View Poll Results: Would you find it useful to be able to combine several scenarios in a network?

10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Often

    9 90.00%
  • Occasionally

    1 10.00%
  • Not that I know of

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: ICM Scenarios

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Lightbulb ICM Scenarios

    Scenarios are great, but limited by only being able to apply one at a time. I would like to be able to work on, say, scheme options in two or more parts of the same model, and see what the effects of applying both might be. Currently, I can only do that by copying elements from both/all into a combined scenario, risking errors and meaning that the combined scenario gets out of date if I or anyone else works on one or the other original scenarios.
    Would it be possible to develop the software in a way that allows you to drag in multiple scenarios to one single simulation?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    I'm still wishing that we could do this. I have a large catchment with several options for each of a number of schemes in different areas, and it would be useful to run several combinations at once. Any chance of it happening?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Poll added. Please respond if you'd find this a useful feature.

  4. #4
    I wholeheartedly agree. I have only just come to this forum today but I set out just such a proposal to Innovyze for improving Scenarios in July 2015. Having the ability to overlay several scenarios on to a current model would allow such as the impact of urban creep and future development to be overlaid separately or together. A solution option would be a third scenario, an alternative option would be another (but not dropped on at the same time, unless it was later phase). The existing model would only need to be incremented a version when it is updated/improved. Scenarios would benefit from having their own versions, say when the local Council updates its development plans. Currently, having to commit a new version of the network when a new scenario is created is not intuitive - it is the scenario which has a new version not the network as a whole.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Hello All,

    Looking to restart this discussion as we have come up against a related issue with scenarios in ICM.

    1. You have a Base model from say 2010
    2. You develop a number of augmentation strategies and flag up the changed assets with a "future flag"
    3. You then come and update the Base model with all the work that has been done over the last 7 years from As Constructed Drawings and want to test that your augmentation strategies are still valid

    The "catch" as I understand it is that if you proposed that a pipe which was a 150mm should be a 225mm and a 300mm was constructed instead that when you update the Base to 300mm the scenario will still exist as a 225mm... There needs to be the ability to "push" changes into a scenario (similar to the commit conflict dialog).
    Even if you did construct a 225mm pipe then I believe that the while the diameter will link back to the base (as the values are identical) the flag won't be updated to reflect that this is now a real asset, not a future proposed asset.

    So two questions:
    1. Does anyone have a clever way of dealing with this scenario (pun intended) as at the moment we are looking at some big excel vlookups to work out what has been changed and what hasn't ...
    2. Do other people use a "future" or "proposed" augmentations flag in scenarios ? Discussions with Innovyze seem to indicate that they think not, but I'm curious to know what other users really ARE doing ...

    Thanks All!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts