MXROAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) - Discontinued Support and use of Input files

We recently received an email with respect to an update to the Bentley Support Policy.  Many people in the office took this as a discontinuation of MXRoad but it is unclear if this is the case.  However, we do note that MXROAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) will have "expiring support" from 1st July 2019 https://www.bentley.com/en/desktop-applications i.e. it will be unavailable for download and that "Connect Edition" and "Open Roads" will replace MXROAD.  However, a lot of our designs use input files and we are concerned that this may not be supported. Having not used Open Roads, can you advise whether input file functionality is or will be available?

Parents
  • Hi Richard,

    OpenRoads Designer is a completely new product. There is no linemode option within it. It does not use MX Commands.

    You will still be able to use MX in the future, but it won't be developed any more, and we will still be providing support for the foreseeable future.

    The intention is to transition users to ORD.

    I'd be happy to discuss specific requirements, if you want to drop me an email. simon.pegg@bentley.com I'd be happy to discuss with you.

    Simon Pegg

    Bentley Civil Support



  • Agree with John Keating wholly! Used MX for nearly 30 years and is a proven tool for providing designs quickly. I am currently using it for all designs on one of the UK's maintenance contracts. For our work output, we have two options, either MX or Civil3D. I've use OpenRoads before and was too cumbersome, and at that time so full of faults that I understand it was abandoned in favour of Civil3D after I had left. By the looks of it, I will finally have to jump ship and go down the Autodesk route of products!

  • Hi Adrian, you obviously haven't used Civil 3d before...MX is in a class of its own for string-based modeling and anyone who has ever used it knows c3d takes exponentially more time to do things vs. MX.

    OpenRoads is far superior to Civil 3d (IMO) for Template-based 3d modeling. I suggest you try them all before making any judgements.

    Regards,

    Mark


    OpenRoads Designer 2023  |  Microstation 2023.2  |  ProjectWise 2023

  • Mark,

    I've tried all three and 12D, but my experience with OpenRoads hasn't been a good one, although I'm sure it's improved since I used it. Some of the functions didn't even perform correctly, extension of crossfall for example, didn't work at all. Interesting to see that you are in Sydney, it was the NWRL that I had used it on.

    Likewise Civil3D and 12D have their quirks. They both have their own strengths and weaknesses, but I cannot dictate to a client/organisation which design software to use. I will adapt to whatever is required. If they want MX or Civil3D and there is no MX, then I go Civil3D, as simple as that.

    Regards,

    Adrian.

  • Hi Adrian, each to their own.

    An interesting fact about the Sydney environment is that OpenRoads Designer is the platform that our road authority and some of the larger consultancies are moving towards from MX. A few like us dabbled with c3d but abandoned it after finding it's shortfalls (I did spend 2 years at a council using it successfully, but it has limitations in scale so inevitably it fails on highway jobs). NWR was back in the SS3 days when OpenRoads was an "add in". It's now it's own 64-bit software package, so a lot has changed, to the point that we are delivering tender and detail designs of some of the largest road and tunnel projects in NSW in it right now.

    Definitely not perfect and it has it's flaws, but something to be aware of.

    Regards,

    Mark


    OpenRoads Designer 2023  |  Microstation 2023.2  |  ProjectWise 2023

  • Adrian.

    Give OpenRoads Designer one last try before jumping to C3D. Its completely different to the OpenRoads Technology add-on you used before. Yes it's had it's issues and there are still some. 

    Interestingly, enough you can still import alignment input files into OpenRoads Designer and you can use Parametric Constraints in Corridors and Linear Templates as a text input to replicate MX Design Inputs. And these controls are far superior to C3D.

    We've developed Excel formulas to convert MX input files for design offsets into parameters for ORD.

    To sum up. Not perfect, not as good as MX but better than C3D IMO

    Regards

    Chris


    AECOM Roads UK&I Digital Engineering, Design & Solutions Lead | Sector Information Management Lead

    Associate Director – Digital

    OpenRoads Designer 10.12 | MicroStation 2023 | ProjectWise CE 10.3.4 | ContextCapture | ProjectWise PowerShell 2023 | ProjectWise WSG API | Generative Components | OpenBridge Designer 10.12

    Civil 3D 2023 | Dynamo | Navisworks Manage

    PowerShell | Visual Studio | Office 365 | Power Platform | Teams | SharePoint | Visio

    Speckle | BIMVision | Revizto | Solibri

  • Hi Mate, unfortunately they don't get it and never will as they have never actually built a job. MX gave me a competitive edge over all the 12D lemmings out there. In business you need to to differentiate from your competitors not follow them. You can't beat first principles when it comes to any application. My last 20 years has been major projects, LCT, M2 widening, Pac Hwy various and now Westconnex. All these jobs are road reconstruction. Try and design a road widening to match existing using a template. 

    Bentley is not interested, they're running a global business and we MX users are simply not plentiful enough to have a say. That's why its all about BIM, they're trying to create demand for new product sales. Back to VBA and LISP for us, although I am sure the gurus in the big design houses will come up with something clever to get us through to retirement.

Reply
  • Hi Mate, unfortunately they don't get it and never will as they have never actually built a job. MX gave me a competitive edge over all the 12D lemmings out there. In business you need to to differentiate from your competitors not follow them. You can't beat first principles when it comes to any application. My last 20 years has been major projects, LCT, M2 widening, Pac Hwy various and now Westconnex. All these jobs are road reconstruction. Try and design a road widening to match existing using a template. 

    Bentley is not interested, they're running a global business and we MX users are simply not plentiful enough to have a say. That's why its all about BIM, they're trying to create demand for new product sales. Back to VBA and LISP for us, although I am sure the gurus in the big design houses will come up with something clever to get us through to retirement.

Children
  • HI Guys, Very interesting conversation showing that it is so hard to satisfy all of our users. Not a surprise at all. I started with MOSS in 1991 and have been supported it (technical/Sales) until 2008. I agree the MX command language is superior to any other product. Detailed cross sections are not that easy to produce except by an expert.

    However, I don't believe Bentley is pleased to abandon any product and does it with no regard to the users.
    Even during the glorious era of MOSS it was not easy. Looked as too difficult, for programmers, ...
    It evolved to bring more interactivity. Less and less users were looking at linemode. And many input files were there just to automate the design because there were no intelligence in the models. What is very good and we should find a way to bring this in OpenRoads, is that if you read your input file 30 years after, you can still understand what is being done especially if you comment it.

    The market was/is looking for something else even existing users were (and are) still pleased with MX.
    No choice for Bentley.
    The concept of BIM has not been invented by software vendors. Users are asking for it.


    However, most of what is being done in MX can be done in OpenRoads including string modelling (and extension of crossfall).
    Many things that MX was unable to do is possible in OpenRoads.
    New workflows to be found.



  • I'm quite open-minded to any software and I embraced using OpenRoads when we adopted it for the scheme in Sydney. I think at the time, we were working with a product that wasn't polished. I much prefer the interface of ORD to Civil3D, but it was frustrating at the time attempting to design something with tools which were not working. There were endless crashes when creating vertical alignments, applying levels tools, and problems producing cross sections. Not to mention the problems with reference files. I'm sure these will have all been addressed in some way by now.

    Having said that, Paul Cusack and Alan Benger in Sydney were excellent in trying to get these problems ironed out at the time.

    My former colleague in Sydney today says he hasn't used MX much for about a year, they use '12d and Civil3D in their office, saying 'maybe openroads down the track when it is better', but didn't rate civil3D at all.  

    I will revisit ORD and see how it performs compared with how it used to.

    I also have a concern where schemes have been put on the back burner because of budget constraints, only to be resurrected a few years later, which does happen in public schemes as funding gets reallocated. What is going to happen with these schemes? If licencing is removed, these will have to be redesigned. You may be able to pull some reference string information, but all the intricacies will be lost. If a software is going to be abandoned, it should at least be forward compatible with the software replacing it.

    We have schemes now which won't even have started construction by the time these licences are withdrawn? What does Bentley expect us to do with those?

  • Don't be frustrated man.

    With using the template, you could not only easily design a road widening to match existing, also you could control the overlay / inlay / milling depth / analyse and optimize existing crossfall etc, anything you could image in a corridor style model.

    And you could still rub12D on the ground with ORD even in QLD.

    And the 12D users will never have the chance to say "we could do trimesh while MX is a line string model" to you anymore.

    Trust me if you don't you could trust Mark.

    / HP Zook17" E2286M, 64GB, RTX5000-16GB, 3TB SSD