BricsCAD vs. OpenRoads Designer

SMBs who do want to minimse their involvement with expensinve, inconvenient and bloated Autodesk products will find lots to love. The only hinderence is the market share of Autodesk means some 3rd party developers will not support it unfortunately, but it has it's own solutions to many things users of the AutoCAD ecosystem currenrtly rely on.

ORD is really focused on modeling of roads infrastructure projects, but includes a few design workflows that are in other disciplines such as stormwater and drainage design and site modeling tools for developments. This is really handy because you don't need a third-party application that you have to transfer your design files over to to carry on with the project. Including LumenRT for free with ORD is by far the most helpful feature because of the visualisation capabilities which most software does not include. ORD is well-suited for what the name of the product says - designing roads. I wouldn't say there are any scenarios in road design that it is less appropriate for.

Incentivized

• 3D Modeling
• Machine learning / A.I.-assisted feature named PROPAGATE.

Incentivized

• Creating linear models, since the app is based on alignment models and templates to extrude along the alignment.
• Precise long section/profile along horizontal alignment. The app practically flatten the horizontal alignment for profile generation.
• Template control. Though the template creation takes a bit of effort to create due to the point rulings. However when done right allows the model to be specifically modified with use of functions like super-elevation, point control, widening, parametric etc.

Incentivized

• there is not full compatibility with dynamic blocks but it isn't so bad -we can create them in AutoCAD and use them to some extent anyway
• it doesn't look as "sexy" and the interface looks kinda orimitive in some screens but the functionality is all there and the some
• there is the hurdle of users thinking they are getting a lesser product so more marketing pozazz is needed to get the message over it is a very capable product

• Buggy at times and crashes
• Requires a lot of training to use the tools effectively
• Model management requires some work

Incentivized

We would not use ORD if is was not for clients' contract requirement to use ORD.

it's exteremly useable. AutoCAD users will carry over many eisting skills and learn some new ones on the cross over. It's fast adn lightweight meaning ot can be run on just about any PC. The help and support are realy good and problems are usually responded to within a day by experts.

Very cost-effective solution, it even supports pointclouds natively and is something we will investigate further as time goes on and may in fact utilise it to replace AutoCAD with 3rd party add-ins at some point in the future, and we hope it can further reduce costs in the long-run as it continues to develop and mature.

ORD is a lot faster and a lot more modern than Civil 3D even though they're essentially the same product under different names (in terms of workflows). I find that the DGN file format used by ORD is far better than the DWG file format used by C3D because DGNs can contain much more information and multiple models per file. C3D is very heavy on memorizing keyboard inputs while ORD is a much more modern interface that relies mostly on using the mouse for inputs.

Incentivized

• Evaluation and budget management
• Better monitoring of projects
• Respect of execution deadlines

Incentivized

• Drawing creation from model have speed up drawing delivery by 80%
• Model creation for linear project based on simple design speed up model delivery by 80%
• Capturing model change due to alignment change have help speed up change capture by 80%

Incentivized