Topic: I really don't want to create corridors...

[Matt__W]

I've got a model that I've been working on for a rendering (a composite of C3D, Architecture and imported 3DS).  It's for a new parking garage.  I don't have any existing DTM for the site.  All I need is to create a model showing the existing roads, walks, existing parking garage and new garage.  What I've done so far was to create (quickly) a surface of existing contours, a surface for the roads and another surface for the drives.  I've "cut out" the surfaces of the walks/drives from the existing surface using a hide boundary.  For the purposes of the renderings, this works great.  There's just one drawback...  The holes don't exactly line up with the boundaries of the drives/walks surfaces (see attached image).  I really don't want to have to go back and create alignments, profiles, corridors, etc... for the existing walks and drives.  Is there another quick and dirty way to go about this?  I'm not designing anything here; just trying to get an approximate model of the site.  If it's off by an inch or two here and there, nobody is going to notice.  They will, however, notice holes in the ground that let the sky through.

[mjfarrell]

Use feature lines to create those 'surfaces' and on the outside edges run a daylight multi intercept to tie-in to you surface, and you should have no hole. Or a link slope to surface...

You could also try a Stepped offset, on the outer featrue lines, and use an offset, and vertical change that projects a slight overlap.  As I see for your situation an overlap beats a gap 2:1

Or use the import from Google Earth function to get your EG surface

[Atook]

GIMP/Photoshop clone tool?

It's quick, it's dirty, and it's not a corridor.

[Matt__W]

GIMP/Photoshop clone tool?

It's quick, it's dirty, and it's not a corridor.

Don't know either so it's not quick.

[Strucmad]

texta...

[mjfarrell]

Matt,

Upon looking at the data you sent briefly, I'll dig in a little deeper today, it would seem that if you modified those boundaries for the terrain model that your gaps just might fill themselves in....
And or when you applied those boundaries with Nondestructive breaklines they would leave the surface alone and you would not have gaps in those areas.

also it appears that the gaps happen on insides of curves, you can eliminate this by reducing the Mid-ordinate distance when defining to a number like 0.001 and those gaps would not appear.

[Matt__W]

Matt,

Upon looking at the data you sent briefly, I'll dig in a little deeper today, it would seem that if you modified those boundaries for the terrain model that your gaps just might fill themselves in....
And or when you applied those boundaries with Nondestructive breaklines they would leave the surface alone and you would not have gaps in those areas.

also it appears that the gaps happen on insides of curves, you can eliminate this by reducing the Mid-ordinate distance when defining to a number like 0.001 and those gaps would not appear.

I had initially set the mid-ordinate distance to 0.1.  I might (if time permits) try again with 0.001 and see how it goes.



One thought I just had... how large of a performance hit am I going encounter with a distance of 0.001??  Seems like it would have to work extra hard to calculate all of that info, especially when viewing in 3D, right?

[mjfarrell]

That distance is how the arc is subtended by chord distances is the value you set, ans is 'only' calculated when the boundary is applied. So the answer is NO it has no impact on your 3d view.

Aslo you are aware that the boundary is DYNAMIC and if you merely drag the boundary closer to your match point the surface will want to be rebuilt and all will be fine.