Latest Contributions by DavidWasserman

Hi Yasir, Just want to link the documentation for 3D formats you can import into CE (see supported formats for Static models). Generally, I have had the best experience with clean OBJ files (in the sense that you don't have texture conflicts or issues with normals that carry over from sketch up. David ... View more

Just a side note about OBJ files, they store the file paths to the MTLs with relative path from the OBJ. So if you want to organize your MTLs into a folder (Sketchup can sometimes be gross in that it may not create a folder), you should open up Notepad++ and manually enter in  a few file location relative to the object. You don't have to, but it is something you CAN do if you want. Glad things worked out! David ... View more

Am I still needed? The only thing I have to add is that all inserted objects that are intended to be replaced like street lamps need to have up be in the direction of the Y axis. All objects are aligned scope to axis in the y direction as part of the scope casting I did for the rule. So in software like sketchup where the model is made, the Y axis should be the vertical one. David ... View more

How did you use the Dissolve tool to do this? Did you do an intersection of the lines first? Yes I realize this is a 5 year old post. 😃 Just curious. ... View more

The problem with incorporating rail into a road rule is the start shape coordination issue. Different start shapes have very primitive information about each other and essentially exist in isolation. You cannot pass for example, a vertex or edge location from one start shape to another (at least to my knowledge-Chris Wilkins​ can correct me on that). So what happens with this problem is even if you create a rail allocation (which you can pretty easily actually by modifying the "Bus Only Lane" splits), you will have no way to coordinate how it should travel or align across an intersection procedurally. This is why the rail rule was made to apply to stand alone center line/street segments. Also, the hierarchical nature of CGA makes it hard (not impossible) to pass information from one shape to the next to begin with (requiring feedback oriented rules if you need to UP the shape hierarchy). It is not a perfect solution, but this is why rail is usually done as a stand alone rule separate from a road rule. David ... View more

Hi Michael, I have done just this before when using the Redland's Redevelopment rule and the Complete Streets rule. If you want a light rail line rule to match with the street rule I suggest making sure the rail line width is equal to an asphalt buffer that you create in the street. What takes the most time is making sure your rail line aligns with the asphalt buffer that you create, and also make sure that the curb radii is equal to that of the street ( so it aligns well on turns). When drawing your rail line, make sure you make the center line  vertices of the rail line match the break points of the street center line (this helped me a lot when I tried to align them together). Also when you use the created "Light Rail Car" from the rule, keep in mind that you can replace model, but also understand that it will only look ok on perfectly straight segments because of how the rule centers the rail car on the track. David ... View more

Is it possible you could put the scene and data  (a small sample of data) into a zip file and share it? Did you try instead of a buffer setting the center type to media, and then the center width to none? Sorry the rule did not perform as expected. I have not tried to export to FBX before with the street rule before, so this is very interesting to me. I would like to see a zip file of the scene and data if it is not to much to ask. David ... View more

I think the other one is tied to my ESRI email. Notice it has the little ESRI symbol on it. I am not sure I can access that one anymore honestly. =/ I will try to access it and delete it later. ... View more

The largest issue is that with the complete street rule, the lanewidth is a CGA rule parameter, but the street width is a shape parameter ( as in it is inherent to all streets rather than inherent to a rule). When creating mapped attributes it is is best to do the pre-processing in ArcGIS using calculate field or cursors. So in this case create two fields for  your center lines in ArcGIS and then calculate your street widths. Then I would suggest creating GIS fields for lanewidth and then divides the street width by two. To be safe also subtract -.1 or so from your divided lane width (to avoid floating point error leading to an over-allocation of lanes.). Sometimes doing everything in CE does not make sense, and I really believe that is the case with mapped parameters. ArcPy is much more robust in dealing with field calculations related to geometry. David ... View more

Hi Erwin, Did you solve the issue? When you allocated all the geometry to buffer, you did not have any other geometrie in bike lanes/bus lanes etc. added correct? Did you try instead of a full buffer street allocation just turning the center section to median and set the width to 0? If you are concerned about lanes you just need to make sure the lane-width is either half of or the total of the street width (either should work, but total might make it one way). I acknowledge these are work arounds, I have thought about adding centerline option or changing the None option so that it made a "residential street" or a street with no markings what so ever. Currently what is there is somewhat left over from older Zurich code. I was more interested in making many of the other features of the rule first. The workaround are clearly not sufficient long term. I think the code of interest might be this section here: Asphalt(TextureAndReport,Area_Fraction,Usage) -->   case TextureAndReport:   tileUV(0,14,14)   cleanupGeometry(all, 0.001)   texture(StreetTextureFolder + "/Lanes/asphalt_14x14m.jpg")   deleteUV(_Texture_Switch)   color(_Usage(Usage))#If Display Thematics==Usage, goes to usage, if not, Thematic-strings might have other purpose later.   report("Lane: Asphalt Only Area Total (m^2)",geometry.area*Area_Fraction)   else:   report("Lane: Asphalt Only Area Total (m^2)",geometry.area*Area_Fraction) Clean up geometry is supposed to help merge identical vertices and help prepare a shape for more operations. It helps in some cases, but I don't know all the implications it may have for export to FBX. I would suggest setting it to 0, and if that does not help removing this line all together. I would do this if working with a zero width median does not work first though. I have not tried an FBX export before so I would like to see the final result. Relevant documentation pages I could find below: Help - FBX Export Help - Clean up geometry- currently in the rule set to be very insensitive (close to 0) Hope this is helpful, David ... View more

Hi Meg, That is the fake Organization Name I put for my personal ESRI account. I am not sure why you are being asked to log into it. This is the 2015 download link as I know it. http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=863f4e7139314101a5cee1d7cde079d9 Also I have  an updated version of the rule hosted here: Complete Street Rule Update I will check the link I have above. David ... View more

Hi Erwin, So I did think about this while making the rule, and it was one of those elements I wish I had more time. For now I would suggest if fidgeting with the center line options is not working out for you try 2 things. 1. Set the Center Type to Median, and the Center width to Zero. This will essentially create no geometry allocation for the center section. This allows cars to still be generated and will also allow parking. Should work well for 2 lanes, and in practice mirrors what you see in most residential streets in the US and maybe abraod (reduced markings etc). Ex: 2. Set the buffer type to Asphalt, and make the buffer width basically the width of your street. I actually did this for the image below. This however does not allow the creation of cars, so you would be better off with the option above if you want vehicles and such. Hope this help, David ... View more

Hi  Veronica, The rule they are talking about can do some interesting things with surface lots. It is certainly a great start and when it comes out it will be very interesting to see what can be done with it. Down the line there will have to be more work with iterative feedback to create parametric bindings for land use lot intensity/contextual factors to parking requirements (presence of car sharing (TDM), adjacent network typology, and other variables discussed here) and more work on different parking configurations. It is an area I am watching avidly, and might find time to work on in the future. Remember I made a new thread here for future discussion on transportation. 😃 I might as well be fine discussing it here too though. David ... View more

I actually logged on to look for someone who did this. Thanks. ... View more