XSEC Named Boundaries not respecting active terrain model?

Hi Brad,

Someone correct me if im wrong, but I dont believe XS Named Boundaries work like the Profile ones do (where there is an option to include Terrains for clearance). It would be good to have an additional option for something like this. If you the Idea here: OpenCivil Ideas im sure we'll all vote for it.

hi

I think XS considers terrain models, see this: communities.bentley.com/.../video-defining-a-constant-top-and-bottom-elevation-when-creating-cross-sections

After a lot of experimentation, I found that it only sees it if it's under a certain feature definition (Existing Boundary). I was unable to find where this setting is though. It would not see the terrain if I used Existing Contours, Existing Triangles, etc...

EDIT: By "see" I mean "acknowledge". They still show up in cross sections but the vertical tolerance only takes into account the terrain when it's under a certain feature definition and only that one

Hi Adam,

Watching the video it looked to cut out the existing terrain, but just used the end condition limit to determine clearance. Perhaps a Terrain with a design feature definition would be considered?

I create Dummy terrain models with the Feature Definition Volume Option set to Design at fixed elevation to get constant datum for Cross-Sections. Clearance works against these terrain models and XS boundary limits.

I understand this approach to use Design and not Existing, as it is easier to control. I had road reconstruction project, it was in high embankments and on bridges. Using Existing terrain models for XS boundary would make XS very high and with design, I can easily control this. If you need to use the existing, just create Delta Terrain model with planum eg. value of your clearance and then set clearance in XS Boundry definition to 0, just to avoid of Terrain Ovelrlap. I create this dummmy terrains in XS definition file just to be sure it will not make any mess when creating Cut/Fill Volumes.

Agree, having existing considered by default is not ideal. Adding an additional option to use them like Profiles do would give users control to be able to use it if needed.

Agree, having existing considered by default is not ideal. Adding an additional option to use them like Profiles do would give users control to be able to use it if needed.