Connecting pipe in AutoCad Plant 3D

[Anonymous]

Can piping from different projects be connected. We have a very large site and were hoping to split the site up into several projects. Can piping be connect as to still be able to create ortho's and iso's.

[Anonymous]

Interesting idea. We hadn't considered using projects this way. The idea of
a project is that it is self contained. We expected you'd use a project with
multiple drawings, not multiple projects.

You're not going to be able to get an iso across more than one project. It
might be possible to create an ortho across several projects using the
current Beta version. I can't think of anyway to do it using the current
version.

Peter Quinn (Autodesk)

wrote in message news:6346075@discussion.autodesk.com...
Can piping from different projects be connected. We have a very large site
and were hoping to split the site up into several projects. Can piping be
connect as to still be able to create ortho's and iso's.

[rchiasson]

Any news of having connectivity between projects?

Depending on the company and the project, working on a large scale facility, similar to what was created in Project X, a project could become quite large and some companies divide up a facility into smaller managable areas. This was an issue using Bentley AutoPLANT, 32 bit machines limited zip file size, which is what was created when a project was packaged in Bentley that could then be moved or given to a client. Offshore platforms and onshore facilities in the Oil & Gas field created in one project could EASILY exceed 4G zipped. The work around with this was creating tie-in points at certain locations and creating a dummy connection point in one project that would simulate the connection point to the other project.

[awerning]

I guess I am not understanding what the advantage is of using multiple projects to break up areas.  The point of a project is to contain the client settings, specs, etc that will be used on one project.  You would then break up your areas by the number of models you create under that project.  If you have 1000's of models then you just need to have a naming standard which will group them by area when sorted alpha-numeric.  The logical reason that you would need to use multiple projects is to set up DIFFERENT client settings, specs, etc in each project (but I doubt that is what you are needing to do).  Also, your reports and data will only be accessible within each individual project.  No data will be able to cross between projects.  I am not aware of any Plant software on the market that allows you to do cross-project work.  All of them require you to do some sort of "merge" before the data can be shared.  But they definitely don't talk to each other while they are still separate projects.  I think that the approach may need to be revised, not necessarily the software.  Just thinking out loud I guess...sorry if I'm way off base.

[rchiasson]

For example, a project for a new platform consisted of four four-pile platforms connected by bridges. Each of these platforms were under the same overall job. The plaforms were set up as separate projects software wise. These calls are not always made by the software admin, recommendations can be made, but ultimately the decision is up to the drafting manager and project manager on how they want it set up. If this job were set up under one project, working on 32bit machines would have restricted zipping up this project and getting it to a client. There had already been an issue on a large platform that zipped to a 16G file, even after stripping everything out that was not a model, the file was still over 5G and it couldn't be unzipped on a 32bit machine.

[awerning]

But as the CAD Admin, you are the one setting up the project and can tell them what the limitations of the software are.  And\or what the "right" way is to do it.

Also, why are you zipping them?  Are you saying this because of another software vendors tool set? (erhm...AutoPLANT)  If so, that's their problem, not Autodesks problem.  With Plant 3D there is no need to zip a project for turnover.  Just burn it to an external HD of any size (unzipped).

[rchiasson]

Now that you mention it, yes I am refering to that particular software. If you had to turn a project over to a client that is of this size, even in Plant 3D, would you purchase an external, save it  and then ship it to the client and either eat the cost or charge the client? Well probably just write the cost off somewhere on the project...

I'm not saying this is the proper way to do it, but as we all know sometimes you inherit projects that were not set up properly all the time. What I described is a situation I've dealt with, taking over a position and things not being set up correctly or efficient.

[awerning]

I was only suggesting one way to transfer data (I didn't mean you have to give then the HD).  Besides, why would you want to wait 3-4 hours for a 10GB project to zip down to 4GB just to have the client wait 3-4 hours while it unzips.  And you still have to figure out a way to transfer it.  Seems the direct method (no matter what the transfer means are) is a bunch easier and would save MUCH time.

Even if you inherit an old project(s) that is set up this way, all you have to do is merge them into one and be on your way, right?

(I want to make sure the tone is correct here: I am not arguing, just curious if this is an issue I should be considering as well)

[PeterQuinn]

It's kind of unrelated to the original topic, but it if I had to turn over 50gb of data to a customer, I'd buy a 64gb flash drive for around $100 and use that.