Vertical Faces Skipped in Triangulation

Jacquelyn Pettus — Mon, 02 May 2016 17:46:10 GMT

Current Revision posted to OpenRoads | OpenSite Wiki by Jacquelyn Pettus on 5/2/2016 5:46:10 PM

Product(s):	InRoads, MX, GEOPAK
Version(s):	08.11.0+, 08.11.09+
Area:	Cross Sections

Question:

I have seen this question posed multiple times on various forums, but no clear answer. I realize that templates that are intended for surface generation cannot contain true vertical faces as this causes the triangulation to be incorrect.

What is a good value to use to horizontally offset points that are truly vertical? 0.01? Is this dependent on height?

Answer:

There is not one absolute value that will work every time. When the Triangulation command tries to create a triangle between three points, it actually compares the angle of the triangle legs, not the distance between the points ( and it does this internally in Radians, not Degrees). So if two of the triangle legs are very long relative to the third (i.e. very long intervals between template drops) the angles will be smaller.

As you mention, 0.01 is probably the most often used value. If you ever find that this value fails, you could reduce the template drop interval, or make the value larger than 0.01.

Tags: MX, InRoads, MicroStation, Geopak, surfaces, SS2, vertical wall

Vertical Faces Skipped in Triangulation

Jacquelyn Pettus — Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:38:22 GMT

Revision 1 posted to OpenRoads | OpenSite Wiki by Jacquelyn Pettus on 7/12/2013 7:38:22 PM

Q: Templates with Vertical Faces - Incorrect Triangulation

What is a good value to use to horizontally offset points that are truly vertical? 0.01? Is this dependent on height?

A: Re: Templates with Vertical Faces - Incorrect Triangulation

As you mention, 0.01 is probably the most often used value. If you ever find that this value fails, you could reduce the template drop interval, or make the value larger than 0.01.

Tags: MX, InRoads, MicroStation, Geopak, surfaces, SS2, vertical wall