Autocad P&ID

[Arun_Kumar_K]

The last year I concentrated more on Plant3d side and brought improvements and bugs in the software.

I was aware that the P&ID is less power in 2013 and felt 2014 will improve.

Last week, I worked on P&ID 2014 and completed for a project. I find the Autocad P&ID 2014 is also not powered. Only the basic feature is available. I compare with a car manufacturing company, any car manufacturer, they will be having basic, advanced and premium varients for any model. Autodesk P&ID is only a basic variant in my opinion.

Similarly, the P&ID engine of Autocad Plant design suite can be considered only a basic.

This P&ID is only useful for sales people of Autodesk.

I hereby listing the major feature which is not available:

1. Not a specification driven.

2. Not possible to keep a assembly/construction set of desired portion so that you can use in any projects, and whenever you need to call this.

3. Automatic looping is not available

4. Valve list generation with summarized valves is not possible.

When do I chat with ppl in Autodesk, I am getting a feedback, only myself raising the above queries and not other users asking the same. Unless Autodesk understand the requirements of the user and power the software, it is very difficult for them to sustain in the market in Plant3d, in my opinion.

[Arun_Kumar_K]

No one will buy a cheap car if it consumes more petrol.

[brian.lund]

Not sure I understand the point of this meassage. I have found the people at AutoCAD to be more than helpful with the software. Do I think it's a great piece of software? No I don't but I also recognize that it is a very young product and will develop. that being said I have been disappointed with the pace of development and why the program wasn't built around MS SQL DBs instead of SQLite I'll never understand. But it is far from the program you portray it. In answer to your points.

-I'm not really sure what the need for spec driven P&IDs is, Piping of course, P&ID not so much.

-You can in fact create blocks of groups of items from a P&ID, create a palette for them and then reuse as often as required on any project.

-Agree on the looping item. We should be able to insert a TE referencing a TT and have it assume the loop number but it is also one of the items I'm sure will be developed.

-I don't understand 4 either but the reporting capabilities has become one of the strangest parts during the version development.

I think a constructive approach is always better than a negative one but if this program doesn't do it for you there are plenty of other choices.

[dgorsman]

SQLite is much easier for smaller operators to get started in than SQL Server.  Small companies and single operators don't usually have the resources necessary to manage a SQL Server installation and if they do its usually a secondary job for an already overworked IT person.  We've set up a number of different programs which work with SQL Server and they have universally been a PITA.  SQLite is also marginally easier to develop with.

The difference between spec-driven and non-spec-driven P&IDs usually shows up in valve tags.  When its not spec driven the valve tags are usually sequential (e.g. 3" gate valves on the P&ID will be tagged GA-001, GA-002, GA-003 even if they are the same type).  Spec-driven software will assign a tag in what I would consider a sane method (e.g. those three gate valves will all be tagged as 3"-GA-101) and reference a single spec for both modeling and P&ID work to ensure consistency and reduce management.

I do agree with the constructive way forward matra.  Like most large scale software the development process is an evolutionary process.  It takes years of experience and user feedback to get from here |x| to here |xxxxxxxx|.

[Arun_Kumar_K]

Thanks for your views here. I do agree contructive approach is always successful. I do agree there are many choices available. The issues to be addressed in P&ID are solvable and it is already available in the same platform by others. Customers always look for a powerful engine whether it is expensive or cheaper. The others use to say, you should had evaluated properly before purchase. The investment is with the management and as a executive I should follow only what they had invested, and I have to try my best to bring the software to do my needful. Also, the points I raise is always keeping in mind that it should be common for all the industry. I would like here to give a detail information why the above mentioned points are imperative.

[Arun_Kumar_K]

Spec driven in P&ID is more important, to maintain the consistency between P&ID and Plant3d.

For example:

1. You might have selected a flanged ends for certain valve in P&ID. But as per spec it should be Beveled ends. Similarly other wrong entries possible are "Rating", "Body material" and "trim".

Based on the P&ID only, normaly in EPC companies, valve list will be prepared and sent for procurment.

2. To ensure the consistency between spec and Plant3d, the P&ID should be spec driven.

3. Also, the ERP part nos can be directly brought from spec, if it is spec driven.

4. Please see the attached valve schedule, marked the data which can be direcly taken from spec.

[Arun_Kumar_K]

Brain, For Point No.2.

Keeping a block or with tool pallete will be useful only for representation.

The assembly set/construction set is a one, where one can save certain portion of data, and can be called any where in the project. Also, this can be used in other projects too

The advantage is the data inside the assembly will be alive and those can be tagged and will be displayed in datamanager.

As you mentioned, with block and keeping in tool pallete, the data will be not visible in datamanager and cant be extracted in valve list, instrumentation list or piping line list.

Please see the attached file.

[Arun_Kumar_K]

For Point No.4, there is no option  in report creator to sum the similar valves.

[brian.lund]

I don't usually like to get into discussions like this because they usually lead nowhere with all of us just defending our own opinions and positions but since I stuck my foot in it here goes.

Dgorsman,

I agree with your premise about DBs but do not agree witht he decision to use SQLite which I find to be very restrictive on the data end. I come from a long time use of AutoPLANT and the option there has always been for smaller houses to use MS Access and apposed to MS SQL and in fact in most operations the program still uses Access as it's port to the SQL database by means of an ADP file. This seems like a much better path to grow into an SQL server setup. But as I said I come from that realm so I naturally like it better.

I also have what I think is a different definition of "spec-driven". To me it means that when I put in a 4" ball valve there is a very specific specification that defines that valve as for instance a 150#, RF Flange valve by manufacturer X, model no. YYYY etc. What you are talking about is how tagging works which I don't see as having anything tod with specifications. What you would like to do would normally not be allowed by the software as tags must be unique with in a drawing in AutoCAD P&ID and if duplicated on another drawing will be considered the same valve. You are, I believe talking about automatic sequencing of tag numbers which I have not found to work well in any system I have used.

We do agree that patience is a virtue with new software. I remember the early days of Inventor which was just a joke. Not so much anymore. That being said if AutoCAD is listening you really need to step up the pace of development on this thing. The 2014 release as far as moving forward is a big disappointment.

[Arun_Kumar_K]

Hi brian, its not about defending my points. I am looking for ppl to discuss more on this, then only Autodesk team will understand the importance. I feel the points raised are more important for all the industry, I am challeging here too

I am doing my part here by sharing my views and the requirement of the software, so that  some developers will listen and may take up. Unless I bring to the notice, these won't come.

Softwares shouldn't be rated as young. Its an excuse. As like you mentioned if young, the growth rate of any child will be more fast than the grown.

Software developers shouldn't focus on companies to purchase the software before development, if then the improvements will not come in releases, then it will be hard for their sales team too, as already market is captured with others developers in same platform.

[brian.lund]

It is not necessarily my place to comment on the tone of a message but since you brought it up I would suggest you reread your original messages. I would suggest that phrases like "Autodesk P&ID is only a basic variant in my opinion" and "No one will buy a cheap car if it consumes more petrol" are not very constructive.

I appreciate tthat you note that these are your opinions but when I read the original messages I thought your comments were generally dismissive of the progrm and the people who are working on it. Don't get me wrong I have a lot of complaints about the program and the slow development but I try to be constructive in my comments and suggestions.

If I am misreading your intent I apologize. Message boards and the written word are easily misinterpreted.

[Arun_Kumar_K]

Yes, I agree that the messgae was highly on negative side, but this website doesnt allow me to edit after some minute. I am a user who wish for development of plant 3d, but only my voice is getting echo, that s the reason my language becomes negative.

[PeterQuinn]

What do you mean by:

 Automatic looping is not available

[Arun_Kumar_K]

Hi Peter, Thanks for your response here. I would like to share a video for you about Autoloop, as the file size is more, I am not able to attach here, please send a FTP link to attach.

Also, attached the catalogue of other vendor works in Autocad platform, contains the information about spec driven P&ID they have adopted. Presently Autoplant and Cadison both supports spec driven P&ID.

Mentioning here is only for improvement, please don't mistake me. Unless, I compare, the requirement will not reach.

[cadwomen]

mhh

hy ...

bentley p&id v8i it is NOT Autodesk PnID what you are talking  about , or i am totaly wrong

cu cw

[cadwomen]

mhh

hy ...

bentley p&id v8i it is NOT Autodesk PnID what you are talking  about , or i am totaly wrong

cu cw

[cadwomen]

mhh

hy ...

bentley p&id v8i it is NOT Autodesk PnID what you are talking  about , or i am totaly wrong

cu cw