Mike, I created a surface from the Stone Dike Corridor and the cross sections look fine. Are you sure you are emptying the design surface when you create it? Maybe there is some old surface junk in there that causing the conflict.
↧
RE: InRoads (SS2) Template Point Order Error
↧
RE: InRoads (SS2) Template Point Order Error
In Ss4, it works with no issues. I wonder if its all about not having end conditions so it can't tell that some components are 100% above grade and others are not.
As a workaround you have a few options:
- Use the Feature Properties tool to edit the offending features, changing them to Do Not Triangulate. There are not many, so its not too much work.
- Add a top surface only open component tracing it over all of the top points in the template. Place it using unconstrained and make sure it snaps to the existing points and you should not even have to merge in any points. Then change the middle component to be excluded from triangulation. I cannot recall the exact wording of the Ss2 component properties dialog box.
- Add an alternate surface the top surface points.
This last bullet may have solved the mystery. All of the points ending up in the surface are members of the same Alternate Surface. I suspect this is the real cause of the problem.
Points are naturally part of a component (unless they are Null Points) and there is no need to assign them to an alternate surface unless you need multiple surfaces. But when you do this, a group of points can only form a top surface or a bottom surface. When you make all points of a component part of the same alternate surface, the software uses all of them to make the surface. This will result in your bad sections.
Running the corridor to surface tool always makes a top surface. When create alternate surfaces is checked, points identified as having an alternate surface are also added to that alternate surface. This usually creates as many alternate surfaces as are named, plus the default specified surface.
I suspect you have a valid top surface you are not displaying but then have invalid alternate surfaces due to including top and bottom points in the same surface.
It may be possible that if you tell the create surface tool to use the same name as one of the alternate surface that you basically override the default behavior of making a valid top surface and get only the invalid alternate surfaces.
↧
↧
RE: InRoads (SS2) Template Point Order Error
Mark,
When I gathered the files for the upload, and cleaned them out, I had not copied the modeler output surfaces. Then regenerated them and still got the same results on new surfaces.
I know I have been having some other problems on this PC, this just may be evidence of another one since it is working good for you. I do have a new PC in our IT dept hands right now, just don't know when it is being delivered...
I'll try running it on someone else's PC tomorrow and see if it works on theirs. Will let you know.
Mike
When I gathered the files for the upload, and cleaned them out, I had not copied the modeler output surfaces. Then regenerated them and still got the same results on new surfaces.
I know I have been having some other problems on this PC, this just may be evidence of another one since it is working good for you. I do have a new PC in our IT dept hands right now, just don't know when it is being delivered...
I'll try running it on someone else's PC tomorrow and see if it works on theirs. Will let you know.
Mike
↧
RE: InRoads (SS2) Template Point Order Error
Mark and Chuck,
I did run it on another computer, still got the same results.
I then plotted the full Stone Dike surface as well as the component surfaces, and the full surface plotted fine. I was trying to create the template with closed elements to be able to get volumes once done, hence all the overlapping points.
Going by Chuck's post, tomorrow I will try removing the alternate surfaces from the points along the bottom of the closed components, leaving the top points for the layers. When I read that Mark got a full surface and Chuck's post about top surfaces, it hit me that it is going down to the points on the bottom of the closed components. If I do not make them part of the alternate surface, that may resolve the issue. If not, I'll dig deeper along Chuck's post.
Will let you know in the morning!
Thanks, Mike
I did run it on another computer, still got the same results.
I then plotted the full Stone Dike surface as well as the component surfaces, and the full surface plotted fine. I was trying to create the template with closed elements to be able to get volumes once done, hence all the overlapping points.
Going by Chuck's post, tomorrow I will try removing the alternate surfaces from the points along the bottom of the closed components, leaving the top points for the layers. When I read that Mark got a full surface and Chuck's post about top surfaces, it hit me that it is going down to the points on the bottom of the closed components. If I do not make them part of the alternate surface, that may resolve the issue. If not, I'll dig deeper along Chuck's post.
Will let you know in the morning!
Thanks, Mike
↧
RE: IR SS4 or ORD - Civil horizontal Geometry = how far do you go using all the Tools?
If you keep you core alignments in the native format, you can update the alignments in the DGN and it will recognize they are the same alignments. Ancillary alignments might be better built using the civil geometry tools as it remembers the rules and will allow updates.
I really thing (as I have said many times before) that these tools need the ability to edit them in a manner similar to the native tools. And we need better methods of getting to earlier iterations of profiles. I have found I sometimes have to add a new segment and recomplex and then it becomes harder to get back to an earlier profile that might still be involved or that you need to resurrect.
Something like the complex terrain model tool where you can promote earlier segments into the current design.
I really thing (as I have said many times before) that these tools need the ability to edit them in a manner similar to the native tools. And we need better methods of getting to earlier iterations of profiles. I have found I sometimes have to add a new segment and recomplex and then it becomes harder to get back to an earlier profile that might still be involved or that you need to resurrect.
Something like the complex terrain model tool where you can promote earlier segments into the current design.
↧
↧
RE: InRoads (SS2) Template Point Order Error
Mike, I'd like to see the design DTM that you are using.
↧
RE: Can multiple users open, write and save an openroads template library at the same time on a server?
Here's something we used for a recent multiuser network project using OR that worked quite well for anyone who's interested
communities.bentley.com/.../133333
communities.bentley.com/.../133333
↧
RE: How to manage Feature styles for the alternate surfaces
Hi Jeff,
I'am using SS4 and when I create the subsurface it's all in default style, that's my question on how to manage these.
//Christiaan
I'am using SS4 and when I create the subsurface it's all in default style, that's my question on how to manage these.
//Christiaan
↧
RE: Plan and Profile Generator - Title Block Data File
Hi!
Here comes atached DGN and dat files.
Maybe problem is in .dat file, I never have worked with this type before.
In screen shots, you can see that I attached both files under 'Border and Title'. Then a sheet looks properly (overview screen), but the title box is empty.
Best regards
/Agnieszka
(Please visit the site to view this file)(Please visit the site to view this file)
↧
↧
RE: Bugs of the previous version does exists in ORD Update 1
Could you provide a link to your previous post? are there defect numbers in the previous post? do you have a defect number In particular that you are referring to?
communities.bentley.com/.../33435.openroads-designer-connect-edition-wiki-articles-and-videos
communities.bentley.com/.../33435.openroads-designer-connect-edition-wiki-articles-and-videos
↧
Bugs of the previous version does exists in ORD Update 1
Hi,
I have tried the the ORD Update 1, but the bugs disappointed me! specifically the bugs of the previous version does exists in ORD Update 1, such as the civil accudraw bugs, point control bugs, etc. they are very important tool, so I suggest you bentley development team had better test the program carefully before being issued.
you can find the bugs list in my previous post.
Regards,
Chen Zhengpeng
↧
RE: Plan and Profile Generator - Title Block Data File
Hi,
Attach and/or editing the tag set inciv_ftr to your data fields versus TRVJ_NAMNRUTA. For the .dat file, I have found that if I copy the “example of a data file” found in the Help document exactly, and place that in my .dat file it works best, editing as needed.
In populating the field Engineer in the border
The data file entry in the .dat file will populate the value engineer as Mr. Taylor.
The tag populates the Value engineer (enter the value to be populated from the .dat file only, display should not be checked, if so the text "engineer" would be placed in my title block also, superimposed onto the engineer's name).
The results are:
Again, begin with the inciv_ftr tag set. I hope this helps.
Sanders
↧
Openroads
I was wondering if there is a way to check the slopes and elevations on my proposed coridor, kind of like the height slope tool when trying to look at surface elevations and slopes.
↧
↧
RE: How to manage Feature styles for the alternate surfaces
Can you please post some screenshots of your workflow and the issue you are facing? I need more detail to understand your question.
↧
How to manage Feature styles for the alternate surfaces
Hi Guys,
Is there someone who can explain how to manage Feature styles for the alternate surfaces, for now it's all coming up in the default Feature styles?
Regards, Christiaan
↧
Manual, known issues documentation for internal software validation help for SS4 and OpenRoads Designer Connect edition
One of our internal organizations requires separate software validation and testing. One of the items that is required is a User Manual that can be printed(pdf)/attached to form as an appendix. Is there such a document for SS4 and Openroads? In lieu of this, we would have to provide the following that I have not been able to easily find:
-Input Specifications and Format: List required inputs for the software and the format to be entered
-Output Specifications & Format: List the outputs that are generated by the software and the format in which the output is presented
-Software Limitations: List the limitations of the software
-Software Errors: List anticipated software errors that a user may encounter during normal use of the software
I don't seem to get all the information from the Help menu's. Before, we were able to just reference pages of the "User manual"
Other items we have to get, and think we have covered are:
- Introduction: Provide narrative of the function of the software and applicable references
- Software access: Describe how to access the software
- Required Training: List any special training required to execute the software
- How to get help: List internal contacts, internet sites, and any other resources that can assist the user when problems occur.
↧
RE: How to calculate earthwork from Cross sections excluding existing Components/Features.
I am using Microstation (InRoads). I am still having this issue. Any ideas how to exclude the volume of the existing components?
↧
↧
How to calculate earthwork from Cross sections excluding existing Components/Features.
Good morning everyone.
I created a template for proposed roadway (Proposed Sidewalk, Driveway, Curb, HMA, Sub grade, etc.) and a template for the existing roadway (Existing pavement, Curb, Driveway, Sidewalk, etc.). I combined both into one template which works perfectly (Took forever but eventually worked). Then I create cross sections and try to calculate earthwork by the "End Volume Method" under Corridor Modeling. I go under the "Classification" tab and I set every existing Component to "Ignore". But for some reason when I run the End Volume Method, the calculations still include the Cut/Fill of the existing Quantities.
The goal is to eliminate the volume of existing sidewalk, pavement, curb since they will be paid for by Individual pay items (such as Curb Removal) instead of Earthwork. Thus I only want the Earth Work Quantity for the Proposed components but I can't get get this.
Could a problem be that I am including the Existing Surface which will calculate the difference between the Existing surface and proposed components? How should I approach this?
I have attached an example image of a cross sections:
Here is a cross section where the volume was calculated between the Existing Surface and all proposed components have been IGNORED. Thus the volume calculated for this cross section is the volume I want to IGNORE.
[View:http://imgur.com/TqbbsQ3:940:0]
This next cross section is where the volume was calculated between the Existing Surface and the proposed components. The existing components have been IGNORED. Thus the volume calculated for this cross section is the volume I want to calculate MINUS the existing volume in the previous image:
[View:http://imgur.com/00x0KJs:940:0]
Any ideas on how I should approach this?
↧
GEOPAK Survey Generated Terrain Model Question
Hi,
I have a survey generated terrain model, but I think I might have made a copy of it. For some reason, I have two now. AllFieldbooks & AllFieldbooks1. So I delete one of them, exit the drawing, but when I return, the model is back. Also, I need to remove some survey points for the model, but when I select "do not include" the points are still included in the model. Is this a easy fix? Any idea what went wrong?
Thanks in advance
Mike
↧
Any way to identify imported Geometry into OpenRoads?
Hi all,
Is there any way at all to identify geometry that has been imported into OR SS4 or ORD? There doesn't seem to be anything anywhere to let the user know it has been imported and has a relationship to an external source. It would be quite useful if there was additional property info, eg. MX SS4 model/string fields for native exported link data, when there is an external link so the user knew where it came from, ie. design intent, and the ability to resync to source.
On that note, the same popup sync icon functionality like linked terrains would make sense.
Regards,
Mark
↧