Currently, it is possible to install and run only one version of OpenRoads (or any CONNECT product AFAIK).But different versions of ORD have somewhat different schema. Older versions cannot run design created with newer versions, and there is no way to save a newer version back to an older version.
This is going to be a BIG problem as more and more DOTs come online with their ORD conversion. I can see myself coming to a point where Indiana would only run on one version, Ohio will only accept a different version, and Colorado may run on another version entirely. Never mind partnering with other firms, and getting data in whatever version they run.
It is not realistic to believe that every major client in the world will be running the exact same version of OpenRoads at the same time.
I don't even know how firms are supposed to manage this.Are we supposed to keep a library of laptops lying around idle, for working on projects with THAT version, and others sitting around for the projects with THIS version?I've seen some mention of "virtual machines" but that sounds like a lot of IT overhead, which would be crippling to smaller firms. It may not even be practical for larger firms to do on a company-wide basis.
Lack of backwards compatibility paired with the inability to run different versions in parallel is going to hamstring production with multiple clients and multiple partners.What is Bentley doing to address this problem?
I believe side by side installs is being looked at for the next release or by first release of 2021.
For more information about the Road and Site design tools, visit the Road and Site design WIKI at: http://communities.bentley.com/products/road___site_design/w/road_and_site_design__wiki
That's excellent to hear that some movement is being made to address this issue, thanks for letting us know Beebe.
In follow up, a couple questions. You may not know the answers, but they just come to mind I as hear this, and they will be the next set of concerns for our organizations, CADD managers and users.
I suppose the gist of these questions, is that this opens up an entire can of worms in my mind on how this gets managed and implemented. So an encouragement to not only answer the question of "how does a user work with different civil schema?", but also, what are the implications of that solution on hardware? (I already push against my hard drive side without having to have three versions of the software and related configurations.) What are the impacts on the management of configurations? What's the user experience like in having to switch between these?
Again, I appreciate the response here. Mary is one of numerous users (myself included) who have been jumping up and down about this is an issue for a what has not been an insignificant amount of time. The remedy needs to come out and be viable. we can't have something that does truly met the needs of consultants and wait two more years to figure that out. The silence on this issue in the 18 or so months since I began looking for solutions here has been deafening. You have a great group of users who I suspect would love to help you help them. Bring us into the process. Ask questions. Share road maps. We, and our organizations, are successful when you are. Partner with us.
Enough of me for now. Again ,thanks for sharing.
ORD - 10.10.21.04 / 10.10.01.03 / 10.09.0.91 / 10.08.01.33Power GEOPAK / Power InRoads - 08.11.09.918Civil 3D - 2021 / 2022
I just want to continue to share what I know. I asked for an update on this topic in a standing SR I have open, and got a response indicating:
"there will be the option to Downgrade the civil model to the previous 3 versions, in an upcoming release of OpenRoads Designer."
This opens up a whole new set of questions in my mind. The first being that it would not appear this is in the impending fall release. After that, I would have a lot of questions as to how this is actually implemented and what the user's experience with it is. In an effort to get as much response as we can, I share my reply to the SR below. Beebe, if you (or any of your colleagues) have thoughts that would help expand on the direction ORD is heading that would be appreciated.
Thanks for the update, I have two items in follow up.
The Downgrade Civil Model will be in the upcoming 2020 R3 release 10.09. It will be a Technology Preview. It will be run from inside the software (found in the backstage) or you can also run it as an executable outside of the software. They have enhanced and renamed the Version Checker tool to Civil File Manager tool. I do not have all the details but you can downgrade the file to 2020 R210.08.01 or 2020 R1 10.08.00 or or 2019 R3 10.07.03. There will also be an option to Remove the Civil Model from the file. You will be able to do one DGN or a Folder and Subfolders of DGN's.
This tool is the first step in addressing some of the concerns you mention. We also hope to have side by side installs available for the first release of 2021. This will further address issues and concerns along with the downgrade model tool.
As in any tool or program in the software we welcome your feedback so we can enhance it or fix issues with it. I know this does not answer all your questions but should give you a sense of what is coming and that we are continuously working to improve the user experience.
Will we be able to work on a downgraded model in downgraded "mode"? or will we have to continually have to take files back and forth depending on our partners?
Design is an iterative process, and files are transferred at many points in the process. Not just at the beginning or the end.
When MicroStation moved to V8, they retained V7 Mode - Where elements of a design file that conflicted with V7 format drawings were disallowed. There was also DWG Mode, where you couldn't do anything that was incompatible with DWG format. If we can't run parallel versions, can we have "2019 R3 Mode"?
Microstation 08.11.09.919Power GeoPak 08.11.09.918Power InRoads 08.11.09.918