What can I say? With 9 years of experience I have encountered scenarios where I would use this functionality.
Yes, it is manageable with end conditions, but *easy* is not a word I would use to describe the amount of work going into setting up the conditionals to determine that an end condition is approaching from above or below the active surface.
In case it helps visualize the issue, consider that some slopes that we might tie to are steeper than our cut or fill slope. I don't know if this is universal, but where I come from, the cut end condition has the highest priority. If my cut section is able to locate the active surface--whether from above or below--that is what gets drawn. What if I don't want a cut section to be constructed because it would come with the implication that virgin ground is exposed (which is false)?
With this requested functionality, all I'd need to say is "target from below" or something, and that would be that.
Without this requested functionality, I'd need to locate the origin of the cut backslope, then I'd need to determine whether *that* point is above or below the appropriate surface. Then I'd need to do a vertical-offset check, then if it passes, run it out as intended. If it fails the vertical-offset check, I'd need to ensure that that end condition fails so that it can now check for the next end condition whether ordinary or special fill condition.
I'm not prepared to say this improvement would be trivially easy to implement on your end. I *am* going to say that it would be an improvement, and therefore I am asking for it. After all, throughout Geopak's offerings there are tools I have yet to use (however few that number), yet they're there, and they've been implemented. Quite obviously those tools help some but not others. I suspect that those who use these tools today could have found other solutions to their problems if those tools didn't exist.
For all the workarounds I might be able to think up for this scenario, this tool I'm asking for would be helpful and would trivialize the solution to some problems I've encountered.
Yes, it is manageable with end conditions, but *easy* is not a word I would use to describe the amount of work going into setting up the conditionals to determine that an end condition is approaching from above or below the active surface.
In case it helps visualize the issue, consider that some slopes that we might tie to are steeper than our cut or fill slope. I don't know if this is universal, but where I come from, the cut end condition has the highest priority. If my cut section is able to locate the active surface--whether from above or below--that is what gets drawn. What if I don't want a cut section to be constructed because it would come with the implication that virgin ground is exposed (which is false)?
With this requested functionality, all I'd need to say is "target from below" or something, and that would be that.
Without this requested functionality, I'd need to locate the origin of the cut backslope, then I'd need to determine whether *that* point is above or below the appropriate surface. Then I'd need to do a vertical-offset check, then if it passes, run it out as intended. If it fails the vertical-offset check, I'd need to ensure that that end condition fails so that it can now check for the next end condition whether ordinary or special fill condition.
I'm not prepared to say this improvement would be trivially easy to implement on your end. I *am* going to say that it would be an improvement, and therefore I am asking for it. After all, throughout Geopak's offerings there are tools I have yet to use (however few that number), yet they're there, and they've been implemented. Quite obviously those tools help some but not others. I suspect that those who use these tools today could have found other solutions to their problems if those tools didn't exist.
For all the workarounds I might be able to think up for this scenario, this tool I'm asking for would be helpful and would trivialize the solution to some problems I've encountered.