We can see the Civil Properties in the Named Boundaries can we have a way to edit the values? Standards change and rather than having to delete and start over can we just make the edits and save time?

This is really a shame that such a large inefficiency made it into the program and has remained there for a very long time. Especially the fact that modifying names boundary vertices shift the reference in the drawing model and annotations for broken. Any comment from a Bentley rep as to timeline of a fix? This is giving serious heartache to users and is holding back a lot of problem from using ORD.

Example of what is needed for flexibility in creating named boundaries.

We would like to be able to shift plan named boundaries along an alignment and have the associated profile view shift with it. Then have the sheet models automatically updated. Furthermore, we need to be able to retain any work or annotation done in the drawing models. As of now, we need to resheet in order to shift boundaries and we lose any annotation in drawing models.

I would agree with users' comments below that the sheeting process with ORD is a very large step back from what we had in V8i.

As a minimum we need the same tech as in Microstations Named Boundary tool - it has dynamic handles to change size and it adjusts the extents and location in the linked drawing and sheet models.

It's very common for sheet view limits to change. Sometimes it is the addition of drainage that requires a "deeper" cross section. It could be the addition of incidental construction back or ahead of the previously determined project limits. I can think of a dozen more, but those two happen on nearly every project I see. Due to our review and submittal process, sheets can change several times from the beginning of design to final construction. The current process, which requires creating entirely new sheets (and then catching them up with all of the annotations, dimensions and such) is anti-productive.

There needs to be a process to adjust named boundaries AND the related sheets after creation to accommodate design changes in an efficient way.

This is a major issue. Because of this issue, we have went away from creating sheets with the "ORD method" using drawing models and went back to creating sheet as we did in v8. The named boundary issue described above cause a lot of rework which leads to budget issues on projects. Re-cutting sheets everytime a matchline changes really doesn't work in the real world. Don't know how this was considered an option.

FYI , many large consultant companies and clients very concerned about the ORD sheet creation method and the impact on projects. As more projects are being done with ORD folks are seeing this major flaw in the software. Please address as soon as possible.

Current ORD drawing production workflow involves creation of named boundaries, and then creation of drawing models and sheets based on these named boundaries. When there is need to make changes to the named boundaries, current workflow requires repeat of the whole process from scratch, e.g. creation of new named boundaries, then creation of drawing and sheet models (plus removal of affected named boundary, removal of the corresponding drawing model and sheet model as well as removal of saved views). This results in redundant work and waist a lot of time and resources. Modifications to named boundaries in order to change scope of view (i.e. extents, width, heights, location, rotation (plan), offsets left / right from centerline for cross sections etc.) are required as to fulfil fundamental needs of any CAD drawing production process. Currently modification of named boundaries doesn’t allow to properly update annotations in drawing models to reflect changes in named boundary i.e. re-applied annotations are positioned in wrong location in drawing model. Essentially there is no mechanism to properly update saved views that are created during drawing model creation. In addition, changes to plan named boundaries leave the view and coordinate system in drawing model out of synch with design model. Therefore we urgently require enhancements to address the above drawing production deficiency.

I agree, it would also be nice if the shape was truly dynamic where you could grab and move it along an alignment or type in a new station or offset and the named boundary properties and sheet would update.