Difference between Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-1 and Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-2

[AlexBrad1eyCT]

Issue

Reviewing Pull Requests It seems to be that there is no real content difference between #47 Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-1 and #50 Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-2 @LeeGregory12d please correct me if im wrong, there is a aggregation issue in #50 that needs fixing but i am struggling with seeing any difference between the unit tests.

Solution

1. @LeeGregory12d Provide context to the test and solve my ignorance!
2. Keep the merged UT-Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-1 #47 Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-1 and close UT-Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-2 #50.

[LeeGregory12d]

Alex,
Yes the difference is difficult to see and I need more information in the readme.md such as including an image of ground tin in Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-1 showing that it is very small.

Basically the example was to solve the issued that really worried me.
That issue was when you have a typical ground tin of hundreds of millions of triangles but are only doing the cut and fill over a small area. The ground tin could easily be too big for the receiving software to handle and often may not be necessary to display.

One solution is to cut down the ground tin so it just covers the area as I did for Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-1 but that solution worried me as it falsifies the ground tin.

So the purpose of Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-2 was to show that it was not necessary to write out the triangles of the ground tin to still know what element was Voided - the geometry of the ground tin is actually optional.

So in Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-1 the top tin (which is shown in brown) has 770 triangles and is included in the IFC file.
But in Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-2 the top tin (which is shown in white) has 37,982 triangles and is NOT in the IFC file.

[AlexBrad1eyCT]

Ah, thanks Lee, that makes perfect sense. and Highlights a brilliant use case of multimodel projects, in Georeferencing-Earthworks-12d-2 we can include the semantic object only as the voided object but as long as the GuidIdentifier is the same you could exchange the TIN in a seperate file/model with the semantic object and the TIN and still be able to federate them and get a a complete survey and earthworks model!

[LeeGregory12d]

What was the problem that is yet to be resolved ?

[AlexBrad1eyCT]

@LeeGregory12d there are pending changes on the linked pull request #50 that will close this issue, the problem is resolved, its just #50 is yet to be resolved.