Best Of

Hi @LucasdaSilva

I’m not sure if this is exactly what you’re looking for, and it may not be the most optimized workflow. I’m just sharing a workaround based on what I understand:

1. Create a regular point grid

• To create a grid of points, right-click on the Points folder and select “New Grid of Points” (see image below).

• Set X = 40, Y = 20, Z = 25.

• Click OK to create the grid.

2 Export the point grid

From the newly created Grid of Points folder, export the grid to your desktop.

3. Create a reference plane

• Press Ctrl + 3 to open the 3D view.

• Draw a Flow Plane aligned with your wireframe surface.

• Set the Dip and Azimuth according to your project.

4. Create a mesh from the plane

• In Meshes folder.Right-click and choose “From Moving Plane”.

• Set the resolution to 50 and click OK.

• A blue plane should appear in your scene.

5. Import the grid points back into Leapfrog

• In the GIS data / Maps and Photos folder, right-click and select Import 2D Points.

• Select the file you exported earlier and click Open, then Finish.

6.Create a topography from the plane

In the Topography folder, right-click and select New Topography > From Surface, then choose the plane you just created from the Meshes folder.

7. Project the point grid onto the inclined plane

• Go back to the GIS data / Maps and Photos folder.

• Right-click on “Grid_of_Points” and select Topography.

• Choose the topography you just created.

• You’ll now have a regular grid of points with the dimensions you set, projected onto an inclined plane.I hope this workaround is helpful for your situation.

Hello findlayfraser!

Thank you very much for your quick answer, I really appreciate it. Particularly because I know that is a big open question, but due to its complexity I needed to reach out for help.

Both answers and options sound really interesting. To try to be more consistent to the initial model, I think that I will go for Option 1 and I will keep the existing solid and subdivide them.

Trying not to take advantage of your courtesy, could you give me some tips about it? or any article/post from seequent that can help?

Thank you again and best regards!

RG

Thanks, I understand what you mean. I'll create a separate surface so that there is this overlap you mentioned.

Have a great day

It sounds like Leapfrog is mad because you are giving it information that is in exactly the same location. Clipping operations that take part during constructive solid geometry operations are designed to cut things that fully cross-cut. When objects share exact boundaries, as it sounds like they might be doing in your example, the clipping operation fails. I'm extrapolating somewhat here, so maybe going in the wrong direction, but it sounds like you want your vein to run fully along the edge of your intrusion, like a rind. If so, I suggest you explore ways to pull the footwall 'through' the intrusion edge, maybe by creating inputs on the other side and turning off the boundary filter, or by trying a different avenue, like creating an offset surface from the intrusion to the what are currently the hangingwall points of your vein.

Hello Leapfrog users!

I hope someone can help me with this. I have been given a regional geological map that I have to reinterpret locally to be more accurate to new BH data.

This model has 5 main geological units, but I want to be more accurate and define different sub-units (with particular characteristics), resulting likely in 11 units.

This model has been built with 5 faults, and therefore 6 blocks. The information these blocks (and the model) are using to build the volumes are the topography, structural data, points and polylines, if I am not wrong - I attached a screenshot.

Considering all these, how is the best way to reinterpret this model/these block using the given data?

I appreciate all help and if you consider that setting a call to discuss this is better that text, I would very glad to set it!

Thank you very much in advance and best regards,

RG

Hey RG, what you are asking is quite broad, and could be interpreted in different ways. None of the answers are going to be a couple of paragraphs that you can take from an answer here and easily use to achieve your goals, but it is great you are reaching out for help. option 1, if you want subdivide your EXISTING solids (think about going from a stratigraphic formation to a unit or member), is to create a refined model and build inside them. Option 2, if you need to essentially throw out the existing solids and build different ones is just delete them and start over, and build a new model. Now, this is all assuming you don't need to to edit those fault blocks you mentioned. If you need to add or remove fault blocks (not just edit the fault locations) that becomes a potentially tricky change management process that needs to be handled carefully as bits of the model can delete themselves depending on what decisions you make.