Models or DGNS which is better?

So i figured i would post an update after testing this. I did keep the geometry in a separate .DGN and tried to maintain earthwork and terrains in the same file under different models. RESULTS not functional....So apparently it can not handle updates to terrains where the corridor and the terrain are in the same DGN file. At First everything was fine and worked as normal but eventually the file lost connection to the terrain. to the point that the terrain was Schrodinger's Cat. it was still there and had properties but it didnt exist according to the project explorer and refused to update. I also found that MultiModal Views doesnt work well in those environments most probably because the vba scripting is using "default" as the main start command.

to add a twist to this....

what are your thoughts on drawing files and sheet files ?

generally when a sheet is created for a plan or profile, the process creates a drawing model and a sheet - should these all be separate files as well ?

what process are you using to "Send them out" sorry i edited my previous comment but we dont export them to individual files we create them as individual files to start with.

Create Drawing Dialog used by the Place Named Boundary tool gives the option to enable "One Sheet Per Dgn" or add a "Filename" for your Drawing Models and Sheet Models.  Here's the tool in use:  https://learn.bentley.com/app/VideoPlayer/LinkToIndividualCourse?LearningPathID=113539&CourseId=129666&MediaID=5014992 

awe you mean the automated process doesnt work right. JK it should but yeah i see your point. we specifically dont check that box just do a file save as and create the next sheet from the named boundaries.

i do wonder if it has something to do with seed sheet location maybe that needs to be in the project folder? or maybe the seed file needs to have

So it sounds as if Bentley has only one way that the software will work properly.

I'm sure I'm very ignorant (as I've said, I don't have any production experience with ORD) but why are sheets, created into their own drawings by ORD process(!!) unable to use the same ORD tools that "sheets in one DGN" do?

The ability to place text in the drawing model isn't the only benefit to independent sheets. A couple of us have mentioned the ability to have the work distributed to more people. Annotation groups still appear to have certain shortcomings (and this sounds like one!) and I'm sure they don't account for everything that would need to be done on a plan sheet. We are a long way from the complete elimination of hand work, and when you have 60 plan sheets (and 60 erosion control details and 90 traffic plan sheets) the ability to assign work to more than one person becomes imperative.

MaryB said:

The ability to place text in the drawing model isn't the only benefit to independent sheets.

That's what I was saying, just wasn't all that clear ...  I left out a few words there ;D  ...  Yes the only benefit is for multiple users to work in sheets.   

Maybe the solution here is to break up the Named Boundaries into groups (for sheet dgn groups of 5-10 sheets) the reference those into other files.  One container file can contain several groups of Named Boundaries along with necessary base files, then reference those into other Sheet Group dgn files for users to do their work in any of those 5-10 sheets within that particular dgn file.  

MaryB said:

The ability to place text in the drawing model isn't the only benefit to independent sheets.

That's what I was saying, just wasn't all that clear ...  I left out a few words there ;D  ...  Yes the only benefit is for multiple users to work in sheets.   

Maybe the solution here is to break up the Named Boundaries into groups (for sheet dgn groups of 5-10 sheets) the reference those into other files.  One container file can contain several groups of Named Boundaries along with necessary base files, then reference those into other Sheet Group dgn files for users to do their work in any of those 5-10 sheets within that particular dgn file.