We use a lot of poly pipe with stub flanges and backing rings. I don’t mind having to select the backing ring to put them in the model but if I later erase the pipe it should not erase the stub flange as well. They are actual items that would be better treated like a WN flange and not a connector.
In reality they can be welded back to back and this should be allowed in Plant 3D.
Usage of cutt back elbows in the line-to-pipe command do not depend on PLANTSLOPETHRESHOLDANGLE variable or on the activation of cutt-back.
The angle from which cutt back elbows are used in the lien-to-pipe is set in DefaultConnectorsConfig.xml (in your project's root folder).
Look in the section <Joint Name="Buttweld"> for
and set the value to 1/2 of the maximum angle value that works without cutt back.
Set it to 0.1 to have no cutt backs (0 would place no elbows ....)
see attached file with some samples . the blue pipes have cutt back elbows
Thank you for the cutback information, I will check it out. This is the first time somebody has been able to give me a solution, not even Autodesk subscription support could help.
As I was saying in another topic, if Autodesk wants to be a serious competitor to AVEVA PDMS, which dominates the Brazilian market (because of Petrobras) and worldwide, it must also invest in the 3D performance, and be able to handle more congested and large models.
Orbit, PAN, Zoom, Move Pipe Arrangements, all that is Direful.
I think it is more than acceptable to invest in hardware than spend time of the modeler waiting for the software to process. The last workstation I bought cost about a month's salary of a modeler. In other words leave the workforce waiting is much more expensive.
There are two technologies that everybody is using: GPU and Multiprocessing (cores and threads).
Staying in the stone age is unacceptable.
Please Autodesk, hear us.
Honestly, this isn't something the Plant team can truly address. They can make the 3d objects more efficient, but the 3d graphics still comes from AutoCAD...so Plant can only be as good as AutoCAD.
Until AutoCAD can update the graphics engine, break your models down using xrefs, and use Navisworks heavily. You can be a very effective modeler while not spending exorbitant amounts of money.
Yet about the 3D performance.
The fundamental question I do is:
This whole argumentation is meant to justify the performance of the product today, or want to justify remaining in this concept, I consider obsolete?
The answer to this question will determine whether I finished my current project I will continue to invest in Plant 3D, or will look for an alternative.
My main complaint is about the 3D performance, and in my opinion there is technology available to solve this problem easily.
Watch this video, as a small company in 2001 could revolutionize the film industry through innovation. They use a technology designed for games, for accelerating the color gradding of hi resolution pictures in real time.
This company was sold to Adobe, that with this technology had a quantum jump in performance and in sales.
A quote I liked from this video was:
"The hardware is available, and you can scale-up to you project need, that is democratization."
My comments were to explain where AutoCAD is. Clearly, AutoCAD needs a better 3D graphics engine, and with today's technology there are tons of easy graphic modelers out there. However, for Autodesk it is a bigger issue that that. Not only do they have to make sure the 3D graphics works well, but 2D graphics as to be just as good (which surprisingly is harder). Also, their implementation of a 3D graphics engine has to include as few changes as possible for all the developers that write products based on AutoCAD.
The reason I made the comments is because for the most part, the Plant development does really control the graphics...AutoCAD does, so posting that we need a better graphics engine doesn't really help anyone here...we just all agree. I really doubt that you'll seen any other product within the same dollar range as plant that has better graphics and is as comprehensive.
Most people have learned to put up with the graphics, because they can still justify the low cost of Plant compared to the amount of time saved and construction issues averted. Yes the design process would be smoother...but there is still a valid argument for the amount of money and time saved now.
I think justify the situation of the software gives Autodesk a certain comfort, while we supposed to be pressing them for a change.
There are several 3D software in diverse areas that are cheaper than the Plant 3D, not specifically in this area, probably due to lack of interest.
If this is a Wish List AutoCAD to Plant3D 2014, I must emphasize this issue, even though it seems obvious.
And even it is been obvious, I did not notice yet any intention of finally change this situation.
Claiming that this software is cheaper and therfore it does not have a good 3D performance, seems a lame excuse.
After all we're talking about AutoCAD, and this indeed is the most poupular general CAD software since always.
Forgive me if in some point I may seem rude, it is not my intention. This will be probably a translation mistake.
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register
Start with some of our most frequented solutions to get help installing your software.
|AutoCAD Land Desktop|
|AutoCAD Plant 3D|
|AutoCAD Raster Design|
|AutoCAD Structural Detailing|
|Ecotect Analysis - Desktop Tools|
|Green Building Studio - Web-Based Service|
|Robot Structural Analysis|