AutoCAD Plant 3D Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s AutoCAD Plant 3D Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular AutoCAD Plant 3D topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

AutoPlant vs CADWorx

19 REPLIES 19
Reply
Message 1 of 20
BullWapiti
25383 Views, 19 Replies

AutoPlant vs CADWorx

I'm part of a committe for my company exploring the option of switching from CADWorx Plant Pro to AutoCAD Plant 3D.  I'm looking for feed back from others who have used the latest versions of both. 

Our company kind of fell into using CADWorx back in 2011 because of the project requirements.  We have since continued using it.  The latest release of 2013 really made some big improvents. 

My company is now looking into finding a good integrated soluition for plant design.  CADWorx may still be our best choice, however, as I stated we are also considering AutoCAD Plant 3D.  No one here has used Plant 3D, so we don't know the Pros and Cons.

Our project size typically is on the smaller size.  For example we have an upcoming project in which we will design a 60'x200' process building to include all steel and equipment.  There will be somewhere around 300 large bore pipe lines.  Up to this point we have not used the P&ID version of CADWorx, however, that is direction we are moving, so knowing CADWorx P&ID vs AutoCAD P&ID would be helpful.

The ISOGEN feature is nice in CADWorx so any comparison to AutoCADs version would be useful.

19 REPLIES 19
Message 2 of 20
eadkins73
in reply to: BullWapiti

Bull,  

 

I would highly recommend getting a trial version of AutoCAD P3D and trying running at least part of one of your projects through it.  That way you can see for yourself what each can and can't do.  I have found that is really the only way to choose the right prodcut and to see if it meets your particular needs.  (And no I'm not a software seller).

 

My company has both sofwares and uses one or the other based on our clients needs/software requirements.  I would say the AutoCAD Plant 3D P&ID part is better than what I have seen in CadWorx.  But CadWorx Isogen is better.  

 

Just my two cents.

Ed

Ed Adkins
EA2 Engineering
www.ea2eng.com
Message 3 of 20
dgorsman
in reply to: BullWapiti

The support requirements for Plant 3D are a little higher than for CADWorx.  For example, you don't really have an option of running without a database (and all the support *that* entails).  Product version control is much more important with Plant 3D too, similar to what is needed when working with Civil3D.  You will probably find the structural options very lacking compared to CADWorx as well - don't plan on doing much detailed structural design in Plant 3D, get a "proper" structural design package.

 

That being said, all that added complexity does have its advantages.

 

I'll second what eadkins73 mentioned - run a trial session, make sure it meets your needs and expectations.  Make sure it meets your clients needs, too.

----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.


Message 4 of 20
Arun_Kumar_K
in reply to: BullWapiti

Very easy to compare both the softwares. You should look mainly the following:

 

1. Isometric

 

2. Layout generation

 

3. Stress analysis interfacing

 

4. Make a simple line in P&ID in your own spec and link with Plant3d and check the interfacing

 

Do for one line, you will easily understand. Also, you should look into the development of both the softwares in the last 3 to 4 years, so that you will understand the progress of development in future. Don't compare with money, compare with technical features.

Message 5 of 20
dave.wolfe
in reply to: Arun_Kumar_K

FIrst of all, just a same detail correction. AutoPlant is by Bentley: http://www.bentley.com/en-US/Products/AutoPLANT/

 

Plant 3D is by Autodesk...just in case any one stumbles across this in a search or something.

 

We used to be a reseller for CADWorx.  I did a comparison between AutoCAD P&ID and CADWorx P&ID in 2009, and even then AutoCAD P&ID was head a shoulders above CADWorx P&ID with respect to reports and data...which is the main reason to use intelligent P&IDS.

 

CADWorx has this whole do you want to use intelligent P&IDs or not, but it's really just a complicated mess that is too diifficult for most people to use in real life scenarios.  Line lists are impossible. In AutoCAD P&ID, they're not really available out of the box, but we were able to get a plugin done that makes it easy.

 

On the line list thing, developers from both side have a concept stuck in their minds that a line list is a list of all of the individual line segments (ie a line from pump A to the reducer is one item, the line from the reducer to the control valve is another one).  Thankfully AutoCAD P&ID/Plant3D has an open api, so we were able to remedy that based on Line Groups.

 

On the 3D side, there is much more competition.  Being a reseller of Plant 3D now, of course I'm biased.  But I will echo the others who say that you should get a trial version and work with it.  Honestly there are some companies who do small scale stuff (isos, and/or one or two line projects), that prefer the flexibility of CADWorx.  On the whole though, the reporting features of Plant 3D are stronger.  In fact, I had a CADWorx tech support person call me up and ask what we did, so he could persuade the CADWorx product manager to work along those lines.

 

 

Plant 3D 2014 has bought a lot of improvements, and I feel personally that Autodesk is more committed to Plant 3D than Intergraph is to CADWorx.

Dave Wolfe
Isaiah 57:15



Tips and Tricks on our blog: ASTI blog
EXPERT ELITE MEMBER
Plant 3D Wish list
Message 6 of 20
PatrickByrne
in reply to: dave.wolfe

I think that Intergraph is committed to CadWorx, release 2013 was a big advance and I believe 2014 is to be released soon.

 

I think both programs have things going for them, The flexibility of CadWorx is great and the only report I have ever been asked for is the MTO. Most users will say that Plant 3D P&ID's are better and the ability to check the P&ID against the model can be useful.

 

CadWorx uses Isogen for creating Isometrics, which is very stable but Plant 3D is coming along and while its initial setup might be easier the time saved is lost when you start creating the Iso's. This has been fixed a lot in the latest release and I am sure will continue to improve.

 

With every release of Plant 3D you have to migrate your library of parts which sometimes does not work too well. If they could stabilise this it would be great, there is also too many files to customise for each release.

 

It comes down to what you want to use it for and the amount of local support. I don't believe cost is a major factor as any saving could easily be lost on set up costs.

 

Message 7 of 20
dgorsman
in reply to: PatrickByrne

Intergraph owns both Alias (ISOGEN) and ICAS (CADWorx and CAESAR II), which has some tactical advantages for those products using ISOGEN.  Still, I am *thrilled* to see a competitor to ISOGEN for isometric generation.  Some decent (friendly, mind you) competition will drive both products to better places.  Then all we need is a third party open-source replacement for PCF.

----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.


Message 8 of 20
chillme1
in reply to: dave.wolfe

P&ID was a pain to customize in 2009-2010. The switching between two sides of the program was too time-consuming and overly-sophisticated This is from one whose personality is drawn to learning and enthusiastic about new technologies. I worked directly with (one of) the lead developer managers (have e-mails stored but name escapes me) to customize the off-page connectors as documentation was lacking on in-depth customizing at that stage. in fact, the product documentation staff verified that my information was not included and that they would be including the non-existent topic based upon my observation. It was a potentially powerful product back then. It appeared to the dabbler in customization at that time - more serious now - to be too time-intensive to reach high productivity levels.
Thanks for your comments,

Clint Hill
Message 9 of 20
chillme1
in reply to: dgorsman

I agree with the point on testing any software to see it is a best fit for your environment.

I also agree with dgorsman about the existence of healthy competition among design software developers.

 

Having been an enthusiastic customizer when he was affiliated with CADWorx software and now using the same vigor and skill at improving the Plant 3D product,  I highly respect the views of David Wolfe due to his hard work at understanding design software. I admire him even more for his willingness to share his experiences and knowledge being highly effective at communicating his findings with the average process plant and  piping designer.

 

Colleagues of mine at larger engineering consutling firms, who leverage their considerable manpower resources to set up the database side of software, use Plant 3D and laud its modeling abilities.

 

It is a challenge to balance production and customization being a force of one at a worldwide basic chemicals manufacturing corporation. Not knowing any users in my region of the USA that use CADWorx Plant and P&ID with a database, I appreciate the CADWorx product's flexibility in its freedom from database dependence. However, my goal is to utilize the database linking and, more importantly, the robustness of (or lack of) the reporting features.

 

I do pareciate the fact that CADWorx uses a plain DWG files; for instance, not requiring a separate DWG file format as does the AutoCAD P&ID product. This one thing has been a nightmare for even the smallest collection of P&ID's that were generated here. An export to a plain AutoCAD DWG file has never been successful; yielding skewed process lines to say the least.

 

Although truly a workflow issue at its core, I ask: Why must a duplicate DWG file - one P&ID version and one plain version - exist for others to assist with editing these DWG files in plain AutoCAD / Lite?

 

I look forward to substantive and continued dialog on each of these two brands of software including benefits and comparisons.

Also, any results from evaluating these products would be helpful.

    

Thanks for your comments,

Clint Hill
Message 10 of 20
MAGCHIKA
in reply to: BullWapiti

Do you mean to compare CADworx vs Autoplant or AutoCAD Plant 3D, because they are different?

 

Message 11 of 20
bhushanbarve
in reply to: MAGCHIKA

Is it possible to convert pdms model to auto cad plant 3d without error and
Auto cad plant 3D to cadworks and vis a Varsa
Please advice
Message 12 of 20
richard.darko
in reply to: BullWapiti

I have need for clarity myself.
Is ISOGEN from Alias the same company purchased by Autodesk for its Surface modeling product?

How is it possible for CadWorks (plug in/run on program by 3rd party) be better than Plant 3D (plug in/run on program by the originator of Autodesk)
Message 13 of 20
dgorsman
in reply to: richard.darko

Alias, by AutoDesk, is NOT Alias, by Intergraph.  Different companies, different products.

 

Its entirely possible for one program to be "better" even if it isn't AutoDesk.  Its a very subjective term so its best to evaluate under your own conditions.  For what its worth Plant3D isn't exactly a plug-in, its an AutoCAD vertical product.  They take the core AutoCAD code and extend it rather than "bolting on" extensions like third-party programs do.

----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.


Message 14 of 20

Overall, Plant design suite is the best buy compare to any softwares.

 

Plant3d is more integrated to Autocad and well organised than any softwares like CADWORX, CADISON or Autoplant.

 

You can get all the features in one package, we are successful in Plant3d and able to utilize all the packages comes with that.

 

The meaning of any design package is, you have to take the detailing of complete Civil, Mechanical, Piping, Electrical and Structure.

 

You can generate all detialing using Plant design suite, you can use Revit for civil, Inventor for Mechanical, Piping for Plant3d. For structure you can use Advance steel which needs to be purchased seperately.

 

I had been quite sucessful since implimentation.

 

Good trainers available in US, Europe and Australia.

 

There is a term "Effectiveness" and "Efficiency" in management. You can get this from Plant design suite.

Message 15 of 20
jdg072
in reply to: dave.wolfe

"Line lists are impossible"

Just saw a demo yesterday were the linelist was as easely generated out of an access database as any other report).  I know; in a demo everything is well prepared. Cadworx also runs on Bricscad which is a 1/3 of the price.

Message 16 of 20
chillme1
in reply to: jdg072

I greatly appreciate your response, jdg072! I must look up that video very soon. What is its title?

 

To be fair and in general...

This thread is relatively old as software goes. Software SHOULD improve or, at least, change over the years. 

 

My observation...

Between the two plant design softwares - AutoCAD Plant 3D & CADWorx Plant Professional (2019), I can relate personal experiences working with P&ID's only:

The following point is Important to companies who rely on AutoCAD, AutoCAD LT, or BricsCAD, etc.

 

P&IDs generated with CADWorx P&ID can be round-tripped with data being maintained after editing outside of this application.

P&ID's generated with AutoCAD Plant 3D relies on custom objects. They are powerful and efficient. When trying to edit them outside of the application, even full version AutoCAD cannot edit them directly.

They must be exported to a plain AutoCAD file format.

My graphical results from the export were really poor.

The data is lost as well.

 

CADWorx in my world...

We recently shifted to BricsCAD Platinum (free with CADWorx maintenance plan )and I am much happier with it.

Several years ago, the company purchased CADWorx Plant/P&ID Pro several years ago, our P&ID's were the primary focus. I have successfully tested the database side and must pursue that more for production this year. Feedback from a recent survey by newer Chem E.'s revealed line lists were very important. 3D modeling was considered a nicety. Line lists will be pursued.

 

Being the sole full version CAD user at a 100-year old plant, I wear many drafting hats in updating our documentation as well as supporting various plants (more job security, who knows?).

2D is still king by some but making 3D more valuable at every opportunity is a goal. 

 

Just last year, I made time to push the CADWorx Plant + Specifications (just updated and formalized here) along with ISOGEN. While dedicated time must be spent, I now have an intermediate understanding of CADWorx Plant.

 

In summary...

Both softwares are capable and have improved since the posting of this thread; having even more powerful features.

If the ability to round trip plant designs/diagrams is important, I would encourage use of CADWorx.

 

Thanks - Clint

 

 

Thanks for your comments,

Clint Hill
Message 17 of 20
jdg072
in reply to: chillme1

Well, at least, I tried (the last year) to use Autodesks P&ID solution, I even bought 3rd party apps as well for it (PlantExpresstools - great tools btw) to fill in de many gaps that are in the Autodesk product. While using it and looking for awsners, it seems to me that Autodesk has buried the product (why do we get it for free?), while it could be such a great tool. Pipe design is NOT a niche.

I don't know what Cadworx/Bricscad will bring the next few year, but is they fullfill our needs, it will be probably the last payment to Autodesk.

Message 18 of 20
chillme1
in reply to: jdg072

Be ready to pay each year: CADWorx just retired their USB-based licensing scheme and just started a web-based licensing that relies on an annual maintenance subscription. The Professional versions of Plant and P&ID (that also include BricsCAD Platinum at no charge) now costs 2,820 US Dollars. If you do not pay, the software will not operate.

 

It is not the best news but at least you go into it knowing this fact.  

Thanks for your comments,

Clint Hill
Message 19 of 20
jdg072
in reply to: chillme1

Than we'll pay. And if it works and it is maintained and further developped, we'll keep paying.

Message 20 of 20

La elección depende de varios factores, sin enbargo tienen que consdierar como uno de los prioritarios los requisitos especificos del proyecto. Ambos programas son  herrameintas de diseño consu propias caracteristas y ventajas.

 

Tanto CADWorx como AutoCAD Plant 3D, son opciones solidas para el diseño de tuberías en la industria,  y la elección entre los dos depende de tus necesidades específicas, experiencia y preferencias personales.

Se recomienda realizar una evaluación detallada de cada software y, si es posible, probar versiones de prueba o realizar demostraciones antes de tomar una decisión final.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report

”Boost