I'm embarrassed to ask this, but I think I've hit a wall.
I'm trying to build a complex element (a building) with several odd angles. I'm using individual lines created using the "Line Between Points" tool. Each new line is snapped the the endpoint of the line before it. I want the angle of the new line to be related to the angle of the line it's snapped to so that when I move or rotate the original line, the angle between the two lines is maintained. I've tried using Civil AccuDraw, but I can't figure out the right command or combination of commands to make it work. Surely I'm missing something obvious... does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks for your help!
Matt
Hi Matt
You are on the right track with using Civil AccuDraw. The Distance-Direction will let you set an direction (angle)and distance but you first need to Rotate the Compass to Element (RE is the short-cut key) so that the direct relates to the element you require.
Regards
Jason Walsh
Hi Jason, thanks for your feedback.
I had tried the Distance-Direction setting, but haven't been able to get the results I'm looking for. Let me explain in detail (with screenshots) what I was doing and you can hopefully let me know where I'm going wrong.
1. With Civil AccuDraw on and Distance-Direction selected, I snapped to the endpoint of Line 1 and DP to create the starting point of Line 2. (Screenshots 1 and 2)
2. Entered "RE" and clicked on Line 1 to rotate the compass. With the compass rotated, entered Distance and Angle and locked both. DP to set endpoint. (Screenshot 3)
3. As shown in Screenshot 4, when I move Line 1, the Distance-Angle relationship isn't maintained with the endpoint of Line 1, but with some point in space instead.
Any additional insight you could offer would be greatly appreciated!
Just realized that if I draw Line 2 "backwards" - that is, setting the Distance-Direction origin at the endpoint of Line 1, entering the distance and angle to create the start point of Line 2, then coming back to snap to the endpoint of Line 1 to create the endpoint of Line 2 - then I get the results I'm looking for.
That process gets the job done, but it seems like a bit of a roundabout way to do it... is it the best way?
You were doing it correctly with the process you described in pictures. But, there is indeed a bug there. I'll get it logged. Your workaround, while it does indeed feel a little backwards, is a very good solution until the bug gets fixed.
Robert GarrettSenior Product EngineerBentley Systems Inc.
Answer Verified By: Matt Schlicker
Great, thanks for the feedback Robert.