It would be much easier to troubleshoot my issue here if I knew in what order each point was located, and thus I could know how I can work around the behavior I'm seeing.
Lacking this, I could use some specific help, so here's my problem: I'm trying to find a suitable profile for a ramp merging onto the mainline. I have the edge of pavement along with a profile therefor. I'm using this element (plan + profile) in a point control to establish the relevant point within my template. From there, I plan to get the profile for the baseline. Unfortunately, the superelevation through this transition is not constant. So I have to use another point control using superelevation to establish the vertical location of another point, whether that's horizontally locked to the baseline or any other point wherefrom I can slope to the lateral location I'm looking for.
On the contrary, here's what I get: The slopes in my corridor don't match the slopes I expect to see from the superelevation report. If my superelevation point is set at 1' away from the edge of pavement, I get one result. If my superelevation point is set at 20' away from the edge of pavement, I get another result. (The superelevation's setting is that the width is 20, for the ramp.) In neither case is the superelevation bearing out. Since I remember that at least one input parameter for superelevation is received as a number of meters, I considered dividing 20 by 3.28; not even close to what I'm looking for.
If I knew all the steps the processor took as it figured out where each point was, I could better determine where my template's fault is, and from there I could determine that my efforts were hopeless and then find some other solution. As it stands, I don't know whether my efforts are hopeless or simply a little misguided.
I'm running Geopak SS4 .878.
