alternative at my disposal . . . and yes, the office air was a vivid shade of blue.
-
The 50% for the project I was working on with these pipes goes in tomorrow. My workload has been lightened. I'm faced with going back through this pipe network and doing it as "pipe runs" which is really how it is behaving no? I think I need some encouragement because I really am feeling more apt to just leaving it as it is and doing any necessary mods (in section and profile views) manually as the final output is dgn anyway. I just know that if I put some of my spare time into redoing this network it could save me some work later when that 50% comes back from review.
This would of course be much different if one had the capability to switch a pipe and/or structure's assigned "pipe network" (like you can do with other c3d objects and sites) as opposed to deleting and re-piping it as separate networks.
For now, I have a proposal dwg to get working on. Woohoo!
-
Export as XML
Learn how to EDIT the file to then REIMPORT the segments as networks....
There's your hint...
-
Yes I can see how that may be a little easier/quicker.
-
Would it work if I made the main trunk run one network and all the cross-drains another network or will each cross-drain need its own network? This is the direction I'm headed to see if it works unless someone states otherwise.
-
or for clarity, ONE network for each piece of pipe you want individual control on in your sections....
The reason being Section Views do NOT afford the user display control in the same manner as Profile Vies do when it comes to display of ones pipe network(s).
-
I had a feeling you would say that.
-
I had a feeling you would say that.
One would be serving the community well to thoroughly document this issue; and then go here
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=1109794 (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=1109794) and fill in the blanks.
Further send a link to this discussion, and your documentation to your local autodesk vampire vendor and ask that the issue be looked into.
My guess is this issue as well as others from previous releases remain defective in the latest version about to be shipped upon in our direction.
-
One thing I notice about the xml file:
- it does not appear to include the referenced surface(s) for the pipe network(s)
Two things I notice when I import the modified xml:
- the structures do not display in plan view
- the pipe inverts are different AFTER import
-
check your command and feature settings....
you may need to re-apply your rules to the imported data (if your inverts were being controlled by the rules)