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.
The following technical solution discusses support for multi-core processing:
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.
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.
"Sucess is not about what you can deliver
it is about adding values where the world needs value"