GEOPAK SS3 Model - Feature Definition drawing on Default level

When Corridor Modeling and showing cross-sections I was having the issue of a certain surface feature always drawing on the active level rather than the level that it was supposed to as defined by an Element Template.  This is supposedly happening because I renamed a Feature Definition (to be more meaningful in accordance with our office standards).  The following advice came from GEOPAK Support.

"We have found that when a surface feature item is renamed then the corridor component creation is sent to the default or active level.  However, if the item is deleted and recreated with a new name then the corridor component creation will be correct.  This is only the case when renaming surface features.  We tested renaming the linear features and all works well."

I deleted the “faulty” feature definition in the dgnlib and created a new feature definition with the desired name.  I then deleted the in-dgn (3578_corridor.dgn) feature definitions so that it would re-copy the dgnlib feature definitions instead.  I then re-processed the corridor, and in the xs view the Road Base layer immediately updated to the correct symbology.  I then did a file Save Settings.  HOWEVER, upon exiting and re-entering the file, the symbology reverted back to default (my active level).  Also, when cutting XS cells from this model, the symbology is on the default (active) level.

Has anyone experienced this behavior, and has anyone found a solution? 

Josh Mauritz

 

 

3578_corridor.dgn
  • I'm not really sure what I did, but things are working as expected now.  I think it had something to do with dgnlibs that were or were not being loaded.

  • G'day Josh,

    For what its worth, I've seen similar scenarios many times while in the (ongoing) process of developing a design environment for OpenRoads. It is frustrating and very finicky.

    Like I wrote only moments ago to the guy who is helping me (he is only an hour into his day and already seriously frustrated)... "small steps grasshopper".

    It seems that the setup must be perfect before begining a design or else you'll see what you have seen.

    And repairing the libraries and thinking that an "update" of the design should fix the design (which I'll admit is a logical thought) just does not seem to work.

    You make the fixes to the libraries, and start the design again.

    Then it works. At least, up to the point where you find the next piece that is not quite configured correctly.

    If one thing is clear to me, you'll need a bullet proof design environment before begining to use the software in earnest, or it will be a very frustraing process for the designers.

    Small steps grasshopper

    :-)

  • Michael,

    Thanks for the reply.  Unfortunately, I am one of the frustrated designers you mention in your last sentence.  I certainly see a lot of benefits to using SS3 but I'm struggling with a lot of little behind-the-scenes issues.

    Just when I think I have a pretty good handle on the workflows necessary for design I seem to run into another wrinkle.  A lot of it seems to stem from my own tweaking of the delivered workspace, which I am trying to do very little of at this moment.

    Some of my other frustration comes from trying to do downstream processes of plan production using SS2 tools in an SS3 environment.  I haven't really come up with a good workflow for that yet.  Some things just work better by getting out of GEOPAK SS3 and continuing in a GEOPAK SS2 session.  Perhaps these issues are due to a slightly different workspace as well.

    Needless to say, this is a learn-as-you-go process, but I'm not ready to abandon it quite yet; I see too much potential, at least in the deisgn area.

    Josh