Anthony Holder
My feedback
7 results found
-
10 votes
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
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.
An error occurred while saving the comment Anthony Holder
commented
I haven't been back here since I suggested this over a year ago. I thought about it again today. It would only be a visual thing for display. This morning, I thought of another way of handling it that might be easier to program and understand.
It would be to create a 'storage outfall' node that visually would hold the location of the storage area's outfall, but would actually be treated in the model as if it were the storage area. It would be linked to an actual storage node and have a dashed line showing the connection. That would probably be easier to program than having a polygon. When the .dat file is created by the GUI to send to the engine, it would only have the one storage node in it. The 'storage outfall' node wouldn't be included at all.
Anthony Holder
shared this idea
·
-
2 votesAnthony Holder
shared this idea
·
-
2 votesAnthony Holder
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
-
1 voteAnthony Holder
shared this idea
·
And sub-face sampling for the faces between mesh triangles (or groupings of mesh triangles), so that you don't need very small triangles to capture small-ish details that are clearly shown in the terrain.