My company has CADWorx Plant and P&ID now and I've been looking at Autodesk Plant. For my company to consider switching over to Autodesk I need to have a list of reasons why Autodesk is better. The comments I get at my company now is Autodesk is an inferior product and it's still to new of a product. So I'm looking for a list of pros and cons of both..........what advantages there is with Autodesk to CADWorx and so on. I can take this list to my uppers and see if they are interested in having Autodesk come out and show us their product. Thanks in advance for any responses.
The reason why I mentioned David Wolfe in my title was because some people at my company have worked with him and think highly of him. I don't mean that I don't want other opinions because I do........I'm a complete newbie and have only tried teaching myself a little with CADWorx P&ID, no formal training.
Well, seeing as how no one has jumped on this I guess I will. First off, where are you located?
First here's a link to a similar discussion:
I have a pdf of a comparison between the two products from 2009. Other than some stabilization, CADWorx P&ID hasn't changed much. I'll have to dig around for it.
Overall, Autodesk has a better whole project approach, and the data is managed better. With CADWorx P&ID, you had to jump through hoops to make them intelligent and link to the model. AutoCAD P&ID is much easier to use in that respect (and overall). With AutoCAD P&ID being out since 2007, it's not really a flegdling product and IMO it's better than CADWorx overall.
Right now it comes down to what your company does and what they can live with between the two products. We're running across a lot of people that are ready to make the change. Of course, some of them are still holding out another year or so.
The only thing CADWorx P&ID does better is placing components by the spec and letting you place items according to the endtype easily. I haven't found a good workaround for the item placement yet.
I think AutoCAD P&ID can get away with not using the specs since 1. people had an EXTREMELY difficult time actually implementing in CADWorx, 2. the validation manager is much more powerful than anything in CADWorx.
Obviously with Plant it's a new product, so as mentioned in the above article, we have to figure out some workarounds. On the pipe routing, though CADWorx 2013 and Plant 3D are equivalent in my book. I haven't seen any differences.
Not having access to the 2013 spec editor, I can't compare the two, but Plant 3D is much better than the old CADWorx Spec editor.
Isometrics - Plant 3D has come a long way (in two releases), and it's still a work in progress. I think most people would agree it's passable, but not finished. But, the setup is MUCH easier than Isogen.
Orthos - comparing 2DREP to ortho generation, Plant 3D wins with intelligent annotations. You have finagle some to get isometric views into an ortho, but it's doable. Plant 3D doesn't do live model orthos with annotations though. I think we might be able to do a plugin to fix that.
Reports - Plant 3D wins hands down. You can't do project reports on CADWorx without the database, and you can't really control which drawings are in the database without somebody watching it.
CADWorx wins on the design integration with PV Elite and Caesar, but the Plant 3D people have been working out the issues with Caesar so you should be able to import a pcf into Caesar and get your piping model into stress analysis. Equipment modeling is more representational in Plant 3D than CADWorx Equipment.
Validation - Plant 3D has a validation manager which allows you to check for mismatches in your models and P&IDs. Extremely handy, and it even has an api so if you need to you can extend it to check for things you want.
I work in Colwich Kansas for ICM. Some of the pipers here have worked with you and say you are very good with all of this. We as a company has had CADWorx Plant & P&ID for five years or so now but have never used P&ID to it's potential........just used the symbols. I believe the Piping uses Plant. We are trying to push the company to evolve and use some of the powerful tools out there but can be hard to get people to change. The guys in piping have been using CADWorx for awhile now and would probably be hard to convince them to switch. I do the P&ID's for Process Engineering when the engineers will let me..........lol. In my opinion our P&IDs are a mess and would like to move forward with new software that would have drafters doing drafting and engineers doing engineering.
I have been trying to teach myself CADWorx P&ID for a month now when I have time but it seems to be touchy, not very friendly but I am teaching myself though too. I'm hoping to get a 30 day trial of Autodesk Plant to work with the P&ID's in that software. Like you mentioned with Autodesk Plant being a new product that causes concern for the pipers to switch.
Can Autodesk use Access for it's database?
Our manufacturing department drafters use Inventor, if we were to switch to AutoDesk Plant is there a way to tie in all the information together? For instance I change a nozzle size on a Tank in P&ID drawing, it updates the Tank drawing, notifies Piping and the manufacturing drafters the nozzle changed? If that makes sense? My thought is I have no idea which is better.......I'm a newbie wanting to learn and evolve my skills. I'm trying to think 10 years in the future and not just tomorrow if my company was to actually try and adopt an intelligent way of doing things. What is the best software for all parties involved and not just one person or one group.
Thanks for the reply and info, look forward to anything else people can list out for me as to why Autodesk is the product to consider.
Ah, yes, ICM. We're working on some tools now that will make the migration easier.
Plant 3D allows two types of databases, SQLite and SQL Server. You can view the information of a SQLite database in Access, but there really is no reason too. The Report creator, data manager, and the ability to export to Excel and import the changes make editing the database directly a thing of the past.
The validation works between Plant and P&ID, but not between Inventor. You can import an Inventor model if it has been prepared and sent to the adsk format. It's also much easier to re-use other 3D data by simply converting it to Plant 3D Equipment and then indicating the nozzle locations.
It's a lot to think about. We definitely moved to where we believe the future is. Let us know if you need a demo or a walkthrough.
Plant3D is certainly more "project" oriented than CADWorx. Good, in that the data coordination is better; not so good, in that CADWorx models can be moved around without any preparation, no overhead for managing project data, SQL Server, etc.
Along with large scale DB management, Plant3D will likely require some knowledge of manipulating XML files (see posts here for examples). Its not difficult to pick up, and both are fairly useful skills in general outside of both programs.
Both products rate a "meh" when it comes to file coordination, as both require object enablers. Older versions of CADWorx used 3D solids which requires no object enablers, which was a big selling point between us, clients, fab shops, and other recipients.
As a vertical AutoCAD product, Plant3D is version dependant requiring more attention paid to year-versions during upgrades and coordinating between those working/using the models.
The new CADWorx spec editor is better than the old one. I'm in the reverse position as Dave - more familiar with the CWX editor than the Plant3D one.
AutoDesk is working on an isometric engine, whereas CADWorx is using ISOGEN. Break even at this point, we'll have to see where it goes. Competition for ISOGEN is *never* a bad thing.
CADWorx still has the direct CAESARII link, if its not being used then its a non-factor.
Plant3D is its own license, or as a Suite-style license; CADWorx requires a license of AutoCAD or one of the first-tier verticals to run. Need to watch out for some of the typical 'gotchas' with the Suite licenses.
There should be *zero* harm in getting AutoDesk folks in to demonstrate their product. We've had them in here, and it looks very good for something thats only a few years old and getting better with each release. just remember its a demonstration and there are still a few work-arounds, issues, and your particular work process or requirements may find one of the existing or not-yet-encountered holes.
It's actually really easy to transfer models with data. Because Plant 3D stores the data in the dwg as well as the drawing, copying a drawing intelligently between project is as simple as right-clicking and selecting copy drawing to project.
While there is more data stuff going on, the product has done a better job of making sure the tools you need are available...vs CADWorx where you had to figure it out yourself...and most people never did.
Do you give demos? Would you be interested in coming to ICM and showing what Autodesk Plant & P&ID can do for ICM? We are having CADWorx come in October and I would like to see both products. I have talked to Matt Breeden and I think I could get the pipers to at least see the demo. They have been using CADWorx for 4 years now and people don't like change!!! lol. I have not used CADWorx P&ID other than the symbols and have tried teaching myself using the database but COMBINEPROCESS & COMBINELINE always screws me up. I'm very open to either software not sure how open the pipers are. So if you would be interested in a demo let me know and I will see if I can talk to the powers that be to make it happen.
Also thanks to all for adding to the discussion, very appreciated.
CadWorx and Plant 3D have their own problems. I am also in the process of transferring from CadWorx to Plant 3D, here are a few things I came across in the process, I am sure there are more things I will find out but all up I believe that Plant 3D is a good package which will improve. Looking forward to release 2014.
If you need to copy between Catalogs http://www.pdoteam.com/2012/02/copying-between-cat
There are some good videos which include creating custom parts for example Expansion joints (yes they are not part of Plant3D) and Valve handles. I was able to bring in the valve handles I was using in CadWorx by this method. http://docs.autodesk.com/PLNT3D/2011/ENU/plant/pip
Good training manual, well worth working through http://in-the-pipes.typepad.com/in_the_pipes/2011/
Plant 3D does not put the trimmed angle (cutback angle) into the material list as default, you need to edit the IsoConfig.xml file for this to happen. http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/AutoCAD-Plant-3D/How
Project settings, Isometric settings and Connections are all stored in their own xml files. In the case of the Isometric settings there appears to be a lot of advanced settings which are not listed in the GUI and for which there is no documentation for.
Plant 3D does not use Isogen, it has it’s own isometric package which will improve. One of the annoying things at this stage is that not all the symbols that were available in Isogen are available in Plant 3D. This is something that they are working on. The sales speak is that Plant 3D is easier to set up, this is correct for the initial setup but there are a lot more settings in Isogen to get the finished isometric you want.
Isometric symbols are AutoCAD blocks which is a vast improvement when you need to change the symbol.
When using the PLANTCONVERTLINETOPIPE command be careful if you have sloping lines. For example a line falls 3 degrees and the drops vertical. If you draw this as lines and then use the PLANTCONVERTLINETOPIPE command it does not trim the elbow. It puts in a 90deg elbow and connects which can be hard to spot. The way around this is to change the PLANTSLOPETHRESHOLDANGLE to 0 and put the line in point to point.
Totally agree that the locking of the specs when a user starts Plant 3D is a pain and serves no function other than to annoy the guy writing the specs. Better to have the specs in a network location with read only permissions for the users. http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/AutoCAD-Plant-3D/Swi
The tool palette description was also a surprise, it is made up of Short Name, Spec, etc. I have been adjusting the short name but putting in a comma so when we do a BOM I will be able to separate the short name out. There is also a button in the Part Insertion which invokes the Plantspecview command, this will bring up the spec much like Specview in CadWorx. It shows all sizes unlike CadWorx which only shows what is available for the size you are working in. There are a few users which want this changed.
Check out the Victaulic spec works great.
There is a Long Description (Family) and a Long Description (Size). For creating Isometrics you can specify which one to use in the material list. I have found the Long Description (Size) useful since we have a lot of special pipe which has flanges which do not match the NB of the pipe. For example DN200 flange on a DN150 pipe, I can now specify these in the Long Description (Size). In CadWorx I had to make up indivual line items.
There is no Isogenstartpoint to indicate the direction you want the spool numbers to appear in.
No weights in most of the supplied catalogs. This could be a pain when it comes time to export for piping analysis. CadWorx supplies catalogs for carbon steel in all the different pressure classes plus and stainless steel catalogs, copper etc. All weights are supplied.
This discussion group is very helpful.