|
POST
|
All - It seems the "Version Differences" tool (which is *really* valuable in ArcMap) is slow to un-usable in ArcGIS Pro. At least in Pro 3.3. Is this a known issues that has been improved in later versions? Thx, Ed
... View more
Wednesday
|
0
|
0
|
96
|
|
POST
|
I see further what I am missing. The associated records would be be part of a containment association -- for which there should be a side tab present on the Template Properties dialog, but there is not.
... View more
Tuesday
|
0
|
0
|
85
|
|
POST
|
So.. a little more info here. I was able to get this to work on a file geodatabase (a gas UPDM asset package). But not in the case where UN features are published through a feature service. The related table is present in the published service, but its not clear if the relationships are... I suspect this might be the root of the problem.
... View more
Tuesday
|
0
|
0
|
90
|
|
POST
|
All - I'm probably missing something basic, but I'm trying to create a template favorite with a feature and a related record. There is a relationship present associating these things. The feature is the origin of the relationship. The relationship is present in the catalog pane. And the relationship rules allow creation of a relationship between the origin and destination subtypes. However, the "Relationships" tab does not show up on the Template Properties dialog for the favorite. Any clues on what I'm missing would be much appreciated. Thx, Ed
... View more
Tuesday
|
0
|
3
|
138
|
|
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
2 weeks ago
|
0
|
2
|
177
|
|
POST
|
Hi Tom - This is a really good point. I will need to check further into the legacy data. Thx, Ed
... View more
2 weeks ago
|
0
|
0
|
125
|
|
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
3 weeks ago
|
0
|
2
|
161
|
|
POST
|
Doh! I'm such an idiot. Of course its at the asset group/subtype level. Thanks @RobertKrisher !
... View more
4 weeks ago
|
1
|
0
|
237
|
|
POST
|
Sounds plausible. Thanks for the info @RobertKrisher! Will await confirmation from @TomDeWitte before taking action on this.
... View more
4 weeks ago
|
0
|
1
|
255
|
|
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
4 weeks ago
|
0
|
6
|
297
|
|
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
4 weeks ago
|
0
|
0
|
245
|
|
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
4 weeks ago
|
0
|
7
|
300
|
| Title | Kudos | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 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 |
Saturday
|