Enhancement: X-Section Plot - Right extension

Alex Carter · Post by **Alex Carter** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 11:48 am

Hey guys,

Just wondering if anyone has a way to get the right hand side of your cross section boxes to all line up in a ppf?..
(Using V11)

Would be neater and present better if there was an option for the right extension to all align same as the control line option.

Asking around to not avail I assumed there isn't any way at the moment - which is why I've used the "Enhancement" Subject.
(Not sure where to post as I'm new to the forum and this is the only section open to me atm)

Cheers,

Alex

Owen Thornton · Post by **Owen Thornton** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:07 pm

Arguably an indirect solution, but on the Plot sheet layout branch of the Section X Plot PPF Editor, you can tick ON Absolute extensions and specify a Left extension and Right extension large enough to include the widest section being plotted.

Alex Carter · Post by **Alex Carter** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:48 am

Thanks Owen, I gave it ago but my design goes from next to no batters to 12m wide batters and varies too much through out the design. I may try making separate ppfs for the each chainage range where the batters significantly change. Although not ideal - it's a solution.

Graeme Winfield · Post by **Graeme Winfield** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:16 am

It would be good to have another option where you specify an absolute section width, but if the section string was larger, to also includes a minimum extension past the end of string. This would reduce the amount of sheets and the need to create multiple ppfs. Happens a lot in the real world.

Owen Thornton · Post by **Owen Thornton** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:31 am

Well, yes and no. The requested "lining up of the RHS of the boxes" with relative extensions, would do nothing to reduce the number of sheets and is purely cosmetic. No extra information would appear on the plot. The use of absolute extensions, with alternative proposal of relative extensions when the absolute value isn't big enough, probably wouldn't reduce sheets compared with the initial request and would still have the cosmetic issue that appears to be main problem under discussion.

Graeme Winfield · Post by **Graeme Winfield** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:15 am

If you had a job where 70% of the sheets could fit 6 cross sections. The rest could only fit 1 or 2 cross sections per sheet. Using your suggestion, you now have 1 or 2 cross sections per sheet (depending on total height of section). This increases the number of sheets by a multiple of 4+.

So as Alex has found out, the way to reduce the number of sheets is to have multiple ppf's. Which is not too bad if you only need 3, but 7 or more is a pain as you are developing the design that is constantly changing. The real world isn't always that simple.

Owen Thornton · Post by **Owen Thornton** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:19 am

I'm not talking about my suggestion. I'm talking about the requested "lining up of the RHS of the boxes" with relative extensions.

My suggestion of absolute extensions was only to address the cosmetic issue of the RHS of the boxes not lining up. It does, but at a cost of space.

Graeme Winfield · Post by **Graeme Winfield** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:27 am

Yes, you are correct. That was why I suggested an additional option. Not sure how doable it is, but would be a helpful drafting feature.

Owen Thornton · Post by **Owen Thornton** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:38 pm

If there is to be an enhancement, it should only be to line up the RHS of the boxes when relative extensions are used. But I expect the vast majority would sooner accept the way it currently is, before ever considering multiple chainage ranges, via multiple PPFs. I'm not terribly convinced that enough people pay sufficient attention to x-section plots, to warrant this cosmetic change.

Bernard Daly · Post by **Bernard Daly** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:03 pm

Owen Thornton wrote:I'm not terribly convinced that enough people pay sufficient attention to x-section plots, to warrant this cosmetic change.

Owen, I'd debate you on that point.

Owen Thornton · Post by **Owen Thornton** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:05 pm

If it comes to a debate on this matter, I'll concede.

Graeme Winfield · Post by **Graeme Winfield** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:33 pm

Yes, lining up the RHS of the boxes is cosmetic.

Whether it be a client requirement or for a design check, it is foolishness to have 100+ drawings when <30 can cover the same content. It is little to do with cosmetics and more to do with being practical and efficient.

Do you think it is possible or totally out of the question?

Eddie Gould · Post by **Eddie Gould** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:11 pm

Owen Thornton wrote:I'm not terribly convinced that enough people pay sufficient attention to x-section plots, to warrant this cosmetic change.

I'm not too fussed by the RHS of the boxes (would be nice to have) although do not like how the section name (CH0.000, CH100.000 etc) beneath the box does not align (centrally) going up the column and is always slightly different on each section. Not sure if the differing RHS widths causes this?

It would be nice if that could be included in some future version so that the section name always lines up with that of the one above/below it.

Owen Thornton · Post by **Owen Thornton** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:14 am

Graeme, if we were to implement "lining up of the RHS of the boxes with relative extensions" it would solve the cosmetic issue, whilst continuing to provide the best solution re sheet space.

Eddie, I believe the code currently sets the vertex of the chainage text, relative to the bottom of the boxes, at the mid point of the total section width (including extensions). It is adjustable from there, but does not depend on the boxes left/right position. An alternative could be to set it relative to the zero offset, but it might mean that the label is not underneath the section (especially if there isn't a zero offset, or the section only covers one side of the road). Maybe it could be relative to the left edge of the boxes???

Clayton Colbert · Post by **Clayton Colbert** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:42 pm

Hi there, did anyone end up getting an answer for this initial question? I am trying to create cross sections where they all have equal offsets from the centreline (15m for example). If you change the extension then the natural surface continues for this length, however there are no values placed in the boxes...is there a solution?

Cheers