Gregory Smith
My feedback
35 results found
-
2 votesGregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesGregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesGregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesGregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
Thanks for the idea. Have you tried using the different sort options in the tree?
Gregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
11 votesGregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
Thanks for the idea. We are happy to hear you have a workaround while we work to continue to improve our tools for our users.
Gregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
14 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Gregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Gregory Smith
commented
These should be able to stacked. ie existing ground, and then incorporate a design surface on top of that.
Gregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
Thanks for the idea!
Gregory Smith
shared this idea
·
-
4 votesGregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
12 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Gregory Smith
commented
This needs to go a step further. Most Councils and AusRoads require a pit blockage factor. In other words, what percentage of the approach flow can actually be captured? I know this can be determined when creating the capture curves, but since different Councils require different blockages, it would take away the need to have a separate collection of pits for each council.
Gregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesGregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
21 votesGregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Gregory Smith
commented
Thanks for that Sophia. Yes that certainly does work; however it is a bit of a pain having to create the selection sets. Pity it wasn't just a bit more intuitive,
Gregory Smith
shared this idea
·
-
10 votesGregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
11 votesGregory Smith
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Gregory Smith
commented
this is a recurring theme in this forum. I hope somebody is listening. It is a HUGE shortcoming of ICM to use the same number of decimals for a network of 0.1 Ha catchment to one of 100s of square kilometres. Same decimals??
-
6 votes
Great ideas! The goal is the simplify the physical location to either measured (as-built) or designed locations of pond outfalls, while either logically enforcing the relationship of outfalls to pond/outlet without forced links that do not represent physical pipes.
Gregory Smith
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Gregory Smith
commented
Part of the issue is having to geometrically alter the links flowing into the storage area. Therefore, the links shouldn't necessarily connect to the edge, but somewhere within the storage area (read detention basin) and they should be able to be an outfall that can then link to the actual storage node. this will better represent the model both graphically & possibly hydraulically (since the water flow will change from being with a pipe to flowing across a flat surface (with a different Manning's).
I suppose I could change the outfalls back into a (flat) node and have a wide shallow channel connect it to the storage node, but this is going to report structures that simply don't exist.
Pictures show has it is, and how it has to be be dummied to work.
Since there will be constructed outfalls in the basin, these should be able to be reported in the Grids (not simply ignored as is they don't exist).
-
20 votes
Thank you for this idea addition, it is something we have been considering and building out plans for, if there are more specifics in terms of the exact outputs/comparisons you would like to see, please feel free to add so we can ensure these are captured.
Gregory Smith
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesGregory Smith
supported this idea
·
After over 3 years, it seems this suggestion is simply not gaining any traction, yet it seems it would be a relatively simple programming exercise,