Hello,
I just got a very powerful Dell workstation:
Dell PRECISION T5600
Comparing with the predecessor computer:
I had a big gain of stability.
In render I think it's about 12 times faster.
BUT:
In daily tasks as Orbit, ZOOM and PAN the model, it's a shame. I disabled the “Adaptive Degradation” to test whether I could maintain higher quality. That was disaster! Maybe 1 frame in every 3 seconds, it’s not 3fps.
You may say, don’t disable the “Adaptive Degradation”, maintain ON. Ok I’m doing it, but that does not help at all with the ZOOM and the PAN.
I decided to analyze the hardware to see how he was handling it. I just Orbit around, with those 1 frame in every 3 seconds. I noticed that almost nothing of capacity of the CPU and Video Card were being used.
Check the annex pictures.
I had 12 cores, 24 threads and only 1 of these 24 were being used.
In video card the maximum use was about 12%.
What good I have a super computer if my software does not use more than 10%.
This is absurd. I can’t find any justification for this.
Have you ever tried to move a little line arrangement to see what happens? The CAD stuck.
Do something! And it's not fair I have to wait and pay for another release.
Probe to delete all 2D elements from model: texts, hatchs. Put it in another file.
AutoCAD have some problems when use 2D object in "Realist" style view.
Probe to set the AutoCAD command WHIPTHREAD to "3"
I think you just threw away a boatload of cash uncessarily on something that isn't as powerful as you think it is. At some point, throwing more money at a problem won't do anything. As an example, you would be better of with a single quad-core running at 3.2 GHz or faster instead of a slowpoke 2 GHz dual-processor Xeon; and you would be better off with either a good quality solid state drive, a 10K RPM drive, or multiples of either drives in a RAID configuration instead of a 7200 RPM drive. Both of those are bottlenecking that pricey Quadro 4000 video card.
Even then there are still limitations on what the software can do. Creating software isn't a magical or short process; its not like they just have to check a box that says "Multithreading" and it will work. Might I suggest as a start you consider *what* processes you would like operating across multiple cores. Then break those steps down into logical procedures and figure out which can reasonably be done simultaneously. Most operations in CAD are linear in execution, requiring steps to be done in a specific order, and so are difficult to break down into multiple simultaneous operations that can be split across multiple processors. Thats also what makes straight-line speed so important in choosing hardware for this type of software.
As a customer I think the concept adopted inefficient. Compared with other 3D software, the direction they take is different and has shown a gain and a much better efficiency.
I think the Plant 3D in operational concept has advantages that allows, for example, a lower infrastructure to operation.
But I am not satisfied with the graphic performance. Being a 3D software, it should have a much better performance.
And I think Autodesk should take this into consideration when reevaluate the way forward.
I'm not a programmer and not incredibly familiar with the detailed workings of computer hardware.
From my understanding is the reason you get such low process usage is Autocad's programming. It still runs as a single line process, for the most part. It isn't written to run numerous processes all the time, hence limiting it's performance, most notably on the 3D side. I am recalling from conversations with other's that know more about how the software works and how it utilizes hardware. So until Autocad is rewritten or drastically changed to a differnet engine so to say, it will not properly utilize these multicore processors to increase performance. Like dgorsman said, it isn't an easy process. So it is left to tweaking hardware and the software settings and proper model management.
If Autodesk wants to be a serious competitor to AVEVA PDMS, which dominates the Brazilian market (because of Petrobras), it must also invest in the 3D performance, and be able to handle more congested and large models.
There's the rub: they aren't competing with PDMS, SmartPlant, or the other high-horsepower programs. They are competing with the mid-level products like CADWorx Plant which specialize in smaller, less costly software as well as less support requirements. Not everybody needs/wants a PDMS and can get away with lower cost software with lesser capabilities.
To get the performance of a PDMS they would require a serious investment in time and money, which would have to be recouped via higher costs; even an eye-popping performance increase would increase sales well below the investment costs from those moving back to cheaper software (one of their main selling points). it would also require them to essentially abandon the AutoCAD platform which is another of their main selling points ("Got Plant3D? You've got AutoCAD, too!").
This is true, but there are many projects around here that could use very well the Plant 3D, but almost Nobody knows about it. And this performance is an extremely negative publicity.
Being that the competition with Plant 3D is Cadworx and AutoPlant, all 3 run on Autocad, all of them still experience issues with performace with large models, which falls back on model management. Large detailed models will bog down all 3, that is just the fact right now.
Hi,
The following technical solution discusses support for multi-core processing:
Support for multi-core processors with AutoCAD
One thing that you should also check is the driver version installed for you graphics card. It is often best to use the version that has been tested and certified by Autodesk:
Lastly, when navigating around the drawing try setting the visual style to "2D Wireframe". Make sure you select 2D Wireframe rather than Wireframe.
Thanks,
Dan
You project is in network, but software files, cache files and autosave files are in your PC. For use my SSD in project files I use Vault Professional with Plant3D projects, in this case when you open any file, this file are created in your PC.
(SSD is not solution for orbit, zoom and other navigation things)
I think that this problem have all 3D software today. That's why exist viewers, as Navisworks. And all plant designers are using any one, users of SmartPlant, PDMS, Plant3D... all have Navisworks, why? Because have better perfomance that 3d designer software.
Thanks to everyone for the tips, I understand that they seek the best performance with what we have available today.
But 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."
I worked in Smartplant, PDMS, CADWORX and Plant3d.
My opinion is:
Eventhough Plant3d, Autoplant, CADWORX have equal features of modelling compare to high end softwares PDMS, SP3d,these softwares (Cadworx, Autocad plant3d, Autodplant) lag in 3d performance and not many users can work in single file as it all works in Autocad engine.
Unless these software improves in 3d performance and multiuser concept in single file, these will get stamped for smaller and mid cap sector.
Request Autodesk to look for higher 3d performance as equivalent to Inventor. This can be done, nothing is impossible.
Regards,
Arun
"Sucess is not about what you can deliver
it is about adding values where the world needs value"