Topic: Showing pipe cross overs on long sections

[mjfarrell]

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.

[scout]

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.

[Dinosaur]

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.

[spittle]

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?

[mjfarrell]

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.

[scout]

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.

[Dinosaur]

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.

[scout]

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.

[mjfarrell]

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.

[scout]

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.

[scout]

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.

[mjfarrell]

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.

[scout]

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.

[mjfarrell]

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.

[scout]

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.