3 line profile overlapping

[JamesMaeding]

All our street designs for subdivisions require centerline, left and right curb profiles shown in profile.

You can do this two ways:

1) have "separated" profile views in modelspace, and use 3 viewports in PS to combine them together for plotting.

2) have overlapping profile views in modelspace and use 1 profile viewport.

I had always thought approach 1 was generally used, but have recently seen the opposite.

We essentially do approach 2, but with different tools than C3D.

I was thinking though, what do most people do for things like knuckles, where the profile geometry is designed and labelled "on curb".

That is, the profile of the knuckle curb is deigned based on distances along the curb, not on centerline stationing.

The end result is a compressed profile zone for the outside curb of a knuckle.

I don't think C3D lets you do that, so for on curb things, like cul-de-sacs and curb returns, you would have separate alignments and profiles.

Then, do most poeple overlap those to assemble the profiles in MS?

I am picturing like 111 overlapping profiles for just one street with one intersection and cul-de-sac at the end.

Is that what most people do?

We normally do not make alignments for curb returs, but may for knuckles and cul-de-sacs depending how meticulous the team is.

We can turn things with or without alignments into 3d sets of plines for surfaces, so have the choice, but we do overlap everything into one profile.

I'm just checking what others do.

Do those overlapping C3D profiles cause any particular headaches?

Its actually hard to find info on these workflows, people seem to hide their methods.

[troma]

Not to attempt to answer all your questions...but have you used superimposed profiles? I only ask because you don't mention them.

[JamesMaeding]

I've used superimposed for projecting one alignment onto another, but never tried labeling them like a street profile.

That approach actually would not help here though, because curb returns are not shown projected, they show full length, same for cul-de-sacs.

The other thing is I don't think you can label superimposed items the same as regular, for things like vert curves.

I attached a sample of a plan with several curb returns, a knuckle, and cul-de-sac.

[Joe-Bouza]

All our street designs for subdivisions require centerline, left and right curb profiles shown in profile.

You can do this two ways:

1) have "separated" profile views in modelspace, and use 3 viewports in PS to combine them together for plotting.

2) have overlapping profile views in modelspace and use 1 profile viewport.

Is this new construction or rehab? We only use three line on rehabs. Doesnt the new construction have a typical section?

when we need a three line typically I super impose and show elevation data in a data band every 25 feet od so.

I had always thought approach 1 was generally used, but have recently seen the opposite.

We essentially do approach 2, but with different tools than C3D.

I was thinking though, what do most people do for things like knuckles, where the profile geometry is designed and labelled "on curb".

That is, the profile of the knuckle curb is deigned based on distances along the curb, not on centerline stationing.

The end result is a compressed profile zone for the outside curb of a knuckle.

I don't think C3D lets you do that, so for on curb things, like cul-de-sacs and curb returns, you would have separate alignments and profiles.

For returns knuckels and tapers I label PGL in plan via alignment label style

Then, do most poeple overlap those to assemble the profiles in MS?

I am picturing like 111 overlapping profiles for just one street with one intersection and cul-de-sac at the end.

Is that what most people do?

111profiles? where? If I do a three line I'd hava e CL, LEOP, REOP, the later two blend into the returns to meet existing or the adjacent rehab. that 3, plus any knuckles 

We normally do not make alignments for curb returs, but may for knuckles and cul-de-sacs depending how meticulous the team is.

We can turn things with or without alignments into 3d sets of plines for surfaces, so have the choice, but we do overlap everything into one profile.

Surely you must profile the returns to match something. no?

Thats basically my work flow

[JamesMaeding]

All our street designs for subdivisions require centerline, left and right curb profiles shown in profile.

You can do this two ways:

1) have "separated" profile views in modelspace, and use 3 viewports in PS to combine them together for plotting.

2) have overlapping profile views in modelspace and use 1 profile viewport.

Is this new construction or rehab? We only use three line on rehabs. Doesnt the new construction have a typical section?

when we need a three line typically I super impose and show elevation data in a data band every 25 feet od so.

JM - This is for all streets in Southern California. Cities like Irvine and Corona. The streets do have a section, but the curbs get warped so its not typical everywhere.

I had always thought approach 1 was generally used, but have recently seen the opposite.

We essentially do approach 2, but with different tools than C3D.

I was thinking though, what do most people do for things like knuckles, where the profile geometry is designed and labelled "on curb".

That is, the profile of the knuckle curb is deigned based on distances along the curb, not on centerline stationing.

The end result is a compressed profile zone for the outside curb of a knuckle.

I don't think C3D lets you do that, so for on curb things, like cul-de-sacs and curb returns, you would have separate alignments and profiles.

For returns knuckels and tapers I label PGL in plan via alignment label style

Then, do most poeple overlap those to assemble the profiles in MS?

I am picturing like 111 overlapping profiles for just one street with one intersection and cul-de-sac at the end.

Is that what most people do?

111profiles? where? If I do a three line I'd hava e CL, LEOP, REOP, the later two blend into the returns to meet existing or the adjacent rehab. that 3, plus any knuckles

JM - whoops, lets say 11...not 111. You mention EOP's, so you don't do curbs much? What do you do for curb returns if encountered?

We normally do not make alignments for curb returs, but may for knuckles and cul-de-sacs depending how meticulous the team is.

We can turn things with or without alignments into 3d sets of plines for surfaces, so have the choice, but we do overlap everything into one profile.

Surely you must profile the returns to match something. no?

JM - Yes, but when I say "make alignments", we do not do that. We calc the delta/4's using a tool that performs the plane method calcs, then draws in profile.

So we do draw and label the items, as shown the that previous attachment.

Did you notice the many partial vertical curves in that example?

I find it interesting they never made it into C3D. Our tools do not have them either, we convert partials to full vc's of the partial length for our vert alignments.

The partial vc label is done by hand, since the computer does not know the original length.

[Joe-Bouza]

---

@jmaeding wrote:

All our street designs for subdivisions require centerline, left and right curb profiles shown in profile.

You can do this two ways:

1) have "separated" profile views in modelspace, and use 3 viewports in PS to combine them together for plotting.

2) have overlapping profile views in modelspace and use 1 profile viewport.

Is this new construction or rehab? We only use three line on rehabs. Doesnt the new construction have a typical section?

when we need a three line typically I super impose and show elevation data in a data band every 25 feet od so.

JM - This is for all streets in Southern California. Cities like Irvine and Corona. The streets do have a section, but the curbs get warped so its not typical everywhere.

JB - I see what you mean, then I would independanlty profile and project to the base line if that stationing is required

I had always thought approach 1 was generally used, but have recently seen the opposite.

We essentially do approach 2, but with different tools than C3D.

I was thinking though, what do most people do for things like knuckles, where the profile geometry is designed and labelled "on curb".

That is, the profile of the knuckle curb is deigned based on distances along the curb, not on centerline stationing.

The end result is a compressed profile zone for the outside curb of a knuckle.

I don't think C3D lets you do that, so for on curb things, like cul-de-sacs and curb returns, you would have separate alignments and profiles.

For returns knuckels and tapers I label PGL in plan via alignment label style

Then, do most poeple overlap those to assemble the profiles in MS?

I am picturing like 111 overlapping profiles for just one street with one intersection and cul-de-sac at the end.

Is that what most people do?

111profiles? where? If I do a three line I'd hava e CL, LEOP, REOP, the later two blend into the returns to meet existing or the adjacent rehab. that 3, plus any knuckles

JM - whoops, lets say 11...not 111. You mention EOP's, so you don't do curbs much? What do you do for curb returns if encountered?

JB - When I say EOP I simply mean the edge of asphalt or where the pavement meets the curb

We normally do not make alignments for curb returs, but may for knuckles and cul-de-sacs depending how meticulous the team is.

We can turn things with or without alignments into 3d sets of plines for surfaces, so have the choice, but we do overlap everything into one profile.

Surely you must profile the returns to match something. no?

JM - Yes, but when I say "make alignments", we do not do that. We calc the delta/4's using a tool that performs the plane method calcs, then draws in profile.

So we do draw and label the items, as shown the that previous attachment.

JB - I see the challenge you have in the required presentation, particularly for curvy roads

Did you notice the many partial vertical curves in that example? JB - yes. Very interesting. what causes that condition?

I find it interesting they never made it into C3D. Our tools do not have them either, we convert partials to full vc's of the partial length for our vert alignments.

The partial vc label is done by hand, since the computer does not know the original length.

---

[JamesMaeding]

I am starting to like this "add your reply to the conversation" format.

It looks long, but you can actually follow a thread.

jmaeding wrote:

All our street designs for subdivisions require centerline, left and right curb profiles shown in profile.

You can do this two ways:

1) have "separated" profile views in modelspace, and use 3 viewports in PS to combine them together for plotting.

2) have overlapping profile views in modelspace and use 1 profile viewport.

Is this new construction or rehab? We only use three line on rehabs. Doesnt the new construction have a typical section?

when we need a three line typically I super impose and show elevation data in a data band every 25 feet od so.

JM - This is for all streets in Southern California. Cities like Irvine and Corona. The streets do have a section, but the curbs get warped so its not typical everywhere.

JB - I see what you mean, then I would independanlty profile and project to the base line if that stationing is required

JM - yes, it must be on centerline stationing but most people design in plan view so just figure cl stations and enter the pvis using them (same thing as projecting...) For most areas, you actually just copy the cl profile and warp, even though that does funny things on vert curves. The interesting thing is when you want the curb in 3d, you must project back to the curb location. Our tools for this ask you to pick a pline of the curb location...

I had always thought approach 1 was generally used, but have recently seen the opposite.

We essentially do approach 2, but with different tools than C3D.

I was thinking though, what do most people do for things like knuckles, where the profile geometry is designed and labelled "on curb".

That is, the profile of the knuckle curb is deigned based on distances along the curb, not on centerline stationing.

The end result is a compressed profile zone for the outside curb of a knuckle.

I don't think C3D lets you do that, so for on curb things, like cul-de-sacs and curb returns, you would have separate alignments and profiles.

For returns knuckels and tapers I label PGL in plan via alignment label style

Then, do most poeple overlap those to assemble the profiles in MS?

I am picturing like 111 overlapping profiles for just one street with one intersection and cul-de-sac at the end.

Is that what most people do?

111profiles? where? If I do a three line I'd hava e CL, LEOP, REOP, the later two blend into the returns to meet existing or the adjacent rehab. that 3, plus any knuckles

JM - whoops, lets say 11...not 111. You mention EOP's, so you don't do curbs much? What do you do for curb returns if encountered?

JB - When I say EOP I simply mean the edge of asphalt or where the pavement meets the curb

We normally do not make alignments for curb returs, but may for knuckles and cul-de-sacs depending how meticulous the team is.

We can turn things with or without alignments into 3d sets of plines for surfaces, so have the choice, but we do overlap everything into one profile.

Surely you must profile the returns to match something. no?

JM - Yes, but when I say "make alignments", we do not do that. We calc the delta/4's using a tool that performs the plane method calcs, then draws in profile.

So we do draw and label the items, as shown the that previous attachment.

JB - I see the challenge you have in the required presentation, particularly for curvy roads

JM - well, the hard thing is we have so many portions of the profile that really do not use centerline stationing. They just get spliced in, and we call out distances along curb, so they are really little profiles within a profile whose stationing they do not share.

Did you notice the many partial vertical curves in that example? JB - yes. Very interesting. what causes that condition?

JM - its because things like intersections commonly trim off part of a vert curve along the curb, so you get partials. You also get it when drainage features interrupt a vert curve on the curb. It would be rare if we did not profile curbs, but this little pocket of the country (you know, the one with LA and San Diego, and OC housewives...) seems to have been not part of the C3D radar way back when. I'm sure we are target No.2 for many coutries with nuclear bombs though (NY being No.1). Prioritization of C3D features is a mystery to me.

I find it interesting they never made it into C3D. Our tools do not have them either, we convert partials to full vc's of the partial length for our vert alignments.

The partial vc label is done by hand, since the computer does not know the original length.

[Joe-Bouza]

---

@jmaeding wrote:

I am starting to like this "add your reply to the conversation" format.

It looks long, but you can actually follow a thread.

@jmaeding wrote:

All our street designs for subdivisions require centerline, left and right curb profiles shown in profile.

You can do this two ways:

1) have "separated" profile views in modelspace, and use 3 viewports in PS to combine them together for plotting.

2) have overlapping profile views in modelspace and use 1 profile viewport.

Is this new construction or rehab? We only use three line on rehabs. Doesnt the new construction have a typical section?

when we need a three line typically I super impose and show elevation data in a data band every 25 feet od so.

JM - This is for all streets in Southern California. Cities like Irvine and Corona. The streets do have a section, but the curbs get warped so its not typical everywhere.

JB - I see what you mean, then I would independanlty profile and project to the base line if that stationing is required

JM - yes, it must be on centerline stationing but most people design in plan view so just figure cl stations and enter the pvis using them (same thing as projecting...) For most areas, you actually just copy the cl profile and warp, even though that does funny things on vert curves. The interesting thing is when you want the curb in 3d, you must project back to the curb location. Our tools for this ask you to pick a pline of the curb location...

I had always thought approach 1 was generally used, but have recently seen the opposite.

We essentially do approach 2, but with different tools than C3D.

I was thinking though, what do most people do for things like knuckles, where the profile geometry is designed and labelled "on curb".

That is, the profile of the knuckle curb is deigned based on distances along the curb, not on centerline stationing.

The end result is a compressed profile zone for the outside curb of a knuckle.

I don't think C3D lets you do that, so for on curb things, like cul-de-sacs and curb returns, you would have separate alignments and profiles.

For returns knuckels and tapers I label PGL in plan via alignment label style

Then, do most poeple overlap those to assemble the profiles in MS?

I am picturing like 111 overlapping profiles for just one street with one intersection and cul-de-sac at the end.

Is that what most people do?

111profiles? where? If I do a three line I'd hava e CL, LEOP, REOP, the later two blend into the returns to meet existing or the adjacent rehab. that 3, plus any knuckles

JM - whoops, lets say 11...not 111. You mention EOP's, so you don't do curbs much? What do you do for curb returns if encountered?

JB - When I say EOP I simply mean the edge of asphalt or where the pavement meets the curb

We normally do not make alignments for curb returs, but may for knuckles and cul-de-sacs depending how meticulous the team is.

We can turn things with or without alignments into 3d sets of plines for surfaces, so have the choice, but we do overlap everything into one profile.

Surely you must profile the returns to match something. no?

JM - Yes, but when I say "make alignments", we do not do that. We calc the delta/4's using a tool that performs the plane method calcs, then draws in profile.

So we do draw and label the items, as shown the that previous attachment.

JB - I see the challenge you have in the required presentation, particularly for curvy roads

JM - well, the hard thing is we have so many portions of the profile that really do not use centerline stationing. They just get spliced in, and we call out distances along curb, so they are really little profiles within a profile whose stationing they do not share.

Did you notice the many partial vertical curves in that example? JB - yes. Very interesting. what causes that condition?

JM - its because things like intersections commonly trim off part of a vert curve along the curb, so you get partials. You also get it when drainage features interrupt a vert curve on the curb. It would be rare if we did not profile curbs, but this little pocket of the country (you know, the one with LA and San Diego, and OC housewives...) seems to have been not part of the C3D radar way back when. I'm sure we are target No.2 for many coutries with nuclear bombs though (NY being No.1). Prioritization of C3D features is a mystery to me.

JB- Lets hope not. I think you can get a partial VC using some og the Fixed vertical curve commands

I find it interesting they never made it into C3D. Our tools do not have them either, we convert partials to full vc's of the partial length for our vert alignments.

The partial vc label is done by hand, since the computer does not know the original length.

---

[JamesMaeding]

Joe, I should have mentioned, the process for making partials generally starts with a curb profile that has full verticals.

Most of the time, this is because the centerline has a vc and the curb is following it.

Then we come in and trim out a gap so a couple curb returns can connect from a side street.

The funny thing about a partial vertical curve is that it is also a full vertical curve of shorter length.

To get that full vertical, you take advantage of the fact that the PI will always be in the center of the length, and that the tangents always connect to the end of the VC.

To chop a VC on one side, hold the tangent of the side not being chopped, and trim that tangent at the middle of the VC. Then connect that point to the end of the trimmed side of the VC and you have a new full vc, but whose tangent slope on the trimmed side has changed.

So the math all works out with having partial vc's in a program, but the labelling has to be done by hand.

I'd sure like to see an example profile base where someone has overlapped those 11 profile views together.

I wonder if that makes it difficult to do anything in particular.

I know the real answer. People draft a ton of stuff by hand for the plans in our area.

But they say they use full Civil3D workflows.

Its not that I care, except a few have said to the partners here that we could be doing everything with Civil3d and its a farce.

Of course, those same people NEVER produce an example sheet and the xrefs to show what they did.

Their pdf's also have major compromises due to c3d style limitations like no rotatable leader segments.

I'm still looking for that one person who can show they did not draw half the stuff by hand. Even a plot of the MS in the sheet for the profile area would be a start.

Do you have an example like that?

thx

[Joe-Bouza]

The issues I see in being fully C3d produced is the draconian hold we have on drafting standards.

There are infinite ways to display plans and have them be readable and buildable. Until we relinquish or to use softer language, reconsider our long held belief of what the plan has to look like, then yes, there will always be hand drafted pieces of the puzzle. Software is written within the confines of what the developer thinks is correct. Yes they try to make it flexible to adapt to user needs, but that flexibility has to be a two way street to be able to truly leverage the program, IMHO.

We aren't building space elevators. We are putting asphalt and concrete down for vehicles and people to move around. Our responsibilty is to convey to a contractor what is the elevation at this point, and how does it relate to the previous condition.

We get hung up on some percieved "artistry" that is irrelavant to the finished product.

[troma]

---

@jmaeding wrote:

... 

I'd sure like to see an example profile base where someone has overlapped those 11 profile views together.

I wonder if that makes it difficult to do anything in particular.

---

Different purpose, but I overlapped two profile views on top of each other. And I found something peculiar: You can't label any part of a pipe network that's drawn in a profile view, if there is another profile view overlapping. I had to move one of the views, do my labelling and then move it back again.

I only mention it since you asked 

[JamesMaeding]

very much appreciated.

Like I say, its been hard to find people that talk about this, though I think its fairly common.

If you have time to mention, do you also maintain alignments of your utils, or just use pipe networks?

[troma]

What do you mean by "utils"?
We generally do pipes for Sanitary Storm & Water, nothing else. No alignments for anything like that.

[JamesMaeding]

oh, I mean pipelines and conduit by utils, lets say "underground utilities"

Pipe networks are a whole other subject, and I wonder how people do them in practice.

We lay out 2d linework for horizontal, then make an alignmentr out of it, then develop the profile in a profile view.

Then we make the vertical align, and use all that for the plan and profile labeling.

We do not have a use for the rules of pipe networks, we design the inverts using many criteria, and do not want things getting moved for us.

I would say the complexity level of our utilities is about 8 out of 10. The streets are getting so crowded now that everyone has reclaimed water, and little storm drains to collect water from each house, rather than letting flow through curb outlet. They want to inimize water in the gutter...

Add in dry utils, and its a mess. I'd be interested in seeing someones pipe network base that has all that in it.

a 10 out of 10 is when you start stacking pipelines vertically due to no space 🙂

We have separate bases for our 2d xreffed linework, and the 3d pipes we generate from the alignments.

thx

[troma]

Sounds like your plans are a lot more crowded than ours.

[JamesMaeding]

post an example if you would.

In all the tool making ventures I do, it all starts with a few plans I am trying to help on.

Yet I rarely see such examples when Autodesk does things.

Its the foundation of anything we do, so it would be helpful.

[Civil3DReminders_com]

All our street designs for subdivisions require centerline, left and right curb profiles shown in profile.

You can do this two ways:

1) have "separated" profile views in modelspace, and use 3 viewports in PS to combine them together for plotting.

2) have overlapping profile views in modelspace and use 1 profile viewport.

It's been a while since I did a plan set (around Civil 3D 2010), I/we used method 2. 

I was thinking though, what do most people do for things like knuckles, where the profile geometry is designed and labelled "on curb".

That is, the profile of the knuckle curb is deigned based on distances along the curb, not on centerline stationing.

The end result is a compressed profile zone for the outside curb of a knuckle.

I don't think C3D lets you do that, so for on curb things, like cul-de-sacs and curb returns, you would have separate alignments and profiles.

I used an alignment for the knuckle at the back of curb and the created a profile veiw that was located adjacent to the centerline's profile view to give it one look. If we needed to compress it we'd fake in the distances with the correct elevations and then edit the text (or place text objects) for the slopes. 

Then, do most poeple overlap those to assemble the profiles in MS?

I am picturing like 111 overlapping profiles for just one street with one intersection and cul-de-sac at the end.

Is that what most people do?

111 seems like a lot, probably closer to 11 profiles with 11 profile views. 

We normally do not make alignments for curb returs, but may for knuckles and cul-de-sacs depending how meticulous the team is.

We can turn things with or without alignments into 3d sets of plines for surfaces, so have the choice, but we do overlap everything into one profile.

I created alignments for curb returns since I used the corridor to check my elevations. If I saw the contours go wonky I know the elevations was off. Before the economy crashed I had a first draft of automating the curb returns for Riverside County. Unfortunately the project went bankrupt and work shifted to military so I didn't get a change to refine it.

I'm just checking what others do.

Do those overlapping C3D profiles cause any particular headaches?

The headaches occurred with design changes. If the mainline alignment changed then we had to go in and check all of the profiles where still good for the curb returns and then see if the profile views where in the correct location. On a main road through the development it was a pain since there was lots of intersections to go through and check and too many profiles for my tastes.

Also the way Civil 3D interacts with Profile Views isn't made for overlapping profile views. It tended to pick the wrong one so you'd have to move the profile view, make the change, and then move it back. It didn't look for other profile views and then ask you which one you wanted to apply the design to.

Overall it's a terribly frustrating process. Also around that time I'd get monthly emails informing me of a webcast about Civil 3D was BIM, which made it more frustrating since I was expecting Civil 3D to be BIM and it sure isn't even close to being a BIM product.

The intersection tool didn't help the process for the Southern California market. It assumes we are designing from the EP when we want to be up at the Top of Curb. The 2' distance from the lip of gutter to the Top of Curb puts way too much error in figuring out slopes and just creates more headache in coordinating the profiles. It also only allows for straight grades in figuring the values if you want the warped profiles at the intersections you'd need to use a profile and loose the dynamicness of it.

I would have to say the experience creating subdivision plans is the main reason I'm pissed about Civil 3D and the reason why I haven't gone back to sit at a desk at a Civil Engineering firm. The product could be so much more user friendly to use for subdivision design, but for some reason it doesn't matter to Autodesk. If I did go back I'd be working 40 hours a week at the desk and working hours at night trying to create the tools to make it worth doing the work. That doesn't quite work for a life work balance. Since I don't do the work, I don't have a big incentive to create the tools now.

[troma]

Wow, my jobs sound easy now! 90% of the time we only have one design profile.

We used to show curb returns in profile. We just drafted it by hand, or added a profile to the same profile view.

Now we show a little detail of the intersection in plan instead, with elevation labels and flow arrows around the curb.

The only time we show more than one design profile is with superelevation. (Generally superelevation is used to make the match work both sides on a rehab job. No curves or design speeds involved here.) We just draw the left & right EOP as profiles on the same profile view as the crown.

I have used an alignment at the EOP for a knuckle. I've made a profile view & profile for it and used it as a corridor target. But recently I've thought that it would be easier to use a featureline as the corridor target instead.

Little trick I've used: superimpose a profile and then trace over it with a profile. This way you can get more labels to work. Of course if the alignments aren't parallel, the lengths are different and the grades will be wrong. Anyway, just a suggestion.

I've only stacked profile views on top of each other for a completely different reason, never for displaying design profiles.

[Joe-Bouza]

Like I said...There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Well that's not exactly what I said but it means the same thing.

[JamesMaeding]

@chris,

thanks for the great answers, that was the most anyone has ever said about subdivisions to me.

Can you believe that we are just waiting to pay Autodesk for a decent program to do profile intensive design, and they won't do it?

I estimate they are missing out on 50% of sales based on lost momentum.

If the same number of people that used LDT were happy with it, they would be selling way more IW and other add-ons that rely on surfaces and things.

But I see people half using C3D, not even making profiles for much of the work because they are easy to draw and label with lisp.

I email my free fastprof program to many people, the source code is included.

You should work for us Chris. We have tools to do the profile intensive stuff, and we use parts of C3D as it makes sense.

No one here does corridors, but we make the most detailed street surfaces I have seen. Its not hard if you make tools that turn alignments into 3d plines.

You could do them though. I can say I do not have things that understand how to "connect" alignments and profiles. You must babysit the curb returns and anything like knuckles to make sure they attach to the main road. What we do though, is maintain a surface drawing, whose 3d plines are hooked to the alignmenmt data.

Then you run the update comand on the 3d plines, and look for 3d gaps (carefully).

I do get pushback from people who hear we use in house tools for alignments and labeling. Then, any of those that have joined the company soon understand we actually mix things, and our in house tools can run on top of c3d data. So they can experiment, but must show that their workflow does indeed work if they want to use on plansets others will have to maintain. Some have not done that, and get into messes so they are learning.