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.)

[mjfarrell]

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.)

Your VAR was (is) and idiot
However as I said IF there is a feature that warrants a breakline then your surveyor should shoo the points that define that feature.

You must understand that now as with previous versions the elevations assigned to that break line is the one 'proximal' to the vertex, and we both know that is not the actual elevation.

Close only counts in hand grenades, howitzers, and nuclear weapons, not surveying.

[MSTG007]

I gotta ask this question. Still spins off this topic. Feature Lines and Grading Criterias. Is it better to use one overall feature line that you grade your criterias from or do you break the feature line then grade that segment or segments? For an example, You have an overall feature line that is connected. It goes from the sidewalk (finished pavement) all around the lot and includes the entrances. Do you break the feature line at the entrances or do you not?

[mjfarrell]

NO

NO


NO

You apply different grading criteria, along it at appropriate locations.


Please, don't tell me you have been breaking them up into little segments....

No, really don't tell me

[MSTG007]

Most do... don't know why...
To be honest. I do / do alittle of both.

[mjfarrell]

 


I said don't tell me.....now my head hurts                   

[Mark]

I'm really glad i only work with small 3D projects.

[MSTG007]

Mark, How do you usually do it?

[Mark]

Mark, How do you usually do it?

I use 3D polylines for everything. When i create my surface I do a Select All and make them all breaklines. The slowest part is working around arcs. I create points along the arc that are close enough to each other so that the surface looks good but represents the actual ground surface.

[mjfarrell]

Mark, How do you usually do it?

I use 3D polylines for everything. When i create my surface I do a Select All and make them all breaklines. The slowest part is working around arcs. I create points along the arc that are close enough to each other so that the surface looks good but represents the actual ground surface.

Feature Lines.....PLEASE

Supplemental factors PLEASE  - you are doing it wrong.

Now my head really hurts. 

[MSTG007]

Hey, you heard it from the Boss man.

Maybe we need a sticky on the way feature lines are supposed to be use (ideally)? Just a thought... Like you said. Name your Breaklines / Create one overall featureline use grading criterias from that...

Just a thought

[Mark]

Supplemental factors PLEASE  - you are doing it wrong.

when i have time i'll argue with you. but your method makes my head hurt.

[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.)

Your VAR was (is) and idiot
However as I said IF there is a feature that warrants a breakline then your surveyor should shoo the points that define that feature.

You must understand that now as with previous versions the elevations assigned to that break line is the one 'proximal' to the vertex, and we both know that is not the actual elevation.

Close only counts in hand grenades, howitzers, and nuclear weapons, not surveying.

Like I said, in the early days it was the fastest and easiest fix for an inherent problem. It gave data that meet survey accuracy and Nation Map Accuracy standards. All was well within 0.05'.
BUT with the new software we now use this is a moot issue. ALL points are as shot and the 3D and 2D are drawn the same at one time with absolutely no need for "supplemental data" or "Weeding". In the hands of 95% of the people trying to do contours today, those 2 factors are tools of destruction and latent inaccuracies. Dang, most people don't even know all of  the types of contours (Major and Minor - they do not exist in the mapping world. They are a Fig Newton of the imagination of the idiots at Autodesk.) much less what to do with depression contours and their symbolization.(Strange that other software packages allow you to identify and symbolize them automatically?) Anyone else know what a "carrying contour" is. Probably not.
And now I read where Autodesk is backing off the Google tie-in and KMZ files? More and more clients are demanding photo image insertion and Google kmz files and Autodesk is doing a two-step away from that trend?? Well, you get what you pay for. Sometimes.

[Mark]

Feature Lines.....PLEASE

I still like my 3D poly's but thanks, i did learn something from this experiment.

Question: when creating feature line and you select a point why does it ask for elevation? the point has an elevation. *shrug*

[mjfarrell]

it is giving you an option to 'override'  that elevation, it that is the right thing to do

also I would ask are your point being inserted @ 0, or actual elevation? 

In the 0 instance that point has an elevation in the label only.

You would grow to love feature lines IF you used them more.

They have more powerful design functionality than your semi-literate 3d polylines   

[Eclipse]

Another reason why I switched software.)

What software are you now using? We've also switched away from Civil 3d to an Australian program called 12d (http://www.12d.com/). It is light years ahead of Civil 3D in terms of design capability (although less so in drafting as it is more of a design package, then export to AutoCad for drafting) and perhaps best of all, is incredibly stable.

[mjfarrell]

And it is also incredibly limited in how and or what other software packages it can communicate with.

Civil 3d is reasonably stable IF you know what you are doing.

IF not then of course you will crash it, sort of like a Super Bike.

[Eclipse]

And it is also incredibly limited in how and or what other software packages it can communicate with.

Such as?

It interfaces with our GIS software and drainage software (we did not use SSA) fairly well, which is a lot more than than Civil 3D ever did... you do the design in 12d, export the drainage network to one of our drainage packages (we use a few and it supports them all; whereas Civil 3D only supported one through a 3rd party extension/addon), import the results from the drainage analysis, then export the CAD work to AutoCad for drafting. What else would we need to interface with? It can do a lot more although we are not using it fully yet.

It has all the standard landxml, genio, dwg/dxf, ADAC, .tin/,lin/.pts import/export functionality etc...

Civil 3d is reasonably stable IF you know what you are doing.

Well unfortunately not all of our designers are that cluey. Yes, you can work around Civil 3Ds issues although a better question is why should someone have too? If the staff can't use it effectively and we can't hire peopel who want to use it, then it is not the best product for us.

[mjfarrell]

horses for courses...if it 'works' for you and your company good on you

I have encountered a few support questions regarding 12d compatibility, and it appears to present some challenges
for others out there.


Granted one can't design directly in C3D, however you cant do the drafting function you need in 12d either.

The drafting being a bit more labour intensive than design, it's more than an even trade-off.

And Civil has GIS tools built right in.

Trust I'm no Autodesk Fanboy, however needing to export to autocad to get your drafting done, is about like going back to Land Desktop (1997)

[Eclipse]

horses for courses...if it 'works' for you and your company good on you

I have encountered a few support questions regarding 12d compatibility, and it appears to present some challenges
for others out there.

What are the compatibility issues? The only thing I have come across is that you can't export (well anyhow) super alignments and that they must be converted to regular alignments first.

Granted one can't design directly in C3D, however you cant do the drafting function you need in 12d either.

What do you mean by not being able to design directly in Civil 3D? AutoCad is a great drafting tool, no qualms there. I need a design tool for design though (which Civil 3D is although is more limited than other design programs).

The drafting being a bit more labour intensive than design, it's more than an even trade-off.

I agree about the drafting being labor intensive! We were doing the same with Civil 3D anyway, the designer designs in Civil 3D and then it is exported to AutoCad for drafting by our draftspeople.

I don't agree that it is an even trade off. I need the design tools a lot more than I need the drafting tools. Given I do no drafting what-so-ever in 12d it is a non issue.

And Civil has GIS tools built right in.

Trust I'm no Autodesk Fanboy, however needing to export to autocad to get your drafting done, is about like going back to Land Desktop (1997)

I don't personally use it (in either program) although 12d does have GIS capability.

So do your engineers do their own drafting in Civil 3D? Do you not export/give to the draftspeople to draft?

[mjfarrell]

If used correctly there is little no need for drafting people to add labels and notes as most of that happens when  you do the designing.

Even titleblocks on sheets can fill in their own values.


Design of storm drain or pressure pipe networks is not done directly in C3D - for clarity.

Shame that you never know you could use a GIS import function to recreate existing storm or sanitary networks.

[MSTG007]

True. with MJ

[Dent Cermak]

Another reason why I switched software.)

What software are you now using? We've also switched away from Civil 3d to an Australian program called 12d (http://www.12d.com/). It is light years ahead of Civil 3D in terms of design capability (although less so in drafting as it is more of a design package, then export to AutoCad for drafting) and perhaps best of all, is incredibly stable.

We switched from LDD to Carlson Survey several years ago and have never looked back. Does everything We need to do and is very easy to use. Ex-LDD users find it an easy transition. Best move corporate ever made. Software costs have been cut by about 60% and productivity has easily doubled on all of our seats.

[mjfarrell]

Again, horses for courses.  If what one does is primarily survey related work, Carlson may very well be your best option.

[MSTG007]

I have been using Civil3D since it debut in 2005. It gets better each year, but as usually, there are bugs. The one thing I love is the capabilities of the integration of other software.

[Dent Cermak]

Again, horses for courses.  If what one does is primarily survey related work, Carlson may very well be your best option.

Not really "horses for courses" but more like more bang for the bucks.
And I have said all along, "IF you are a Survey Company", Carlson Software is the answer to the question. Never have addressed civil packages, because that is not what I do. Autodesk blended a very good survey package into a very expensive and rather cumbersome C3D package and it all kind'a gets lost.
EVERY company should search for the one package that caters to their needs in the most economical manner. AutoCAD is NOT the answer for everyone. Some "classic types" still think Intergraph is the Boss? Go figure.

[Eclipse]

I have been using Civil3D since it debut in 2005. It gets better each year, but as usually, there are bugs. The one thing I love is the capabilities of the integration of other software.

What integration capabilities are you talking about? What software programs?

[Mark]

Thanks again Michael.

Still like my 3D polylines though.

[mjfarrell]

Thanks again Michael.

Still like my 3D polylines though.

BLASPHEMER!

IF  I could show you the real power of feature lines and grading objects for site design...you would eat those words!