Does ORD seriously use this much memory? All I did was create a corridor, open some dynamic sections and generate some drawings and im at 96% of my 32Gb RAM. It all happens in a very short time.
We have experienced difficulties using SS4 due to poor memory management (constant "out of memory" errors and crashes once corridors are detailed) and were hoping this would have been sorted for CONNECT. Unfortunately there's no point going to 64-Bit when all that changes is a higher memory limit that will be exceeded quickly.
Is this something that will be addressed for the commercial release? We are in the process of scoping out some projects for later in the year and have built capability for OR modelling, however, SS4 will never be an option again (based on current limitations and issues) and we were hoping ORD may be ready with at least the SS4 limitations being addressed.
I am typically using 1-2 GB of RAM creating and process corridors in ORD. My testbox has Windows 10 (64-bit) with 16 GB of RAM and has SS2 (production), PowerGEOPAK SS4 (evaluation), and ORD (evaluation) installed.
On a side note, my other workstation is a Windows 7 (64-bit) with 8 GB of RAM. It has SS2 (production) and PowerGEOPAK SS4 (evaluation) installed. It usually uses 1-1.5 GB of RAM for corridor processing and normal operation. I guess we are lucky we, or our users, never ran into this issue and hope the problem can easily be fixed.
I have ran some performance tests comparing the Windows 7 workstation to the Windows 10 testbox and honestly can say have not noticed a significant performance boost as advertised. For example, importing the IRD in Windows 7 PowerGEOPAK SS4 took 21.19 seconds. The same IRD was imported with the Windows 10 testbox took 24.46 seconds (longer). I guess YMMV in certain situations. I hope the increase in RAM usage takes care of the crashes cause by undoing or Ctrl-Z a process that has plagued the EAP releases.
Each State and Agency has evaluated SS3/SS4 for use. Sometime it is an involved process and the determination is carefully compiled by the area experts and professionals. I can't really speak for them, but for us there are many factors to consider. At the end of the day we could not approve SS3/SS4 to be used on our projects due to mainly too many left turns to old SS2 technology to complete a task (GPK, DDB, etc.), jeopardizing project schedules, existing project contracts, and the timely delivery of projects by our PEFs. Simply it was not production ready. Performance was not a major issue for us.
MS (SELECTseries 2) Ver. 08.11.07.443Geopak Ver. 08.11.07.619