Topic: Civil3D - Re-Adding feature lines with Tighter Tine

[MSTG007]

How can we take an existing break line feature line that has the default tin setting to them and apply a tighter triangulation tin to it without exploding the feature line and re creating a feature line then adding it to a break line to the surface?

[mjfarrell]

you don't

[MSTG007]

Well ok. Thank you!

[mjfarrell]

you should not however have to explode the feature lines to get what you are after


Just delete the breaklines that you want to modify the supplemental factors on from the terrain model

Then add the feature lines back in as breaklines - this time setting the correct supplemental factors as you do so.

[MSTG007]

Let me make sure I understand. I have a polyline I turn into a feature line. I then edit the elevations. Finally, I open the surface definitions and add as breakline. (I usually do not name the breakline). As I add it just change the settings to what I need.

But you are saying, go through the definitions and delete the breakline from there, then re-add it back to the surface.

That makes sense.

[mjfarrell]

Let me make sure I understand. I have a polyline I turn into a feature line. I then edit the elevations. Finally, I open the surface definitions and add as breakline. (I usually do not name the breakline). As I add it just change the settings to what I need.

But you are saying, go through the definitions and delete the breakline from there, then re-add it back to the surface.

That makes sense.

You SHOULD name your breaklines
it is easier to target them for assassination that way
further you cant use them as corridor targets without names - if you are into that sort of thing

further if you typically add supplemental factors -change that in the command settings in your template
so you don't have to remember to set it ever again

AND

you might want to stop making polylines first IF their ultimate destination is Feature Lines....from a workflow point of view

[MSTG007]

Interesting. Can I ask this... Usually (for us) we take a 2D Plan and trace over it with 2D Polys then convert to Feature lines to grade. What do you recommend on that workflow.

[mjfarrell]

Interesting. Can I ask this... Usually (for us) we take a 2D Plan and trace over it with 2D Polys then convert to Feature lines to grade. What do you recommend on that workflow.

First USE MAP
attach that layout file
run MAPCLEAN on it to fix issues with geometry
and convert objects to polylines

Then attach as XREF
and use Create Feature lines from Objects or Alignments from Objects
Choose (XREF) option

Faster more accurate, and you are not redrawing objects that are already in existence

And have a much more productive day!

[MSTG007]

Man! that makes so much sense. I would never thought to do that. I guess you'll be using all the tools of the Civil3D Suite.

[mjfarrell]

Stuff you can't learn in any book...

Any way be sure to also use MPEDIT and join polylines that should one be after that MAP operation.


I use MOST of the tools....some more in theory training others.
And some more than others.

[MSTG007]

Gotcha... I knew you were pretty smart at this stuff. but now your _____________ above smart.... Guru-ish?

[mjfarrell]

On a side note; for the people I am working for full time
through a series of Tool Palette enhancements, and MAP
procedures I have helped them reduce a process from
6+ hours to 2 hours.

Just be rethinking the process; mostly because I didn't really know
what they were doing. Instead only what they were trying to do.


I'll tell you where to send that profit sharing check!   

[Dent Cermak]

They should never have killed proximity faults.
At least with what I use now my fine work comes in as 2D and 3D when I run field to finish, so I do not have to do the dance you outline above.

[mjfarrell]

They should never have killed proximity faults.
At least with what I use now my fine work comes in as 2D and 3D when I run field to finish, so I do not have to do the dance you outline above.

They didn't kill proximity faults, they are still in there.  However one might still forget to add any desired weeding or supplemental factors to them when they are added to the TIN.  And then, there you are doing the Breakline shuffle all over again. 

Then again I recommend strongly against their use. For this reason, if there should be a break or a feature that should have a breakline to define it, then the surveyor should collect data to properly define that feature. 
And by definition a 'proximity' fault does not.

[Dent Cermak]

But then they worked GREAT up until 2010 (last version I used) and made a really nice surface. Just set them to where they don't run out 10 or 20 feet and they work very well with reasonable settings.
Just one more reason I like my new stuff better. Get to fudging variables and you lose accuracy. I hate that "simplify surface" junk these programs have. That leads to a really bogus surface. Use the shots taken in the field only. Start "adjusting" things too much and you may find yourself in a witness box trying to explain the feature to a jury of "their" peers. Think about explaining the new AutoCAD to a jury of people that don't have a clue what a contour is, much less a tin.
(And, oh, it was my AutoCAD VAR that told me that he had NEVER heard of proximity faults and that the ONLY way to get valid breaklines was to trace over all of your line work with a 3D poly. Point to point. Another reason why I switched software.)