Topic: Textures and material display

[mjfarrell]

Ahh haa. Yes I have a code set to render our corridors but I didn't think of extracting the triangles for surfaces. I cna't believe it since I use the command often to extract boundaries (why can't I get 2d area of a surface in a label) & zero elevation contours.

Now I can do it like I did in LDT! One surface applying different boundaries & extracting triagles to appropriate layers. I may have given up on that method in C3D 07. Wasn't surface extraction new in 08? Perhaps I just missed in in 07. I know I tried. I even went as far as trying to explode a surface but then I gave up because there were to many triangles to select individually or even with crossing windows. The curbs were brutal.

Thanks again for everything!

You are welcome; only I have not helped you with everything, yet.

It is easier with 08, however care could have been taken to bring in only the given links and create surfaces from the link, and or feature lines with earlier versions.

There is more to learn.  However your Ah HA! moment is exactly the payoff I do it for.  Have a Great week end!

[John Mayo]

Is there a way to fix this corridor so the code set renders coorectly or is this the "unexpected results" that one gets with 3d rendering C3D?

Is this because of the bowties?

[mjfarrell]

Looks like you will want to build that surface from feature lines, not from links.
This is NOT a code set error; this is a program error and you should file a complaint through the subscription center or nothing will be done to fix it.

[John Mayo]

Will do.

I would be very suprised to find that this was not logged a few releases ago.

[mjfarrell]

You will need to clean up the extraneous triangles by applying manual boundaries and or removing triangles.
They know about it for sure.....

[John Mayo]

I will also try xrefing the corridor into a new dwg, move it 0,0 & see if the recommended course of action works.

[mjfarrell]

WHO has suggested moving anything to 0,0?


Don't do it.....

[John Mayo]

Okay not (0,0) but insert it in negative coords. Please let me know the pitfalls that awit if we try this (sheepishly asking for even more help!!).

That "who" would be....(insert drum roll).... AUTODESK!!!!

Taken from the C3D 2009 readme,

"Display Issues For Drawings with Large Coordinates

In some situations, AutoCAD Civil 3D models may not be displayed correctly when rendered, animated, or viewed with certain visual styles. The model or parts of it disappear, do not display materials, or may appear to have holes.

Usually these errors occur if the drawing has large coordinates. If you xref the drawing into another drawing and move the origin to a lower coordinate (closer to 0,0), the viewing commands will work as expected.

To prevent these display errors

Open the drawing in AutoCAD Civil 3D.
Zoom to the extents of the drawing.
Move the drawing cursor to the approximate center of the graphics extents.
Write down the coordinates (X,Y,Z).
Start a new drawing from one of the AutoCAD Civil 3D templates.
Attach the original drawing as an xref.
Specify the insertion location as (-X,-Y,-Z), using the coordinates you obtained in Step 4 above and entering minus (-) signs in front of each. This will result in the approximate center of the graphics extents being positioned at 0,0 when the xref is attached.
Render the drawing or set your specific visual style.

[mjfarrell]

OK doing it as an XREF I am OK with, however the problems they are attempting to 'fix' are not the problems you are trying to fix. You have extra triangles, and they are going to appear irrespective of the coordinate values, or galaxy you are viewing them in.

[scout]

Is there a way to fix this corridor so the code set renders coorectly or is this the "unexpected results" that one gets with 3d rendering C3D?

Is this because of the bowties?

Looks like a bowtie rendering issue to me. Did you see the thread about this on the mainstream DG? Are you trying to apply render materials through the corridor code set? (Yes, I just reread the thread).

what is happening under the hood is that there is a superficial TIN being built, even if there is no corridor surface built. The superficial TIN cannot rectify its boundaries and it has no relationship with the "official" corridor surface even if you put a good boundary on that surface.

I like Mike's suggestion. DId it work?

[mjfarrell]

I'm reluctant to suggest this because I have NOT tested the results. It is possible that the user could leave out certain feature codes in the corridor, and or switch the connection points from branching Outward to Inward and perhaps those Extraneous TIN faces might be dropped off without the manual edits, or need to create the surface from Feature lines, not links.  Just a thought...

[scout]

I'm reluctant to suggest this because I have NOT tested the results. It is possible that the user could leave out certain feature codes in the corridor, and or switch the connection points from branching Outward to Inward and perhaps those Extraneous TIN faces might be dropped off without the manual edits, or need to create the surface from Feature lines, not links.  Just a thought...

Creating the surface from FL and not links would not have an effect because the issue does not surround the construction of the true corridor TIN.

Omitting links, changing branching, etc. may have an effect because it is fundamentally changing the corridor construction. So I'd give it a whirl.

[mjfarrell]

Creating the surface from FL and not links would not have an effect because the issue does not surround the construction of the true corridor TIN.

Exactly why it was suggested as a solution.

[scout]

I'm sorry, I am not sure I understand?

[scout]

I'm reluctant to suggest this because I have NOT tested the results. It is possible that the user could leave out certain feature codes in the corridor, and or switch the connection points from branching Outward to Inward and perhaps those Extraneous TIN faces might be dropped off without the manual edits, or need to create the surface from Feature lines, not links.  Just a thought...

Oh wait. I misread this. I think your meaning is .... without manual edits NOR the need to create the surface from feature lines.... am I getting it now? I thought your were offering that as a solution. My bad.