Could Openroads Designer display side toolbar just like Power Civil? I am not quite familiar with the ribbon interface on ORD, so I want to change back to side toolbar just like what Power Civil looks. See below picture. Some of our customers have the same question.
I searched similar questions, and found that V8i style Tasks could be displayed in MicroStation CONNECT Edition using the configuration variable MS TASKNAVIGATION CONFIGURATION.
The website is: https://communities.bentley.com/products/microstation/w/microstation__wiki/24481/how-to-display-the-v8i-style-tasks-dialog-in-microstation-connect-edition
And I tried this method on ORD but it did not work. Maybe there is other configuration variable that we could change in order to solve this problem?
Thank you for your help!
Hi, does anyone know why I do not have the "Task Navigation" option available in my workflow list in ORD? it is available and working in plain vanilla Microstation Connect Edition, but for some reason not available in ORD. Both were installed at the same time. I have ORD version 10.08.00.088 Release 1 Update 8. I have seen videos where "Task Navigation" is available in ORD (see image 1) but mine shows as (image 2) I've tried adding the MS_TASKNAVIGATION_CONFIGURATION variable and set to 1, but if, under settings, I choose "Open the Task Navigations user interface" nothing happens. Also should be noted that, under preferences, "Task Navigation" does NOT show up under Category. My only guess is this feature is not supported on my version of ORD? But it works fine on Microstation as mentioned which is weird. Any help would be great as I am a long time Microstation InRoads user and miss this feature in ORD.
Does anyone know how to get the "Task Navigation" workflow to be available in ORD (image 1)
Is it not supported in my version 10.08.00.088 Release 1 Update 8.
MicroStation and ORD are not built on the same version - ORD is always a version or two behind MicroStation. And the MicroStation method of having two or three places to find a tool seems to have been discarded in favor of the ribbon. That said, you should be able to customize your interface if you need to. We shouldn't need to, but at least it's an option.
Microstation 08.11.09.919Power GeoPak 08.11.09.918Power InRoads 08.11.09.918
MaryB said:MicroStation and ORD are not built on the same version - ORD is always a version or two behind MicroStation.
It's not true! E.g. the latest ORD 2020 Release 3 is based on PowerPlatform CE U14.4, which is newer than MicroStation itself.
In my opinion some confusion is based on (wrong) idea that products like ORD are built on top of MicroStation. It's not correct and it was explained by Bentley in different discussions several times already: There is so called PowerPlaform, which is close to MicroStation, but is not MicroStation itself. Every product (MicroStation, ORD, OCM...) is based on this platform, which means not everything what is included in MicroStation is automatically included in other products also. And vice versa, some tools, even when they look like common, can be included (for any reason) in particular product only (like Expression Builder that is available in ORD for several versions, but not in MicroStation yet).
Bentley Accredited Developer: iTwin Platform - AssociateLabyrinth Technology | dev.notes() | cad.point
I actually suspect that the platform developments teams are working independently, which would certainly explain the variations in whatever's available. It sure seems like it...
I think a lot of confusion could be avoided if all products WERE built on an identical base. Start with MicroStation and develop from there. I KNOW it's no longer that easy, but it would definitely eliminate the bulk of "Why can I do this "here" but not "there"?" Maintaining similar but not identical platforms sounds like a slow rolling nightmare of version inconsistency.
MaryB said:I think a lot of confusion could be avoided if all products WERE built on an identical base.
But they are built on the identical base called PowerPlatform, that is roughly equal what MicroStation offers.
Nothing like different platforms exists, inside all products is always the same engine, identical both at API and user levels.
MaryB said:I actually suspect that the platform developments teams are working independently
Yes, they are independent, but building their products on the same base.
It means every team can choose what tool from PowerPlatform will be used and will be not used (to switch off specific tool when it makes no sense) or to add own one (both simple tool or completely custom application layer and GUI).
MaryB said:Maintaining similar but not identical platforms sounds like a slow rolling nightmare of version inconsistency.
In my opinion it's opposite: The current system provides probably the best balance between releasing schedule (comparing to synchronized released in the past, when at the end, everybody waited for everybody), flexibility (every product team can decide what to (do not) use and what to add) and compatibility (when particular platform feature is supported, it's supported in the same way in all products, including APIs).
For sure it does not mean it provides 100% satisfaction of all expectations and users' needs (I think no such product or even concept exist, maybe ideas created by people never managing software development and release). Some features can be adopted by different teams in different time (V8i theme), a risk of duplicated development exists (but I guess it's minimal), sometimes (but often from historical reasons) a product use custom technology where PowerPlatform already offered new standard feature.
MaryB said:It sure seems like it...
It does not.
I think a misunderstanding is created by an idea that all products have to be MicroStation + application specific feature. This was concept maybe used many years ago, but not valid even in V8i times (even when not very visible), but abandoned completely when first CE versions were released.
Much of what you say makes sense from a developer's (vendor's) point of view, but it misses the mark from a user's (customer's) point of view. Bentley has always marketed the xRoads tools, at least to the bulk of its customers, as MicroStation plus the civil tool. Customers have been told that they don't need MicroStation if they buy a Power platform product because all of MicroStation tools are included. They may make the distinction clear to their third party partners but that message doesn't really make it out to the customers, who have heard and bought into the marketing pitch.
Bentley has been descending into the software developer abyss for a while - where the customer is no longer king. With Connect, for may of us, it feels as though they quit sliding into the abyss and just leapt into the middle of it. It seems that most large developers, this is certainly not limited to Bentley, have determined they know better than their customers what is best for them.
Ray Thwaits said:but it misses the mark from a user's (customer's) point of view.
That's valid point for sure, but I am not probably the right person to play this role :-)
Ray Thwaits said:Bentley has always marketed the xRoads tools, at least to the bulk of its customers, as MicroStation plus the civil tool.
I am not typical civil user (in fact, I learned civil products a bit primarily because of my customers ;-), so I am not very familiar with civil marketing, but I think what you mentioned is how V8 civil products (InRoads / MX / GEOPAK) were marketed, because technically they were addins to MicroStation installation.
But this idea changed in V8i time when PowerCivil line of products was released, because they were pre-packed installations, individually customized for particular markets, so set of features were different (and all MicroStation feature were not always included).
Ray Thwaits said:Customers have been told that they don't need MicroStation if they buy a Power platform product because all of MicroStation tools are included.
As was explained by somebody from Bentley in another discussion, in fact today all products, including MicroStation itself (maybe Descartes is an exception) are "power products", because all are individual packages, based on "power platform". This paradigm change was not communicated properly and I agree it leads to a confusion (no more "product on top of MicroStation", but always individual industry specific solutions).
Ray Thwaits said:Bentley has been descending into the software developer abyss for a while - where the customer is no longer king.
I agree Bentley ignored users' priorities in CE generation development for a long time, with the result the most of user still remain on V8, which after 5 years of existence of MicroStation CE is just a disaster.
But I disagree too. In my opinion it's wrong to discuss "Bentley" as "one subject", because it's now an enterprise level corporation with all related (dis)advantages, plus extremely wide portfolio, so it's like to discuss current weather in Prague with arguments related to average climate in Europe in last 10 years.
When talking about individual products (like ORD), concrete people are responsible for the product itself, how it will be developed, what feature will be included and what GUI used. They should response to these types of discussions.
Ray Thwaits said:It seems that most large developers, this is certainly not limited to Bentley, have determined they know better than their customers what is best for them.
You are right. My experience is that it's a common process that happens when a product become complex or a company grows over some extent. But in the case of Bentley I think it has been caused also allocation many sources (representing a huge amount of experience both from real projects, software development and management) to activities related to iTwins / iModelJS. Consequently, development did not meet Bentley quality (in my opinion it was improved and it's fine now), but especially design and specifications are done by people without enough real experience. I remember some discussions I had with developers in the past and at the end we realized the problem was not in the code, but the specification what should be implemented was evidently done by somebody who was e.g. not aware of possibility of multilanguage environment (Windows in different language than MicroStation, plus project delivered to a customer in another country).