I'll be honest, the implementation ORD's strength is the software's weakest point. Being able to visually see the model in the 2D default model theoretically sounds great but the execution is costing too much time and money on medium to large scale projects. I love being able to see my model in the dgn but at what cost? Therefore, my idea takes what you guys did well with InRoads Roadway Designer and just make that better. If ORD had a roadway designer window that was separate from the ORD dgn then I strongly believe crashes would drastically reduce and pc performance would remain consistent. The ORD Roadway Designer window could be opened seperate and apart from the dgn, just like the InRoads Roadway Designer window. I don't have all the details but just imagine this:
Spending less than 5 minutes updating 10 point controls in the ORD Roadway Designer window while in a random file. Then opening up the corridor dgn that the .ird file is assigned to and seeing the changes happen.
| Civil Product Used | OpenSite Designer, OpenRoads Designer, OpenRail Designer |
We rarely outright say we won't do a user idea, but this one is going to be an exception so I felt like I should give a lengthy response on why.
First, thank you for sharing your idea with us. We appreciate your feedback and your interest in improving our software.
However, we have to inform you that your idea is not feasible for us to implement at this time. There are several reasons for this:
Separating the roadway tools from the dgn file would compromise the model-centric approach of ORD, which may create inconsistencies and conflicts in the product's architecture.
The performance issues that you are experiencing may not be caused by the way the dgn file and ORD process, but by other factors such as hardware specifications, ProjectWise configuration, OpenRoads WorkSpace configuration, file size, and complexity of the design. We are constantly working on optimizing our software and providing solutions and recommendations for these issues, such as using dynamic views, level display, limiting corridor length to 2 miles max, etc.
Your idea would require a significant number of resources and time to develop, test, and deploy, which would divert our attention from other improvements and features that are more in demand and more beneficial for our users. We have to prioritize our development roadmap based on the feedback we receive from our customers and the market trends. This idea would require a significant amount of reengineering of the product.
We hope you understand our decision and the rationale behind it. We value your input, and we encourage you to keep sharing your ideas with us. We are always looking for ways to enhance our software and meet your needs.
Although I don't accept your decision, I do appreciate you bringing up the rationale behind the decision.