billholt Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 The modifiers which shape my proposed dtm have shown a tendency to lose their effectiveness. What I mean by this is that after some small modification of a modifier, typically reshaping, the data points from the existing dtm will start to penetrate what had previously been a surface defined by the modifier and totally screw up the works. Is this new with VW11? OX 10.2.8 QD6.5.1 G3 machine Quote Link to comment
billholt Posted April 30, 2004 Author Share Posted April 30, 2004 Trouble shooting .... I have seven versions of the plan, numbered. 1 - 5 are VW10 docs. (site plan5 is 4.3 meg) 6 - 7 are VW 11 docs. (site plan7 is 1.5 meg) Regenning the proposed dtm does not cause the blow-up in drawing 4. It _does_ cause the blowup in drawing 5. Therefore, the problem is not in the VW10 to VW11 transition but in something that has changed in the drawing. Checking drawing 4 vs drawing 5, element by element. Ah ha! The problem is the most common of problems I've encountered ... operator error. In drawing version 4, I have a "fence" coincident with the property line. In drawing version 5, it's gone. After replacing this item, everthing works in version 7 (VW-11) of my drawing. Nevermind. Quote Link to comment
billholt Posted May 1, 2004 Author Share Posted May 1, 2004 Allow me to clarify/confuse the issue further. I'm probably pushing the program a bit. My current filesize is meg, with no bitmaps of any sort - all hard data. Imagine that you have an existing conditions dtm. Then, imagine a "U" shaped "pad" modifier with the Z value set to indicate cut. Then, imagine a second, smaller in plan, "U" shaped pad, nested within the larger U, set to a lower Z value to indicate a step downward toward the center. No contact between them, of course. Finally, imagine a roughly circular pad in the center, set to the lowest Z value, to define the bottom of a proposed excavation. Initially, this all worked nicely. Each of the U shaped pads showed as benches, as expected, and the area between them was a regular transition. The area between the inner U and the center pad also showed a regular transition and the overall result was as intended. Then, I edited the xy shape of the center pad (bottom of the excavation). As a result, all of the transitional areas ... the areas between the U's, and between the inner U and the center pad ... lost the transitional charactoristic. That is, all of the "transitional" area became unaffected by the nearby modifiers and the surface of those parts of my "hole" is lifted back to the original surface. The result is that my U shaped pads now appear to be U shaped slots dug into the site. Fortunately, I save files as a series of proigressively named files ... but I don't know if I'm crossing a program glitch, a glitch in my fresh system, of if the result that I initially see, and expect to see, is actually the malfunction. Perhaps the transitonal areas aren't supposed to occur? But here's the spooky thing. A few minutes ago, while working with version 6 of my drawing - the last one to show a hole with benches and transitions instead of a group of slots - the fubared rendering appeared and then, when I clicked back to 100%, the "correct" rendering appeared. Another possibility that I know, by experience, to be a contender is that of "operator error." If that turns out to be the case, I'll report it here when I understand it. Added observation. Version 7 of my drawing is the last one to show the proposed surface in the configuration I want. It may, possibly, have been created under v10.5 of VW ... not sure. However, I've observed that all I have to do to see the fubared surface is to have the prop dtm regened - with no changes on my part. Perhaps someone would like to look at this file? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.