I've started to really dig deep into the use of the Side Slope command. I think it's going in the right direction but its not 100% there yet. The circumstances i am currently using it are to build corridor type features on sites and in intersections. I also use it to quickly create multiple vertical offsets of final design linework to be used in subgrade surfaces. Currently if a side slope is added to a linestring, it runs the full length of the line from the pre-defined start station and if a second template (side slope) is added to that line they will overlap. Also, currently you can only use the Finish material in order to build your linestrings. The great ability of this command is for me to be able to build my multiple layers all at the same time.
The changes i would like to see are;
- As I am building multiple materials(subgrades) at the same time, I am currently copying linestrings out to a design layer for the final model. When copied out, if the "master line" is changed, the copied geometry is automatically deleted, and the original template created linestrings are updated on its source layer. I would like any copied out linework to lose the referenced definition and remain untouched regardless of changes to the template or master line.
- Remove the Side Slope Layer option and Line Layer option. As the material boxes do not currently work in the command (except "finish" to get linework), rather than associate the materials with a surface like corridors, associate the material with a layer. This could be as easy as under the corridors "material manager" adding a column for each material defining a layer. Then when the side slope command is run, it can use that base layer and create 2 additional variations of that layer (eg. Material Layer: Finish, Variations: Finish_SideSlopes & Finish_Breaklines. Once these are layer dependant, when you pick materials in the command, it will automatically create linework and on a layer specific to the material you are referencing.
- Similar to a past request of mine and others; please add template instruction grouping, saving and import and export
Feature Request - Corridor Instruction Grouping
- Currently if you apply two templates to a master line (one at beginning and the other at the mid point), both templates will be created and starting at the midpoint, the first template will carry through as well, creating an overlap of linework. Similar to corridors, please add the ability to terminate an template with the creation of following template. That can include templates transitioning from one to another or even just the simple adding of a blank template. This would also allow for master lines to remain full length without the need to break for specific templates. At minimum, if multiple templates will not be allowed, then a template end station should be allowed as called out by Patrick;
Feature Request - Sideslope - Template Stop
- My last request is a little more in the weeds. Once you have sorted out the application of multiple materials in one side slope template, material above drop downs applied, allow for the ability to link a templates material cross sectional areas and the templates total lineal footage to be applied directly to a "New Site Improvement" under the "linear with cross-sectional area tab" under the MSI Manager.#
All in all, I'm pretty excited about the command and think it has the potential to reduce model prep and takeoff time.
Trying to respond to your questions here
1) Sidelope Templates overlapping - I am checking that out
2) Sidelope creates a Sideslope template and a Sideslope Object both are placed at the same location. You can explode a sideslope object (not a template) by clicking at the origin location and using the Explode command - you can elect to delete or keep the original sideslope in this process. This separates the linework from the dynamic object so you can do whatever you need to do with it
3) You as I think you have found can create linework for many material layers, but it only creates one material layer as an output - this is similar to the way the corridor model only shows one material layer at a time. You can however create linework for many layers on one layer and then explode it prior to separation - I agree that it would be great to have multiple Material Layers of Linework in a more automated way than today - but you can do what you want to do - just use the one layer to create all the lines you need and then explode. Name them so that when you explode you can select by name to separate them easily.
4) If you want all this feature set why don't you use the Corridor model where it already exists - is it just because you want to start with a Linestring and not an Alignment? I don't disagree with what you are asking for - I have been asking for all these things for a long time now also - it is gathering support and I will forward your email to development in support of earlier requests - will see what I can do.
I will come back to you on the Template placements
Thank you for the response and looking into the template placement. I had initially tried to explode the template. Learning that i can explode the side slope and retain a copy of the linework creates a solution to most of my questions. It is easy enough to have a "construction" set of linework that i can explode out to layers for final model prep.
Per your question of why not just use a corridor, I think that I prefer the sideslope approach over using the corridor model for two reasons;
1) Mainly it is because i want to start, maintain and end with a linestring. From what i can see, there are far more tools available for both horizontal and vertical manipulation of a linestring than there are for Alignments (Horizontal/Vertical). Please note that i am a relatively new user to TBC, and most things that i think are broken or missing, tend to be my lack of knowledge in the software.
2) I actually prefer in these "site/intersection" scenarios to work with the linestrings rather than the Corridor Model to surfaces approach. The template is a great to get the general breaklines I want to start with and provide fast and accurate takeoffs, but there are almost always small circumstances where the template/corridor scenario doesn't work perfect and needs slight tweaking to create the final model. I like the idea that at that point i can just tweak the output linestrings rather than spending a lot of time over-complicating a template to work in all circumstances.
The reason why I would like the material feature set added to the side slope tool, rather than using a corridor, is ultimately I am going to build my model with the side slope tool in these scenarios. Why duplicate efforts?
As I learn more about the correct workflows in Business Center, I'm sure I'll gravitate to a completely different approach, but those my initial thoughts.
I have not dug into the use of side slope and will be using SS by this week. Does the SS have the ability to use "slope transitions"? I will be creating a intersection of a remove and replace roadway. That intersections has a few grade breaks along with slope transitions. Seems it would be fast to create SS linestrings and then use them for corridor references.
Yes it has the same tables as a corridor or the use of shared slope tables
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 7:55 AM email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>