I have been trying to follow Bentley's best practices for file management within the OpenRoads environment, but I am running into an issue. It seems that whenever OpenRoads needs to create a 3D model on it's own, it will fail. If I create a file to contain my alignments, for example, I will start it in a 2D design model. When I go to begin the vertical geometry of that alignment, PowerGEOPAK will apparently try to automatically create the 3D design model needed, but it will hang and hang and eventually quit. If I start the process within a 3D model from the start, I don't have any issues. Is it having trouble finding a seed 3D design model? If so, how do I specify which design model I want to use as its seed?
Any other ideas about why it would fail at this step?
For more information about the Road and Site design tools, visit the Road and Site design WIKI at: http://communities.bentley.com/products/road___site_design/w/road_and_site_design__wiki
I don't recall if I ever replied to your message, but we are still dealing with this issue. We begin each project using a seed file that has been supplied by our client, with each one getting a coordinate system attached. Other than that, the seeds appear to be the same. We have one project where we don't have this problem and we have been using this as the seed file for the past couple of years. As we will occasionally get new seed files to use where we see the problem again, but I can't tell what the difference is between the seed files, other than the coordinate system. Would I be able to upload the good file along with the bad file for testing?
Ken: I have seen similar issues across many clients since OpenRoads was released. An example is in a large midwestern state DOT where they were experiencing greater incidence of crashes than expected. They were literally crashing every 5 minutes. Built a new seed file and the crashes went away. Well, Openroads crashes sometimes, sorry to say, but not every 5 minutes.
For seed files which have been around for years (sometimes decades) they just seem to accumulate cruft which OpenRoads finds objectionable. These problems are not always obvious or easy to find.
I always recommend that when starting to use OpenRoads that new seed files be generated from scratch. Since seed files are pretty basic now, compared to the olden days, it just makes sense to start fresh. My standard practice when developing new workspaces is to record the DGN settings from the current seed file then throw it in the trash. Then I make a brand new seed file starting with one of the seeds delivered in the product.
Senior Project Engineer
Thanks for the input, Robert. If I take the latest Bentley delivered seed file, I plan on just going through the design file settings to ensure all looks good for our use. Do you see anything else that would need to be checked? Thanks again.
Here's my list of things I review in the seed:
Again, great information. Thank you Robert.
Can you explain the Solids Working Area a bit more. All of our files seem to be the 800+/- miles value. Changing this to on or two miles seems counter-intuitive.
Charles (Chuck) Rheault CADD Manager
MDOT State Highway Administration
YUP...Back in 2001(ish) when we transitioned from V7 to V8, one of the benefits was a virtually unlimited design plane finally freeing us from the woes of global origin shift. (makes me cringe to think about those days) The Solids Working Area DID NOT become unlimited. In fact solids modeling is very different compared to back then but there are still limits. And if I go any further with the technical explanation I'll butcher it. Short story: for the best solids quality, the SWA needs to be as small as possible.
What happens if you leave it at 800+ miles? Your solids will look like crap. Very jagged edges and cylinders which look like hexagons, (or worse). This ugliness is caused because of a lack of sufficient resolution when rendering (?) computing (?) the 3D solids. (Apologies to K. Bentley if I am misspeaking some of the technical stuff)
What is affected? Your OpenRoads Corridors will probably be fine. Why? Because they are not solids, they are meshes. (Nope, I don;t understand why either)(In ORD, perhaps this is changed, but I don't think so)
However, your pipes and structure which come out of SUDA will look horrible, because they are actually solids. And anything else you create with Smart Solids and Feature Modeling (SS4) or CONNECT Edition 3D Modeling will be affected.
Why haven't you ever heard of this before? Because as civil engineers we are late in coming into the 3D world and we never needed to be bothered because we seldom if ever made any solid models.
How can such a small working area be satisfactory when our projects tend to be 3 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles or longer? Because the SWA is sort of like a sandbox where all the math is done but then resulting solid is "moved" to the proper location.
How did we arrive at 1 mile as a recommended number?
Then there is a companion rule: Regarding those long skinny water lines and such, if they are longer than 1 mile then they will start to look icky because they are bigger than the SWA. SO, when using SUDA, you need to split those water lines into lengths which are shorter than the SWA. I have not foud this to be an issue in my travels. Existing utilities tend be be naturally of appropriate length just because of the way we collect survey data. For proposed utilities, it could create a little extra work for the designer if you are modeling a long pipeline.