Looking for Opinions on the FTF - 3D and 2D Lines Feature

[James Shaw]

Hello group.

I am very glad to see that Carlson has added the ability to create both a 3D
and 2D polyline from the same code. This update has eliminated the need to
main two FTF code tables and process the same topo twice.

My complaint is that Carlson incorrectly picked the dominate entity. To
elaborate, when 3D and 2D is selected and FTF processes, the program
attaches the point attributes to the 3D polyline (i.e., if you freeze the
layer the 3D polyline is on the point attributes disappear.) This is
opposite of the behavior we are looking for. The reason we need both 2D and
3D polylines is because AutoCAD has failed to create a 3D polyline that
maintains linestyles, weights, etc. In a finished plot we do not want to
see the 3D polylines, but we do want to see the some of the point attributes
(elevation), and as it is currently set-up, the only way to have the
elevations is to leave the 3D polylines on.

If we are doing something wrong, please point us in the right direction.
Otherwise, let us know if you agree with this so that Carlson can alter the
behavior of that command.

James Shaw
G.W. Stephens, Jr, and Associates, Inc.

[Nava Ran]

If your purpose is to see the elevations then you can use
Draw-Locate Points, check Elev Text Only.

"James Shaw" <jshaw@-nospam-gwstephens.com> wrote in
news:bkvbba$aad$1@update.carlsonsw.com...

Hello group.

I am very glad to see that Carlson has added the ability to create both a
3D
and 2D polyline from the same code. This update has eliminated the need
to
main two FTF code tables and process the same topo twice.

My complaint is that Carlson incorrectly picked the dominate entity. To
elaborate, when 3D and 2D is selected and FTF processes, the program
attaches the point attributes to the 3D polyline (i.e., if you freeze the
layer the 3D polyline is on the point attributes disappear.) This is
opposite of the behavior we are looking for. The reason we need both 2D
and
3D polylines is because AutoCAD has failed to create a 3D polyline that
maintains linestyles, weights, etc. In a finished plot we do not want to
see the 3D polylines, but we do want to see the some of the point
attributes
(elevation), and as it is currently set-up, the only way to have the
elevations is to leave the 3D polylines on.

If we are doing something wrong, please point us in the right direction.
Otherwise, let us know if you agree with this so that Carlson can alter
the
behavior of that command.

James Shaw
G.W. Stephens, Jr, and Associates, Inc.

[James Shaw]

Thank you for the input, but that is not an answer to the problem Nava.
Using your solution all the elevations would have the same decimal precision
and would be placed on the same layer. While that does let you "see the
elevations" that does nothing towards making a flexible system for drafting
and final plot creation.

I retain my position that Carlson has the right idea, they just reversed the
importance of which element the attributes should be attached to.

James Shaw
G.W. Stephens, Jr, and Associates, Inc.


"Nava Ran" <navaran@zahav.net.il> wrote in message
news:bl1i26$22n$1@update.carlsonsw.com...

If your purpose is to see the elevations then you can use
Draw-Locate Points, check Elev Text Only.

[James Redmon]

Why don't you just put your points on their own layers? I have my FTF setup
so that the points come in on one layer the 3-D polyline on another and the
2-d polyline on another. This gives me all the flexibilty that I need.
James Redmon
Delta Survey Group


From: "James Shaw" <jshaw@-nospam-gwstephens.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for Opinions on the FTF - 3D and 2D Lines Feature
Date: Friday, September 26, 2003 12:37 PM

Thank you for the input, but that is not an answer to the problem Nava.
Using your solution all the elevations would have the same decimal precision
and would be placed on the same layer. While that does let you "see the
elevations" that does nothing towards making a flexible system for drafting
and final plot creation.

I retain my position that Carlson has the right idea, they just reversed the
importance of which element the attributes should be attached to.

James Shaw
G.W. Stephens, Jr, and Associates, Inc.


"Nava Ran" <navaran@zahav.net.il> wrote in message
news:bl1i26$22n$1@update.carlsonsw.com...

If your purpose is to see the elevations then you can use
Draw-Locate Points, check Elev Text Only.

[James Shaw]

James, we do have our points on their own layer, but those points get linked
to the element they represent. For example, we have it set up so that the
TC code (top/curb) creates a 3D and 2D line. We have the linestyle set to
be a dashed line, as is the industry standard for existing curb, and it
places a tick at every shot (SPT9) so that it is clear what points make-up
the linework. The 3D polyline we want on layer "3d_break", the 2D polyline
on layer "curb_top", the point number on layer "PNTNO", the elevation on
layer "curb_topELEV", the description on layer "curb_topDESC", and the
symbol on layer "curb_topMARK". Based on those settings FTF places all the
objects on the layers as just explained. Now, here comes the curve ball,
when we freeze layer "3d_break", which we do not wish to show in our plots,
all of the point attributes disappear too, because they are associated with
the "3d_break" layer, not the "curb_top" layer. The only reason we even
have a "3d_break" layer is for accurate surface model creation. This is
where I believe that either Carlson has the functioning of the command
flipped, or should give you an option as to which element the point
attributes will be attached to.

James Shaw
G.W. Stephens, Jr, and Associates, Inc.


"James Redmon" <james@deltasurveygroup.com> wrote in message
news:bl229j$9mk$1@update.carlsonsw.com...

Why don't you just put your points on their own layers? I have my FTF
setup
so that the points come in on one layer the 3-D polyline on another and
the
2-d polyline on another. This gives me all the flexibilty that I need.
James Redmon
Delta Survey Group

[Nava Ran]

Create the 3D polylines - linetype as you want for plot.
Save the file.
Before plotting use:
Edit>3D Entity to 2D
to change the 3D polylines to 2D polylines
So you don't need to freeze the 3D polylines, to create 2D polylines and the
points attributes will remain.
After plotting you can save the file with a new name, exit without saving or
undo until you are back to 3D.
Hope this helps.

"James Shaw" <jshaw@-nospam-gwstephens.com> wrote
news:bl25t7$b5f$1@update.carlsonsw.com...

James, we do have our points on their own layer, but those points get
linked
to the element they represent. For example, we have it set up so that the
TC code (top/curb) creates a 3D and 2D line. We have the linestyle set to
be a dashed line, as is the industry standard for existing curb, and it
places a tick at every shot (SPT9) so that it is clear what points make-up
the linework. The 3D polyline we want on layer "3d_break", the 2D
polyline
on layer "curb_top", the point number on layer "PNTNO", the elevation on
layer "curb_topELEV", the description on layer "curb_topDESC", and the
symbol on layer "curb_topMARK". Based on those settings FTF places all
the
objects on the layers as just explained. Now, here comes the curve ball,
when we freeze layer "3d_break", which we do not wish to show in our
plots,
all of the point attributes disappear too, because they are associated
with
the "3d_break" layer, not the "curb_top" layer. The only reason we even
have a "3d_break" layer is for accurate surface model creation. This is
where I believe that either Carlson has the functioning of the command
flipped, or should give you an option as to which element the point
attributes will be attached to.

James Shaw
G.W. Stephens, Jr, and Associates, Inc.


"James Redmon" <james@deltasurveygroup.com> wrote in message
news:bl229j$9mk$1@update.carlsonsw.com...
Why don't you just put your points on their own layers? I have my FTF
setup
so that the points come in on one layer the 3-D polyline on another and
the
2-d polyline on another. This gives me all the flexibilty that I need.
James Redmon
Delta Survey Group