TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: spittle on May 12, 2008, 05:43:30 AM
-
I have drawn an alignment for a pipe network and have created a long section. There are various pipes that the long section crosses over. I have inserted a pipe from the network catalogue on each of these pipes that the alignment passes over. Now the plan was to hit 'show on profile' to display where the pipe alignment crosses another pipe. Unfotunately rather than displaying a cross section (so a circle or eliptical cross section of the pipes) it has drawn the whole pipe, which is wrong.
Any ideas?
-
What you want to do is go to your Edit your sample line group.
You will look for the SECTIONS TAB and select sample MORE sources...
Here you will select your pipe(s) networks that you want shown in your section views created from your sample line group in the Left panel, and use the Add source to add it into the data displayed in your sections. The pipes will then appear as you have them defined and styled for sections, as defined in the parts list.
-
I'm not understanding your explanation, sorry I'm fairly new to Civils.
I've attached an example just incase I wasn't clear in my explantion.
The first image shows the plan, I've quickly put a pipe in and set a rough invert level for both ends of the pipe so it's within range to show up on my long section.
The second image is showing my long section which I'm drawing some 2D fittings on top. You can see the circle which is indicating where the alignment passes the pipe and you can see the pipe from where I've select to show part in profile view.
-
Spittle,
At this point we may have reached the limits of WEB based support.
Please send me a Private Message or Email, I will happily call you and talk you through this process.
As it is my great pleasure to be of assistance, and would like to limit your frustration on this.
It appears that the issue is your pipes are NOT perfectly perpendicular to your alignment. As they are oblique to the alignment you may need a work around to display only the ellipse of the crossing pipes in your 'long section', which I suspect is actually a profile, (profile view).
-
The challenge here is that the user has crated a PROFILE and wants to Draw a grossing pipe in that PROFILE using a Section Style Ellippse. In short this will need to be done manually if all you want is the ellipse in PROFILE. However IF the user were to create a Section View The pipes would be drawn more like the user desires.
Why? Because C3D wants to draw complte pipes in PROFILE VIEW and only graphical ellipses in a SECTION VIEW.
-
The user will want to define an alignment for this purpose, nearly perpendicular to the Junction structure where the pipes deflect. Then create a Sample Line group, along that alignment, with a Section only at the pipe station, center of junction structure. Then the user will grip edit the Sample lines to extent the length of the pipes, and follow their deflection through the box. When the user draws the Section view for this sample line be sure to include the other pipe run as a sampled source, and then the pipe will display as an ellipse in the section view.
-
I think you should be able to get the ellipse to display without that much trouble. You first need to create a pipe style that only has the profile crossing component set to be visible. Then you can set that style as an override for that pipe in the profile view that it is to be seen as a tributary. The long funky pipe will change in that view only to an ellipse. Please note that occasionally this method will give a very unusual looking ellipse that is wider than tall.
-
Yes, the challenge is Plan, Profile, Section VIEW styles. I have seen the data (cheating) and believe the best method is a Section View, not a Profile View. The Profile Style allows NOT for drawing only an ellipse, this is the realm of the Section View Style component.
-
Yes, the challenge is Plan, Profile, Section VIEW styles. I have seen the data (cheating) and believe the best method is a Section View, not a Profile View. The Profile Style allows NOT for drawing only an ellipse, this is the realm of the Section View Style component.
Not sure I understand. You can create a pipe profile style that shows ellipse only.
Does this particular pipe cross the aligment at such a skew that an ellipse will not be shown properly?
And I don't know if the user filled you in, but Long Section = Profile in a lot of former British Empire countries.
-
I would like to see a profile style that is ONLY an ellipse. Please post a drawing with one in it or tell us how to set it up.
In my Pipe Styles (profiles tab) I get Lines, and hatching settings, nothing for a block (ellipse). Those appear to be only available on the Section tab of the pipe style editor.
Yes, got the language, and the pipe is fairly oblique to the pipe run. This why I suggested using a Section View, as well. Perhaps your description of Pipes as ellipses in profiles style will illuminate.
-
I would like to see a profile style that is ONLY an ellipse. Please post a drawing with one in it or tell us how to set it up.
In my Pipe Styles (profiles tab) I get Lines, and hatching settings, nothing for a block (ellipse). Those appear to be only available on the Section tab of the pipe style editor.
I definitely do think that I am misunderstanding you...and I want to learn more. There is something fundamental here that I am not getting my head around. The styles I have always made don't include the block that you mention (and I cannot find how to add the block you mention in section, can you post a screen cap? I only have 2009 on this machine and maybe the UI is different.)
What I meant was that you can make a style that turns on Profile Crossing Pipe Inside Walls and Crossing Pipe Outside walls and turn everything else off.
If the pipe crosses at a skew, the resulting crossing will not be shown as a true ellipse, but distorted to reflect the true "slice". Like a tubular noodle in a casserole that is cut on an angle.
-
No I think you understand me.
however in looking at your question has given me an idea(s) for a Different perhaps Better solution.
Firstly, in Pipe Styles one can control what lines and or hatching is shown In PLAN, and PROFILE.
One can also control the Section Style of the pipe. The confusion is my fault, by including a structure style element, as one can NOT insert a block in a pipe style, one CAN insert a block as a Structure.
The user could insert a structure, that uses a block (ellipse) at the pipe crossing.
OR
The user could create an Interference Style that will place a Circle (I know, not an ellipse) in the Profile View.
I still think the Section View method will produce the desired results with less user input.
-
Do you know about this procedure?
Its kinda old, so forgive the sceen caps, but its identical in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/2006/06/civil-3d-nuts-and-bolts-showing-and.html
-
Yes, this is the same procedure I attempted to describe and it does still work albeit with the occasional pipe that displays as round or even flattened and wider than the structure. This is quite annoying and if Michael's block selection works better, I would switch over in a minute. Another consideration, with the style solution the ellipse will not show unless the alignments cross and with storm sewers I would never have this condition because the pipe runs needed to go wall to wall rather than meet at the center. If a block could be forced as part of the structure definition perhaps those missing ellipses would reappear.
-
Sorry Dino, that block option is an either OR, so unless you want to place TWO structures, and I know you don't that option is no solution for you.
And I still think using a Section view is the most direct method for the user in this case, as pipes will draw themselves correctly in the section with out the caveat Dino mentions, or need to override the pipe style.
-
Another consideration, with the style solution the ellipse will not show unless the alignments cross and with storm sewers I would never have this condition because the pipe runs needed to go wall to wall rather than meet at the center.
This is true. Since profiles are a function of the alignment definition, the pipe does have to cross the alignment in question in order to show up on the profile view.
I am trying to picture your storm sewer issue... pipe runs wall to wall... do you have a skematic? I have some ideas but I am not sure they make sense.
-
He has a whole thread title C3D it just doesn't add up. Go read all that, it will put you to sleep, or make you too mad to sleep when you 'get' the problems that exist in PIPES that are far from being addressed.
-
And I still think using a Section view is the most direct method for the user in this case, as pipes will draw themselves correctly in the section with out the caveat Dino mentions, or need to override the pipe style.
I guess I have always seen it in the context that the user already had a profile view drawn with their other pipes and labels and such, so it was fewer steps to quickly add and override the pipe.
I agree though that the section pipe crossing tools (and labeling for that matter) are a lot more user friendly than profile. At least in 2008. There might be some improvements i havent discovered in 2009, but I don't think so.
Cool beans. Lots to be learned tonight.
-
I could dig you out a screen capture, but it may take longer than I have reserves remaining after today to get one for you - perhaps tomorrow. Actually the missing ellipse is the least of my concerns with the storm pipe issue. I can keep drawing one manually for no more than it is an issue. The more annoying problem is the tendency for the pipes I draw from inside face to inside face to revert to meeting at the center of structure without provocation or ceremony. If the pipe display is regenerated they just revert and I have to change all affected by grip edit lest my lengths, slopes and pipe bearings turn into so much fiction. Another problem that is an outright defect in the program is the pipe lengths and bearings being reported incorrectly UNLESS I take the extra steps required described when the pipes must run IF to IF of structure. The programs seems to calculate the distance wall to wall at the bearing derived by center to center of structure rather than mid points on the walls. The distance is close, but throws the slope calculation off and because of the bearing issue, I do not trust any of the interference checks or crossings for these runs. I know the issue was brought to the programmer's attention last summer, but 2009 still has the problem with the pipe ends instability so I doubt if the slope and bearing issues were addressed either.
-
My understanding is and was that NOTHING for pipes was to be addressed with the 2009 release.
-
That was my thinking after the first test flight although I think there may be the capability of joining pipe networks now. I just didn't have the heart to look much further when I saw my pipe ends snap back to center the first time I forced the issue.
-
. . .
I am trying to picture your storm sewer issue... pipe runs wall to wall... do you have a skematic? I have some ideas but I am not sure they make sense.
The best way I can relay my problem is to give you the whole picture. I have a 12.6 mb ETransmit zip file with the drawing zoomed in to an area with some pipes correct and others obviously wrong. I can post a link to my lily pad or I can send you a link to download via the SwampExpress if you can provide an address for the linkage to work.
-
The best way I can relay my problem is to give you the whole picture. I have a 12.6 mb ETransmit zip file with the drawing zoomed in to an area with some pipes correct and others obviously wrong. I can post a link to my lily pad or I can send you a link to download via the SwampExpress if you can provide an address for the linkage to work.
try my gmail. Not sure when I will have a chance to dig into it, but I would like to try. dana dot probert at gmail dot com
-
Dino-
I've learned that while you can snap pipes to the outside of structure manually, like you have been doing, having the rules running kicks them back to CL of structure. SInce all invert adjusting rules are based on the CL of structure... you get the idea. I've asked about how to change the rule set. more to come...
Dana
-
Dino-
I've learned that while you can snap pipes to the outside of structure manually, like you have been doing, having the rules running kicks them back to CL of structure. SInce all invert adjusting rules are based on the CL of structure... you get the idea. I've asked about how to change the rule set. more to come...
Dana
Excellent . . . it is good to know that at least there is a reason for the behavior . . . and with that knowledge, there is at least hope for a solution. Thank you Dana
-
Yes, it sounds like you would need turn OFF the rules for your end pipes, and see if they do NOT adjust as desired. Run a test or two and let us know.
-
Excellent . . . it is good to know that at least there is a reason for the behavior . . . and with that knowledge, there is at least hope for a solution. Thank you Dana
There is more to it. Disabling the rules will apparently get you halfway there, but there is a programming element involved that snaps pipes to the center upon a structure move. The gentleman I have been talking to on the subject says that it might be possible to change the reactor, but it is outside of the realm of the rules. More to come...
-
Yes, I have already discovered that there is nothing in the rule set available to set or change that would appear to be the problem. I found the pointer to the dvb file controlling the rules but I don't even know enough about changing something there to be dangerous - it would instead likely be devastating
-
The suggested thing to try is to click on the pipe connected to the structure the way you like it, and go to the the Pipe Properties (rt-click) and I'm pretty sure you can turn the rules OFF, or change the rule set being applied to ONLY that pipe in the run.
-
The current rule set seems to have no effect on this whether I apply the rules or set an over ride to remove the rules. I think Dana is saying that this is a rules issue within the programming and not accessible to the users. I think you have seen this data when I first brought it to your attention last year, but I can put the ETransmit file up for you on SwampExpress to look at again if you are curious.
-
No I recall the issue clearly, because at first I didn't.
I am guessing that you also tried including a short pipe/null structure combination. Where one would place a null structure @ inside face.
Actual structure,Short Pipe, null at face, actual pipe run, null at face short pipe, actual structure.
-
The current rule set seems to have no effect on this whether I apply the rules or set an over ride to remove the rules. I think Dana is saying that this is a rules issue within the programming and not accessible to the users.
That is sort of what I am saying. There are two things at play here:
1-A rule can be written to force pipe attachment to the walls of a structure. It is not accesible to the user, but the friend of mine who programs pipe rules (not a desker) says he has been able to get it to go.
2- If the structure gets moved, that is outside of the scope of the rules and would require some separate programming to change the reactor.
The conclusion that I am drawing from this information is that it _might_ be possible for a third party application to be written to address this issue. And that therefore it _may also_ be something that _could_ be built into the program. Also, as of _right now_ there is very little that you, as a user, could do to prevent the resnapping (except for maybe some creative rule application which I haven't messed with.) These are my own conclusions based on those two pieces of information, and if I learn more I will share the information.
-
I tried that in one attempt early on and discarded the idea for some very good reasons that I can't recall off hand. There is a good chance that they involved some issues that are no longer a factor that I don't want to get into here ;-) . I will try that again as well and at least try to remember the problem.
-
Well I've got the Eliptical pipe displayed on my Profile view, and it was as easy as switching the right layers on and off.
I needed to switch on the Crossing Pipe Outside Wall layer and switch the rest off.
In the pic, the yellow circle is the manual pipe & the Magenta one is the pipe network crossing pipe. I've not set the diameter to the right size yet, just hope I can make it look round.
Will the above methods enable me to create a band style that will pick up the crossing pipe's Chainage and perhaps the ground profile?
-
Yes, you should be able to use reference text for that in your label
Also it is a 'bad' habit to change an object's style in the manner you did, unless you copied the
style that was being applied, gave it a new name "Crossing Pipes Style" or similar.
So I trust you made a new style and applied it to that pipe. Otherwise you are going to encounter some serious style management issues later with C3D.
-
The current rule set seems to have no effect on this whether I apply the rules or set an over ride to remove the rules. I think Dana is saying that this is a rules issue within the programming and not accessible to the users. I think you have seen this data when I first brought it to your attention last year, but I can put the ETransmit file up for you on SwampExpress to look at again if you are curious.
OK I talked to my contact in QA. While I still have faith that my programming buddy might have a solution, it appears that no matter how much you try to force a pipe to be attached to a wall, that the only acceptable attachment point in the program architecture is the structure insertion point.
If you changed the structure insertion point in part builder, you could change where the pipe attaches. But, that would mean that all pipes incoming/outgoing/etc. would attach there. And that wouldn't be good.
Also, even if you force it to attach to the walls of the structure, not matter what you do all of the calculcations and such are based on that structure insertion point.
We'll see if the hack fairy comes through for us, but no matter what he does, the above confirms that it will be indeed a hack.
-
Thank you . . . this is what I was suspecting to be the case. If I could, then ask an admitted "loaded" question?
If pipe interference checks and crossing locations are also based on the assumption that pipes are attached where they are not, will I also see said crossings and interference information based on that rather than the actual design? I fear that both horizontal and vertical locations would be questionable. While the differences would not be very much, I would commonly have less than 0.5' clearance with no real alternate short of redesign. The having to manually tinker with pipe ends is only an annoyance while if my suspicions are correct I think this is a serious defect in the pipes design architecture.
-
Thank you . . . this is what I was suspecting to be the case. If I could, then ask an admitted "loaded" question?
If pipe interference checks and crossing locations are also based on the assumption that pipes are attached where they are not, will I also see said crossings and interference information based on that rather than the actual design?
Let me ask. But I think based on what I know about interferences, that they are based on actual model locations of the solids. We'll see.
-
You should be able to set up a simple test for this.
Draw a run Structure to structure, and one that crosses it in the same fashion.
Copy this data to a new file
Now modify the pipes to snap to the inside walls.
Compare The two file and see where the interference plots.
If they are different that's good, if they are the same that would be bad.
-
Let me ask. But I think based on what I know about interferences, that they are based on actual model locations of the solids. We'll see.
According to my 'desk pipes guru, the algorithm searches for the physical pipe location for interferences, and so do crossings. I would test it, just for your own confidence, like Michael said, with a really obviously different example (like on a very large rectangular structure).
He recognizes that you are not alone in requesting an easy and accurate way to handle this.
-
Yes, this is the same procedure I attempted to describe and it does still work albeit with the occasional pipe that displays as round or even flattened and wider than the structure. This is quite annoying and if Michael's block selection works better, I would switch over in a minute.
I am working on some section documentation tonight and in addition to some of the other things discussed in this thread, there is at least one distinct advantage to using Michael's section method. For whatever reason, section views have an understanding of the pipe's invert at the crossing, but profiles do not.
I have 2009 open, but I am pretty sure the UI is similar in 2008. You can create a Pipe "Crossing Section" Label that pulls <[Pipe Section Bottom Inner Wall Elevation(etc)>, then use it to label a pipe in a section view. For whatever reason, these label styles are not exposed in profile.
I would _guess_ that it is because the Sample Line engine truly processes pipes when you cut sample lines, while Profiles don't think that hard. I'll ask.
-
I am working on some section documentation tonight and in addition to some of the other things discussed in this thread, there is at least one distinct advantage to using Michael's section method.
Dana thanks for the follow up, as I thought there was another good reason to use the section view method over a profile view, I just couldn't remember it at the time.
-
The hack fairy came through
http://civil-3d.blogspot.com/2008/05/vba-pipe-to-inside-edges.html
While this won't fix the problems we discussed below, it might be a decent patch through in the meantime.
-
Dana,
Interesting hack to be sure, given that it only fixes ONE pipe end at a go. Sure would be grand if instead of this kludge pipes would get the attention they need from autodesk.
-
Dana,
Interesting hack to be sure, given that it only fixes ONE pipe end at a go. Sure would be grand if instead of this kludge pipes would get the attention they need from autodesk.
I get the feeling its on the radar. If I learn more and I am permitted to share it, I will.
-
This would be an astounding event considering that nearly two years ago I was told by an autodesk individual they did not have the bandwidth nor plans for updating pipes. I guess they finally get it that pipes is basically broken in fundamental ways that need to be fixed.
Now if they can get it that Sites and Parcels and how they are implemented is just as shot.
-
Ah, Michael . . . remember every journey has a first step and this one is huge. I am already fiddling with my pipes one end at a time and having resets when I move the structure, but with this I can hopefully trust some numbers again and more importantly, it has been demonstrated that the pipes can act the way they are supposed to when they are placed where they need to be. There is much distance to travel indeed but it is grand to finally be moving. Thank you Dana and also your associate. It would have been much easier for either of you to just repeat the standard chant that the program was responding as designed.
-
Yes DinØ, however as you said the first step is rarely taken by autodesk. That step would be listening to the customers and ACCEPTING that there is a problem. And then once one accepts there is a problem,only THEN can actions be taken to solve same. As you said the standard is to deny there is a problem; and this prevents action from being taken.
If we were to start a timer right now, and or start a 'pool' how long do you think it will take before A) pipes do not need this hack to work, or B)pipes actually respond dynamically to changes in the start of run invert instead of the user needing to adjust all inverts along the run?
1 month
3 months
6 months
1 year
2 years
5 years
Never
Keep in mind one should not need to add normal program functions (as in it actually functions) to a WISH list and wait for ones wishes to come true. Unless you are still believing in the tooth fairy. This should be a normal service pack item. And to that item; Service Packs should be released more frequently and more targeted to the features and functions that do not function. Instead of one or two in a year as with the 2008 release, and with each of those breaking things that weren't broken before the patch. Perhaps this SINGLE item approach might make for smoother, and or selective deployment of patches. I say this as there are times that particular things that a patch was supposed to solve, have often not been a problem for some users so they do not install the larger patches at all because they fear what the patch may break.
-
I doubt that pipes will ever meet either of those criteria . . . at least without a major overhaul or completely new program architecture. We are approaching the point with Civil 3D where DCA was when it became Softdesk and within a few more years I expect a mature product to emerge with pipe, survey and parcels at least looking much different and working far better than they do at present. Land Desktop took a long time to appear in its final form. Civil 3D is still establishing that pipes can function and interact, even poorly, with other Civil 3D objects. I also expect that by the time everything in Civil 3D really works well, most of us fighting to get Civil 3D established and accepted will be dragging hiney like the old LDT die hards today and refusing to give up the tried and true Civil 3D in favor of the upstart replacement that "just isn't ready for production work yet." I hope I am able to retire before then . . . I don't want to fight on either side of that battle.
-
DinØ,
I didn't know that autodesk has gotten you to be as jaded and suspicious of them as myself.
-
It is mostly from the luxury of no longer having to meet budgets and deadlines with the software in its current form. I am having way too much time to sit back and have philosophical discussions with myself.
-
It is mostly from the luxury of no longer having to meet budgets and deadlines with the software in its current form. I am having way too much time to sit back and have philosophical discussions with myself.
Be careful.......
You might turn into me.
-
(http://www.screamingforum.com/forum/Smileys/default/3Ds_shocked.gif) NO !
(http://www.screamingforum.com/forum/Smileys/default/3Ds_trex.gif)
PLEASE . . . make it stop !
(http://www.screamingforum.com/forum/Smileys/default/3Ds_rofl.gif)
-
nice....Only I think you might still be too GREEN to turn into a barking dog :lmao:
-
If we were to start a timer right now, and or start a 'pool' how long do you think it will take before A) pipes do not need this hack to work, or B)pipes actually respond dynamically to changes in the start of run invert instead of the user needing to adjust all inverts along the run?
1 month
3 months
6 months
1 year
2 years
5 years
Never
Well, it took them over two years to get leading zeros in bearings, so a complete rework of pipes...? That's got to take ten years, at least. :?
-
I don't think it would take a complete rework of all of pipes to fix these issues.
I think it would require that autodesk simply admit that parts of it do not work, stop adding them to some technical document release after release, and actually FIX the problems. Be aware of a problem and actually fixing that problem are not the same thing.
And wow, you guys are even more pessimistic about this than I??? I didn't even think that possible.
-
Wouldn't you agree that it is difficult to remain optimistic with a company like Autodesk after being witness to their history?
-
Wouldn't you agree that it is difficult to remain optimistic with a company like Autodesk after being witness to their history?
Did not say that I was optimistic, just did not think it was possible to be more jaded towards autodesk than myself.