[IR Ss4] Reorganizing Linked to Native Feature Definitions - Any Known Limitations?

RE: [IR Ss4] Reorganizing Linked to Native Feature Definitions - Any Known Limitations?

Zane Pratt — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:08:12 GMT

I ran into this issue several years ago. Bentley told me to leave the XIN linked in a dgnlib with a single folder matching the xin. I am trying to remember all the reasons why. InRoads Survey SS4 uses the xin , the feature definition are only there for some of the "hydrid" openroads tools. The one thing I remember is when I would change a survey feature style in the InRoads xin I would have to relink all the feature definitions in the dgnlib. In SS4 you can't really do any custom operations in OpenRoads. Having all the features grouped together was really the only way to relink.

FYI, I remember if you set the feature definition element templates and relink I think it will hold the element template info :-)

The DOT I work with has the survey feature definitions in the dgnlib twice. Once as normal feature definitions categorized and once as survey features linked to native in a single folder. Seems to work fine set up this way.

RE: [IR Ss4] Reorganizing Linked to Native Feature Definitions - Any Known Limitations?

caddcop — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:53:09 GMT

I've seen other posts that seem to indicate the only process that works correctly is to add Design Feature Definition settings to a Linked Survey Feature Definition. Trying to add Survey to a design FD does not provide all of the Survey functionality.

Good to know.

RE: [IR Ss4] Reorganizing Linked to Native Feature Definitions - Any Known Limitations?

Robert Garrett — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:13:35 GMT

The messed up property panel, while jarring, is not a worry. Just close project explorer and reopen it.

RE: [IR Ss4] Reorganizing Linked to Native Feature Definitions - Any Known Limitations?

caddcop — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:01:00 GMT

I played with that process of manually adding survey to design a few times. What I did find was that after doing several that seemed to work just fine, some type of memory error would occur and my Element Information dialog box would get populated with strange and unfamiliar settings, losing all of the normal expected fields. It always freaked me out and I'd Ctrl+Z to undo that last edit and exit to avoid any possible corruption in my files.

I am actually planning on going over all of the Feature Definition that originated in our XIN file to see if we can do some weeding and pruning. A lot of what is still in there originated from our VAX ICS preferences (or whatever they were called back then) when if it wasn't COGO, InRoads didn't draw it.

Many of those were converted into Survey Features and we have been carrying them forward ever since. From PRF to INI and FWF to XIN. Before we move to ORD, I want to make sure we are only maintaining things still being used. Both for Design and Survey.

RE: [IR Ss4] Reorganizing Linked to Native Feature Definitions - Any Known Limitations?

Robert Garrett — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:45:37 GMT

Hey Chuck: I have done such reorganizing in the past without issue.

In regards to your original challenge (the need to link twice), There is a potential solution if you do not wish to have two libraries. It is possible, after the XIN is linked for geometry, to go back thru the created feature definitions and edit the "Is Survey" switch to true. Significant amount of work of course.

I have made such manual changes in some of my client's libraries except in reverse. I needed to be able to use a Survey FD for geometry also. So, I added in the element templates and other switches needed for geometry. But, I did not do the entire library, just a select few. Perhaps 10%