InRoads SS4 - Modify Feature Line without Modifying Corridor Template

I feel your pain!

Unfortunately, my approach would end up modifying the template...I'd probably assign a parametric constraint to wall height so that it could be controlled on a station to station basis just for circumstances like this.

Niches and openings...Would you be able to manage some of those with end condition exceptions, or isolated modified templates? That may get at least some of that extra work to be handled programmatically, which would cut down on manual edits.

We're going through some growing pains here as we try to determine how much of what we need can be handled by the software, and where we still might need hand edits.There's a point of diminishing returns to micro-tweaking corridors for us - how many hours does it take to figure an item out compared to how long it would take to just do the hand edits, but if the hand edits need to be done more than once (or twice) the programming hours look better and better. (I call it programming - it's just a graphical version of it)

Yea, I'd look into parametrics, end section exceptions and perhaps a few isolated template edits. I'll be watching because this is of great interest to me. I hope you get a better answer than mine!

Thanks for the reply. Guess I have to revert back to changing the the template and thus losing the openings that was previously done. Inroads should look to having the ability to unlock the feature lines from the corridor for manual modification just like when you can manually modify the mesh in the corridor. Since eventually the final model of inroads will need to be defined in aecosim with data instances to make the model an actually BIM model. 

First, I agree that the necessary workflow feels a little clunky, but mostly it is a result of the rules based system used by OpenRoads.  Since rules drive pretty much everything then it is pretty easy to define a circuitous set of rules and the software tries to protect us from such.

The solution you want is a point control.  The part of the workflow that feels a little "clunky", perhaps counter intuitive is a better word, is that you need to create some new geometry.  Here's the workflow:

1. Create new Horizontal geometry so that you have an element on which you can design profiles for the wall height.  This geometry may well be right on top of the original geometry created by the corridor.  To avoid confusion and make it easier to pick later, you could offset it a little, provided that the geometry will never be used for horizontal position and only for vertical.
2. Design the profile on this geometry which will drive the wall height.
3. Add a point control of vertical type. which drives the top of wall to achieve the desired heights.

Mary mentions that you could also use a parametric constraint.  To use this approach, edit the template  that is in the DGN, not the library. Editing the one in the DGN is the safest way to avoid loosing the other edits you have made.  Add a parametric constraint, if there is not one already, on the segment which defines wall height.  Then you can add parametric contrasts to adjust wall height.

Which method is best?  Up to you.  Some people like parametric constraints because it is quicker.  Personally, I like point controls for things which are innately geometric in nature, because it is more intuitive and because it is easier (I think) to trace the history a year from now.  IN my travels I have noticed that historical InRoads users tend towards parametric constraints while historical GEOPAK users tend towards point controls.