In developing SUDA for our firm, I am interested as to why there are "3D" levels in the OpenRoads default SUDA library, and additionally "equivalent" levels which do not have the "_3D" suffx. Is there a specific reason for 3D levels to be segregated from other levels?
i.e., Element Templates> Storm Water>Conduits>Pipes>3D>Storm Water (Concrete)= Util_Storm_Conduits_3D
Element Templates> Storm Water>Conduits>Pipes>Plan>Storm Water= Util_Storm_Conduits
Would there be anything "wrong" with assigning the same level to both of these entries (while keeping their properties the same) or is there a need to graphically separate the 3D display from the plan and profile data?
Mark, you are on target. With all due respect to my former Bentley colleagues, the proliferation of the "3D" levels does nothing more than create a levels nightmare. Here's my philosophy:
End of Sermon
Senior Project Engineer
And do we not have enough levels already!? Now- and with your insight- I will be able to move the SUDA levels over to our legacy levels without much need to create new ones.
Thanks so much!
My philosophy would pretty closely match what Robert articulates here. I will add the note that the separate Element Templates my likely still be relevant to include material for 3D views while maintaining "traditional" display in 2D.