|
POST
|
I've got polygons in my source data which are not z-aware that include, in nearly all cases, one or more parametric curves. I want to create polygons that *are* z-aware in my UN database from the source polygons. I can use the PolygonBuilderEx to create a new z-aware polygon from all of the points in my source polygon with the code below -- but I lose the curves. Polygon polygon = inGeom as Polygon; IReadOnlyList<Coordinate3D> pt3dList = polygon.Copy3DCoordinatesToList(); Polygon polygon3D = PolygonBuilderEx.CreatePolygon(pt3dList, sr); Is there a way to do this that retains curves *and* assigns a z value? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Ed
... View more
Wednesday
|
0
|
2
|
90
|
|
POST
|
Hi Tom - This is a really good point. I will need to check further into the legacy data. Thx, Ed
... View more
Monday
|
0
|
0
|
41
|
|
POST
|
Hi Tom - Thanks for the detailed response. With this the path for regulator configuration is clear. However, what of valves that sit between two pressure systems? Are there expectations about asset group/asset type assignments for such valves? Thanks again, Ed
... View more
a week ago
|
0
|
2
|
77
|
|
POST
|
Doh! I'm such an idiot. Of course its at the asset group/subtype level. Thanks @RobertKrisher !
... View more
2 weeks ago
|
1
|
0
|
171
|
|
POST
|
Sounds plausible. Thanks for the info @RobertKrisher! Will await confirmation from @TomDeWitte before taking action on this.
... View more
2 weeks ago
|
0
|
1
|
171
|
|
POST
|
In ArcFM classic there is a field that may be present on multiple device classes, and always on the classes that hold regulators and valves, named GASPRESSURESYSTEMSTATUS which indicates whether the device acts as a pressure system boundary. Some companies might have a field with another name (such as PARTITION) which is assigned a model name to indicate it serves this purpose. I assume there is a field with a similar purpose in UPDM, but I can't seem to locate it. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thx, Ed
... View more
2 weeks ago
|
0
|
6
|
213
|
|
POST
|
Sure. But as I look at the values in the device status domain they are "active" and "inactive" - which to me implies whether the asset is or is not in service - not whether it is "open" or "closed". A "closed" valve is very much "active". Is this just something I'm going to have to get over?
... View more
2 weeks ago
|
0
|
0
|
179
|
|
POST
|
I may be missing something, but I don't see a field for the "current" or "present" position for a valve -- as opposed to its normal position. Which would be used to identify those valves that, for whatever purpose, were in a abnormal position. If a field serving this purpose is present and I've missed it I would offer multiple kudos to whoever points it out. If a premise of the UPDM model is to represent only the normal, as-designed state of the network, then I guess I would understand that as well. Any insights would be much appreciated. Thx, Ed
... View more
2 weeks ago
|
0
|
7
|
234
|
|
POST
|
We have had for years, no decades, an ArcObjects-based .NET process that reconciles outstanding versions. When reconciles are complete, a compress is initiated. This (at least until now) has run like clockwork. A few weeks ago users discovered that versions not reconciled and posted during the day, which most are, were found to have corrupt network features when the version was re-opened the following day. And when I say "corrupt" I mean either not connected to other features or un-editable -- and requiring the "Geometric Network Editing" tools to repair. After investigation we found that if we turn off the nightly reconcile (basically disable the scheduled task under which it runs) features are not corrupted. Clearly something has changed and we're in the process of trying to determine what. In the mean time we've found that an ArcPython scripted reconcile does not seem to cause corruption. However, the fact that something so fundamental to our solution is failing is a cause for concern. Any chance anyone else has seen this? If so, any feedback would be much appreciated. Thx, Ed
... View more
3 weeks ago
|
0
|
0
|
151
|
|
POST
|
Hi - The UPDM model seems to represent squeeze-off events as features in a non-network class (outside the utility network.) Our current data has squeeze-offs as simple junction features -- so these locations can be identified by a trace. Will we be losing functionality if we migrate our current squeeze-offs into the UPDM, non-networked, P_SqueezeOff class? Thx, Ed
... View more
3 weeks ago
|
0
|
4
|
254
|
|
POST
|
Ed - This worked. I could swear that I tried this before to no effect. But following your steps it worked. Much appreciated! Ed
... View more
3 weeks ago
|
0
|
0
|
155
|
|
POST
|
Hi Barry - That's useful, thanks. As you say, its not as good as ArcMap, but better than nothing. Ed
... View more
4 weeks ago
|
0
|
0
|
182
|
| Title | Kudos | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 weeks ago | |
| 1 | 06-25-2025 07:19 PM | |
| 1 | 07-31-2025 10:50 AM | |
| 1 | 07-20-2025 02:54 PM | |
| 1 | 07-19-2025 11:36 AM |
| Online Status |
Offline
|
| Date Last Visited |
yesterday
|