Topic: Rebuilding all corridors at once in C3D

[mjfarrell]

Here's a very obvious and unrealistic example:

let's see when it ever get's fixed

[scout]

The Baseline alignment being used in the bottom section is a series of arcs as shown in the image below.  Notice how the assembly leaves the curvy Baseline and just 'jumps' across  the chord, and yet all the while the baseline for the region is THE SAME, because we are specifying a new start/end station so the application can or will transition from one assembly to the next.  It does; only it only does so properly on linear alignment sections.

Ah, I gotcha. I think it would be pretty awesome for the feature lines to somehow add tesselations or some such to transition.

What is happening under the hood is that feature lines are drawn, as you observed in your other post, to connect points of like coding. Since the feature lines use no other intellegence (ie they don't have an awareness of what is happening along the baseline) they simply find the next like code and bang, the connection is made.

I get what you are saying- it would be cool if the feature lines could harness some of the same idea as the "extract feature line from corridor" tool that can add smoothing to make curves.

There is a tool in the subscription advantage pack that makes best fit alignments from primatives and makes true arcs- I am wondering if I can think of some way to leverage that in this workflow.

[George]

Here's a very obvious and unrealistic example:

OK, I get it, but I don't know why would would expect anything else. C3D's corridor is a linear model, and knows nothing about the space in between the sections. If it did, we'd have solids that morphed between sections. I think that would be a cool thing, but would require a complete change in the design of the corridor object.

I don't think this is a bug or a defect, it's just the approach the C3D team decided to take. Based on the performance issues I see people complaining about, I'd hate to see what happened if we had real solids to define corridors, etc.

[mjfarrell]

its a DEFECT...when one is NOT changing BASELINES and the assembly object simply decides to go where ever it wants....that's a defect...it has nothing to do with their (the sub assemblies) lack of intelligence...as the ENTIRE assembly is being told to follow some BASELINE somewhere in the programming...and when we transition along that baseline from one assembly to the next it should always remain connected to that baseline...otherwise WHY ask us to assign a baseline for the assembly to follow in the first place?

Rationalize this anyway you want...it is a defect.
Or explain logically; why does the assembly simply STOP following the baseline it has been instructed to follow?  It's the assembly object this is NOT following instruction NOT the sub assemblies connected to it.


To SCOUT; I personally wouldn't go adding anything from any subscription pack to my lessons, only to keep those that aren't on it from being able to use the lesson...unless they are forced to upgrade....and everyone keeps saying that the subscription isn't forced on folks.....so I would NOT be building my lesson or my suggested workflow on features every will not have access to right out of the box...unless your lesson is just marketing material.....or like like to hear folks complain that they are not on subscription and why in the middle of your classes.

[mjfarrell]

and the BIGGER problem is unless it is called a problem it won't ever be solved.... :ugly:

I'm sure that if SCOUT is still close to autodesk and if she explained it to them really nice they might see it as a probelm...

perhaps they will fix it...

or perhaps like the crappy display of circular pipes in sections and profiles, they'll just add a note to the help file explaining why it doesn't work and call that good.


and some of you folks will buy into that logic (or lack thereof) as well....

[mjfarrell]

The Baseline alignment being used in the bottom section is a series of arcs as shown in the image below.  Notice how the assembly leaves the curvy Baseline and just 'jumps' across  the chord, and yet all the while the baseline for the region is THE SAME, because we are specifying a new start/end station so the application can or will transition from one assembly to the next.  It does; only it only does so properly on linear alignment sections.

Ah, I gotcha. I think it would be pretty awesome for the feature lines to somehow add tesselations or some such to transition.

What is happening under the hood is that feature lines are drawn, as you observed in your other post, to connect points of like coding. Since the feature lines use no other intellegence (ie they don't have an awareness of what is happening along the baseline) they simply find the next like code and bang, the connection is made.

I get what you are saying- it would be cool if the feature lines could harness some of the same idea as the "extract feature line from corridor" tool that can add smoothing to make curves.

There is a tool in the subscription advantage pack that makes best fit alignments from primatives and makes true arcs- I am wondering if I can think of some way to leverage that in this workflow.

This isn't or should be confused as; 'wouldn't it be cool if it worked liked this"
This is a matter of the tool failing to function properly when applied to a curvilinear alignments.
Follow the logic I am using in previous post. Not changing baselines...and the ASSEMBLY is attached to the baseline, no reason it should ever detach itself from that baseline until I tell it to stop or it runs out of baseline to follow.

[scout]

Follow the logic I am using in previous post. Not changing baselines...and the ASSEMBLY is attached to the baseline, no reason it should ever detach itself from that baseline until I tell it to stop or it runs out of baseline to follow.

Assemblies are attached to regions, not baselines.

[mjfarrell]

Follow the logic I am using in previous post. Not changing baselines...and the ASSEMBLY is attached to the baseline, no reason it should ever detach itself from that baseline until I tell it to stop or it runs out of baseline to follow.

Assemblies are attached to regions, not baselines.

OK, show me that you can create a region WITHOUT a Baseline....and I'll buy your argument

not even with a SIMPLE corridor can anything be done without a baseline

[scout]

OK, show me that you can create a region WITHOUT a Baseline....and I'll buy your argument

not even with a SIMPLE corridor can anything be done without a baseline

Right.... but when you tack assemblies in your corridor, you are specifying which region they will apply to. When you tell it to go from 0+00 to 0+15, you _are_ telling it to stop. Leaving a gap with no assembly applied = no assembly applied. The baseline can have any number of assemblies applied to different regions. Which one would you want it to pick?

This is where I am lost. I do like the idea of some kind of logic like- "go from this assembly to that assembly incrementially through the gap" but I don't get why you think the baseline should know inherently which assembly you'd want applied.

[mjfarrell]

From the HELP file in English Version 2010:

Corridors persist in an AutoCAD drawing as objects with the name AeccCorridor.

Corridor objects are defined by associating a baseline (alignment) with sectional design elements, and other structural data. The corridor object manages the data, tying various assemblies (applied for different ranges of stations) to the baselines (alignments) and their finished grade profiles.
 

Now WHY are the Assemblies NOT being TIED to the BASELINE???

And why are the Assemblies NOT being tied to the Baseline during a change in stationing???

I read English pretty well, and the words Tied to the Baseline are pretty clear to me.

Please accept this is a defect; and now lets move towards getting a solution for the defect.

or maybe we just edit the help file to read:

Corridors persist in an AutoCAD drawing as objects with the name AeccCorridor.

Corridor objects are defined by associating a baseline (alignment) with sectional design elements, and other structural data. The corridor object somehow manages to do stuff to the data, loosely associating various assemblies (applied for different ranges of stations) somewhere around and or along the baselines (alignments) as long as they do not contain arc segments and then someother things start to happen, and maybe their finished grade profiles as ll.

[mjfarrell]

OK, show me that you can create a region WITHOUT a Baseline....and I'll buy your argument

not even with a SIMPLE corridor can anything be done without a baseline

Right.... but when you tack assemblies in your corridor, you are specifying which region they will apply to. When you tell it to go from 0+00 to 0+15, you _are_ telling it to stop. Leaving a gap with no assembly applied = no assembly applied. The baseline can have any number of assemblies applied to different regions. Which one would you want it to pick?

This is where I am lost. I do like the idea of some kind of logic like- "go from this assembly to that assembly incrementially through the gap" but I don't get why you think the baseline should know inherently which assembly you'd want applied.

even it is a pair of assemblies made from GENERIC links, there is no mystery which point codes, should connect to which point codes, and THEY are not the objects that aren't following the BASELINE, it should never become disconnected from the baseline...I don't care I'm trying to make it connect the simplest assembly to the most complicated one anyone can create, it should NEVER leave the baseline PERIOD.

Or is the help file totally wrong...what part of TIED to the BASELINE is confussing me?

[scout]

Now WHY are the Assemblies NOT being TIED to the BASELINE???

Assemblies are tied to the baselines, but only to the region to which you specify them to be applied to.

I can't tell you what is the right or wrong way that the program is written. All I know is what is happening under the hood.

Corridor points are really the fundamental building blocks- the point codes in the subassemblies do most of the work in corridor building. The Corridor Feature lines are drawn connecting like coded points- as you know. For example, crown points get connected to other crown points with a corridor feature line.

When you apply an assembly to a range of stations along a baseline, it draws those points at your set interval, then connects those points with the feature line.

When you have a portion of the baseline that does not have an assembly applied, no points are drawn, therefore, the feature line keeps looking until it finds another point to connect to- which, as in the image examples, can lead to that straight and inappropriate feature line that doesn't do us any favors.

I definitely get what you are saying, and as shown in my stream example, some kind of solution would be welcome.

In the meantime, the trick would be to find some way to get those points drawn to taper down/out during the transition without having to have target alignments/featurlines/plines everywhichwhere. I will stew on it a bit more.

[mjfarrell]

from the help file on assembly object:

Baseline. The baseline of an assembly typically displays as a visual aid (marker) representing a vertical axis at the assembly baseline point. If you want to attach a subassembly to the baseline point, you can do so by selecting the baseline marker. This method of attaching subassemblies to an assembly is sometimes easier than selecting the baseline point, especially when there are already one or more subassemblies attached at that point.
Baseline Point. This is a point on the assembly typically representing the start point of the first subassembly that is attached to the assembly near the controlling alignment. By default, the baseline point coincides with the insertion point and therefore follows the centerline alignment and profile. If you want to begin sectional elements oriented away (horizontally and vertically) from the centerline, do so by moving this baseline point away from the assembly insertion point.

What is all this chatter about the BASELINE when it doesn't follow the Baseline?

[mjfarrell]

Why oh why is the word BASELINE so confusing.....and why is it required if it doesn't ALWAYS follow it.

You can simply accept the defect and not call it that.  It's a defect, or the help file is WRONG and the baseline has nothing to do with anything.  Although they sure do use that term a lot in there?

It has nothing to do with 'not knowing' what poiint codes to connect to each other, as you see in the images it connects them quite well it simply becomes UNTIED from the baseline on arcs.
The resulting model, surface, and or sections would all be fine, the problem is the assembly becomes DISCONNECTED from the baseline it is supposed to remain TIED to.

But I guess you're OK with still needing to use Empty Data bands to make the plan production tools work as they should too.  Even though it is an admitted defect; the workaround has now become an accepted 'solution'.

[scout]

Ok, so Michael, help me understand. In my attached image, I have one baseline with six regions. Each region has a different assembly applied (with one repeat).

So let's say I wanted to kill the region from 27-53.

My frequency is tied to the region, so if there is no region there is no sampling interval.

And even if it did somehow have a sampling interval- what would it apply? Which assembly? How does it figure out how to transition between to very different assemblies without some guidance from me? What would you want it to assume?

If I understand better, I have a better chance to explaining it to others.