I'm sure that I'm not the only one having this issue. I believe that this part of his program needs work. Or the program should tell us that it can't figure it out and to rectify the issue the user needs to do the following....... Like verify laterals and verify valves. It needs to point out what information is missing to finish it's calculations.
Accepted Answer
The issue is unresolved. It the elevation of the highest head is the same as the valve, the program doesn't know what to do. So it doesn't do anything. It just leaves it blank. Adding a "0.0 ft." has been on the wish list, but it's very complicated.
The work around is to explode the block before you publish and edit the table. Obviously, you can't regenerate the table once it's exploded.
The work around is to explode the block before you publish and edit the table. Obviously, you can't regenerate the table once it's exploded.
Accepted Answer
The issue is unresolved. It the elevation of the highest head is the same as the valve, the program doesn't know what to do. So it doesn't do anything. It just leaves it blank. Adding a "0.0 ft." has been on the wish list, but it's very complicated.
The work around is to explode the block before you publish and edit the table. Obviously, you can't regenerate the table once it's exploded.
The work around is to explode the block before you publish and edit the table. Obviously, you can't regenerate the table once it's exploded.
Steve Cook
selected the reply #6685 as the answer for this post — 2 months ago
Almost none of that is accurate.
The program knows precisely what to do if there is no elevation difference from valve to highest head - it just doesn't add any additional pressure loss/gain.
Further, in the valve schedule, it's not complicated at all to list zero values, we just purposely do not. The logic is that it is much easier to identify "missing" values if they are blank, rather than list "0 ft".
It *is* on the wishlist to include those zeros, with exactly one vote for it, yours.
This remains something we are entirely aware of, it has just not be escalated to an action item.
What would help us prioritize such a request, would be to hear from other users as well. As well, to understand why this is an issue. The Valve Schedule still works, the pipe sizing still works, this is literally a cosmetic personal preference.
It is an entirely valid personal preference to have, but numerically no difference. An empty cell obviously indicates no value. Whether it should be empty, or a dash, or a 0, or 0ft, or "n/a" is all personal preference.
So the dilemma is, should we add an option to the dialog, or maybe only effect the output to Excel, or make the change to all schedules for all users. We are just not jumping to do any of that until we have a solid understanding of the issue and the best solution.
--J
The program knows precisely what to do if there is no elevation difference from valve to highest head - it just doesn't add any additional pressure loss/gain.
Further, in the valve schedule, it's not complicated at all to list zero values, we just purposely do not. The logic is that it is much easier to identify "missing" values if they are blank, rather than list "0 ft".
It *is* on the wishlist to include those zeros, with exactly one vote for it, yours.
This remains something we are entirely aware of, it has just not be escalated to an action item.
What would help us prioritize such a request, would be to hear from other users as well. As well, to understand why this is an issue. The Valve Schedule still works, the pipe sizing still works, this is literally a cosmetic personal preference.
It is an entirely valid personal preference to have, but numerically no difference. An empty cell obviously indicates no value. Whether it should be empty, or a dash, or a 0, or 0ft, or "n/a" is all personal preference.
So the dilemma is, should we add an option to the dialog, or maybe only effect the output to Excel, or make the change to all schedules for all users. We are just not jumping to do any of that until we have a solid understanding of the issue and the best solution.
--J
Thank you for your input, Jer. It's nice to know that the program does know what to do. 
We do use these tables for analysis during the design process, but we actually put these results on our plans too. When they are blank, it looks like something is missing. And it is. It's blank. There is no visible data. It does not "obviously" indicate a value of 0.0. There is no data. How would this look different if this valve laterals were calculated without using elevations? It seems like a blank would notify the designer that the valve lateral sizing was calculated without using the elevations. That would be a good flag. But if the elevations were used, and there is no differential a 0.0 would let the designer know that the elevations were actually used in the calculation. Doesn't this make sense?
So now we have to explode the table to fix it for publication. If we make modifications, we have to go through the whole thing again. Just like if someone were to explode any other schedule. We try to never do this. But for this, that's the only workaround. Right?
So you have one "Yea". How many "Ney"'s? None? Then the Yea's have it. Just kidding. You are doing a fantastic job! I know that you have bigger fish to fry.
We do use these tables for analysis during the design process, but we actually put these results on our plans too. When they are blank, it looks like something is missing. And it is. It's blank. There is no visible data. It does not "obviously" indicate a value of 0.0. There is no data. How would this look different if this valve laterals were calculated without using elevations? It seems like a blank would notify the designer that the valve lateral sizing was calculated without using the elevations. That would be a good flag. But if the elevations were used, and there is no differential a 0.0 would let the designer know that the elevations were actually used in the calculation. Doesn't this make sense? So now we have to explode the table to fix it for publication. If we make modifications, we have to go through the whole thing again. Just like if someone were to explode any other schedule. We try to never do this. But for this, that's the only workaround. Right?
So you have one "Yea". How many "Ney"'s? None? Then the Yea's have it. Just kidding. You are doing a fantastic job! I know that you have bigger fish to fry.
- Page :
- 1
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Contact
- Land F/X
Our software tailors AutoCAD® to the needs of landscape architects, irrigation designers, and other professionals. We automate your most tedious tasks and ensure accuracy, giving you more time to design.