Applying Linear End Conditions vs Template End Conditions

RE: Applying Linear End Conditions vs Template End Conditions

Steven D'Uva — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 15:29:59 GMT

Thanks!

RE: Applying Linear End Conditions vs Template End Conditions

MaryB — Tue, 02 Oct 2018 14:05:55 GMT

A bit further down in the discussions, there is an interesting conversation going on about just this sort of thing - a linear approach compared to a "master template" approach:

https://communities.bentley.com/products/road___site_design/f/geopak-inroads-mx-openroads-forum/168424/alternative-approach-to-corridor-template-design---3d-linear-method

I find it intriguing. I think it actually could cut down on "out of memory errors" by using smaller corridors

RE: Applying Linear End Conditions vs Template End Conditions

Steven D'Uva — Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:53:26 GMT

I'm in the same boat as you. I have a 6 mile corridor with end conditions changing roughly every few hundred feet on either side. I've debated creating a master template using horizontal feature constraints to change shoulder conditions and then switches to control each proper end condition (with parametric constraints for slopes/etc.). This would result in a very large amount of options in one template. I'm leaning toward creating a second template and corridor with only the end conditions for left/right and applying them with a point control to the edge of the first corridor that has only pavement and shoulder conditions. Both require a very large amount of point controls and feature constraints. This method would in theory limit the template and keep the pavement and shoulder from reprocessing a lot.