Open Roads - Are you using it? Tell us more...

I've been using OpenRoads tools since SS3 was released. I started with quite small yet complex enough schemas to test it and get familiar with new technology, eg. small airside design in Poland (www.yearininfrastructure-digital.com/.../2013) then I moved to another company and now I am involved in quite huge projects where OpenRoads is our main software.

I am struggling with defects and software crashes but still see benefits of this technology. However I miss Inroads SS2 Roadway Designer stability and speed.
At one stage we abandon using civil geometry tools for our mainlines (due to a number of defects) but we are still using CG to develop Civil Cells, EOPs for point controls, etc. I can say that we saved a lot of time with civil cells.

I have doubts regarding dgn as a data storage. I think xml was more reliable and there was possibility to use text editor to apply bulk changes to styles, symbologies or even template component names and properties (at the level of ird or itl file). On the other hand with corridors being processed on fly in dgn file we do not need to publish our models and we are sure that all project participants use up to date data.

We have ProjectWise managed workspace which is perfect to enforce CADD standards. Unfortunately civil dgnlibs have no option to use xml to export/import Feature Definitions.

I believe OpenRoads is a good direction but still is in development.

adam

BTW. All above is my private opinion.

I've been using OpenRoads tools since SS3 was released. I started with quite small yet complex enough schemas to test it and get familiar with new technology, eg. small airside design in Poland (www.yearininfrastructure-digital.com/.../2013) then I moved to another company and now I am involved in quite huge projects where OpenRoads is our main software.

I am struggling with defects and software crashes but still see benefits of this technology. However I miss Inroads SS2 Roadway Designer stability and speed.
At one stage we abandon using civil geometry tools for our mainlines (due to a number of defects) but we are still using CG to develop Civil Cells, EOPs for point controls, etc. I can say that we saved a lot of time with civil cells.

I have doubts regarding dgn as a data storage. I think xml was more reliable and there was possibility to use text editor to apply bulk changes to styles, symbologies or even template component names and properties (at the level of ird or itl file). On the other hand with corridors being processed on fly in dgn file we do not need to publish our models and we are sure that all project participants use up to date data.

We have ProjectWise managed workspace which is perfect to enforce CADD standards. Unfortunately civil dgnlibs have no option to use xml to export/import Feature Definitions.

I believe OpenRoads is a good direction but still is in development.

adam

BTW. All above is my private opinion.

It's interesting to see that I am not the only "crazy person" to occasionally use bulk editing in an XML file. I also admit that I am really fond of XML and its ability to be reported on.

My firm has many clients that expect dwg files and many of my users have far more experience in AutoCAD than with Bentley Civil products. That said, we are still very new at Civil 3D and find the Open Roads approach to at least be familiar as it effectively is very similar to Civil 3D with all design data being stored in the CAD file. On Bentley's side, they allow a simple reference file to provide additional design data sources while in Civil 3D there is a "publishing" step required where you register the design content with the software and it creates a "link" file to alert other users to this external data. Interestingly, the link file is XML!

Actually, a number of customization files for AutoCAD are XML files. However, some are contained in special zip files and are best left alone as far as editing content. But I did find I could determine places where file paths were stored in order to revise those when needed. Once I knew a path was being stored, I knew where to look in the interface to make edits to make those changes using the provided tools.

Our biggest stumbling block is features and styles. The DOT XIN files are seriously lacking in these and the named symbologies for them. And without them, point names linked to standard styles fall flat as well. I am currently involved in a large, multi-discipline light rail project and unfortunately for me, many of the corridors were started by others that had little understanding of the importance of consistent and meaningful point names and styles. I can get great looking components in cross sections, but the DTM that gets created is a mess. There are too many points left with names line new_1, new_2, and similar variations, along with places where left or right suffixes were mirrored so there are some _L_R and _R_L and even a few _L_R_L - you get the idea. So I get massive criss-crossing breaklines, along with places were DNC breaklines in one template are surface breaklines in another - trust me, this does not work! And due to the completely inconsistent use of these names, I was unable to perform bulk renames in an editor. 

I had high hopes for Open Roads when I first experienced the power of Civil Geometry with SS1. While it is too buggy to use in SS1 I can see the potential. However since it's release (SS3) I've been reluctant to try it because it is too early in development. If Bentley offered trials I would at least be willing to try it, but they don't (unless you are on Select, which we are not).

Being a hybrid that requires converting the models and symbology to legacy format for plan production is a major obstacle to implementation. I feel it would require a lot of handholding by Bentley support (or a well trained and dedicated in house support team) to establish a practical workflow, if that is even possible at this stage. Also it appears there are still instability issues and deficiencies in the Civil Geometry technology which need to be resolved before committing to it for production use.

We've evaluated Civil 3D for years and find it is too cumbersome and is lacking in functionality for site grading, so we haven't been able to commit to it. Meanwhile we continue in limbo, unable to commit to either company's product line. At the current pace of development I don't expect to see a comprehensive usable product for at least a few more years.