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: 

Plant 3D auto-routing and connecting adjacent ports frustration

26 REPLIES 26
Reply
Message 1 of 27
Cmycroft
11793 Views, 26 Replies

Plant 3D auto-routing and connecting adjacent ports frustration

Hi everyone,

 

I have been using plant 3D for the first time on a project/job and have nearly finished this project but I would like toshare my particular experience with plant 3D and perhaps gauge if my comments are a fair representation of othersexperience with the program. I have previously used autoplant from Bentley. 

 

My main point of frustration with the program is the "auto-routing" feature and being able to connect adjacent ports.What I have found is that everything has to be perfect for the auto-routing feature to work, that is to say there is notolerance within the program for even the slightest miss-alignment. This results in a really frustrating and timeconsuming experience with the program. 

 

Considering that program is a piping program I find this very frustrating and can sometimes spend a considerableamount of time getting a line to be continuous and fully connected to facilitate producing isometrics from the model.You end up trying everything, right down the running of single lines which defeats the purpose of havingauto-routing in the first place. And even then you are likely to get the same old error message when you try connectadjacent piping fittings that "the ports need to be adjacent". But when you check the layout and location of itemseverything seems perfect, but you still get the same problem. Also when running the single lines, you have to usemanual commands to control the UCS to allow you to use the trim and extend commands. Surely the requiredcommands could be added to the toolbar to allow quick rotation of the UCS to the required plane? Or am I missingsomething here?

 

Then there is the situation where you want to join 2 disconnected items; you run the "di" command and everything is in alignment - but when you try connect them you get the error "ports need to adjacent". Then you try selecting one item by the node you wish to connect, then move the item to the port you wish to connect to by selecting the node again. You would think that things would have to be in alignment now and work, but you still get the same error message.... Very frustrating indeed. 

 

Other problems experienced with the program:

 

Another problem I have is with not being able to parametrically locate supports. I would have expected similarfunctionality as with the locating of valves and other in-line equipment.  Also being able to parametrically locating ISOsymbols such as breaks and arbitrary location points. There should be a generic indicative support which can belocated parametrically. I say this as I know where supports can go and I don't want to waste time modeling thesesupports which don't represent the real support design anyway. 

 

Then there are valve tags. You can tag a valve, then tag it again and again and again and you just keep loosing thetag for no apparent reason. I gave up re-tagging the valves and manually updated the isometrics with the correctvalve tag. Another time wasting exercise.

 

Then we have the isometric production. What's the point of have the selection of "force ISO onto 1 sheet" when thatfunction doesn't work at all. If the program wants to split and ISO then it is going to do this no matter what you do.Also, there is no ability to offset the elevation which I can't understand as you can offset everything else. Further toisometric production is that the program can produce a different isometric from a line even if the line hasn't changedat all or only minor changes to the line - it seems to be a lotto draw as to what you will get. This becomes a problemonce you have issued isometrics for say tender issue  then when you go to revise them for say construction theprogram gives you something completely different to what you have previously issued. This results in a timeconsuming process of trying to force the program to provide the correct isometric, which you are not guaranteed insucceeding in. Or you end up just marking the isometric up by hand which defeats the purpose of having isometricproduction from the program.

 

Then we have the BOM... Can someone advise how the program determines what field it uses from the spec to fill inthe description field? I haven't had time to investigate this fully but on the face of it the program uses a combination ofmany different fields; why can't it point to one field on the spec so you can tell it from the get-go what you want toshow up on the isometric BOM. How does the program select the bolts/fasteners lengths for flanges, valves, wafervalves and lugged valves. We have the situation where it appears the program has used incorrect lengths forbasically every lugged and wafer valve on this job. Sometimes with wafer valves it puts in two bolt sets, or othertimes it doesn't put any bolts in at all. The BOM is a frequent point of frustration and time consuming manualmark-ups. 

 

Then the orthographic production. The program is inconsistent with what 2d objects it shows in the ortho views. Theproduced ortho views frequently loose elbows and other fittings, for no apparent reason. When you update theortho views, its seems to randomly delete annotations (line number tags in this case) which are associated to thepipes shown in the view. 

 

Overall the program is "useable" and I know that some of the issues will be "user error" but I believe many of theissues identified need to be addressed by autodesk. 

 

Cheers,

Cmycroft.

26 REPLIES 26
Message 2 of 27
Jorgen1990
in reply to: Cmycroft

Hi

 

I have used this program for 8 months now and I share your frustration with many of the listed errors.

In Plant 3D 2012, I also experienced that "force iso into one sheet" was useless and it kept creating about 10-15 different iso drawings from a simple pipeline, literally creating a separate iso for every straight pipe segment, elbow, tee and so on. But in Plant 3D 2013 things are a bit better and I have managed to get isos on one sheet.

 

Jörgen

Message 3 of 27
ybogdanov
in reply to: Cmycroft

I think that all of your problems are few experience with software 3d. If in future you would using it you will find the correct form to work. I think that t'he best solution is to do some course with people who really now work with software in real projectes. I work 3 years with software and feel that in every project my form to work is better compared with previose. Finally when you now how work the software you design perfectly from first pass with out consumation time.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yury Bogdanov
ASIDEK(Grupo CT) - Partner Directo de Autodesk
Barcelona (Spain)
Message 4 of 27
Rich.O.3d
in reply to: Cmycroft

im batteling the adjacent port saga at the moment

 

when you do the di command, make sure your units are maxed out on the decimal places...I usually find that they are ...eg from model

Distance = 0.00002259, Angle in XY Plane = 227.2908, Angle from XY Plane =
310.4045
Delta X = -0.00000993, Delta Y = -0.00001076, Delta Z = -0.00001721

 

This usually happens on sloped lines.

 

A pipeline can be modeled, fully connected and iso'ed.

Then down the track when a change may be needed to a note or some such, then certain parts of the line suddenly become problamatic

 

I believe it may be a rounding issue, so for pipes that follow the x, y and z directions, its not an issue as autocad isnt doing any calculations to control the endpoints, however when lines are sloped in the vert and skewed in plan, there is some possible rounding going on.

 

I know in one of the xml's there is a section about node location tolerance but when i tested it in 2011 it didnt actually do anything.

CAD Management 101:
You can do it your own way,
If its done just how I say!
[Metallica:And Justice For All:1988]
Message 5 of 27
dave.wolfe
in reply to: Cmycroft

So, I'm going to try to pull out your key questions.

 

1. Precision - I agree we need a way to tell plant what degree of precision we want for the ports to be adjacent.

2. UCS - in 2013, you can modify the ucs by selecting it and then dragging the axis in the direction/plane you need.

3. Parametrically placed supports - I know in 2013, they modified the support insertion to include more options for dimension input.  I don't know if this addresses your problem or not?

4. Losing valve tags - I am not able to duplicate this issue.  How many people do you have working on your project?

5. BOM description - You can configure which field is shown in the BOM under your BOM Table settings.  The second tab has an option to choose the Long Description Family or the Long Description Size.  You can also use a long description style which builds the description from the properties of the component.

6. Isometric orientation - I agree we need a way to specify an elevation offset.  I've requested that they also allow us to specify the offsets in the style so that we don't have to do it in the advanced settings.

7. Isometric splitting - We've had a lot of issues with this, I'm not sure that anyone knows what is causing the problem, only that the splitting needs to happen better.

8. Bolts - There has been a post on bolts, but I can't remember where the link is for the white paper on it.

9. Ortho - We have given a lot of feedback on the orthos, I'd like to see what gets missed on your orthos.  I haven't had those particular problems myself.

Dave Wolfe
Isaiah 57:15



Tips and Tricks on our blog: ASTI blog
EXPERT ELITE MEMBER
Plant 3D Wish list
Message 6 of 27
philip
in reply to: dave.wolfe

With regard to precision you can change pricision for connection types for both offset amount and angle edit the DefaultConnectorsConfig.xml

 

  <Joints>
    <Joint Name="Buttweld">
      <AllowImperialMetric>false</AllowImperialMetric>
      <OffsetTolerance>2</OffsetTolerance>
      <SlopeTolerance>2</SlopeTolerance>
      <FittingElements />

 

Change the red number to suit the pricison you want, you will need to change all the different join types you may want to have different amounts for different types of fixing (welded items may have larger amount of freedom compared to screwed.)

Tags (1)
Message 7 of 27
Rich.O.3d
in reply to: philip

that was what i was talking about in my post

the code is there in the xml, but does it actually do anything ? (back in 2011, it did nothing)

 

can someone test

 

i see you changed yours to 2

what does that mean? does that mean that the ports can be 2units (mm or inch??) away from each other and still connect

CAD Management 101:
You can do it your own way,
If its done just how I say!
[Metallica:And Justice For All:1988]
Message 8 of 27
philip
in reply to: Rich.O.3d

Seems to work, we are typicaly using metric so will be 2mm & 2 degrees.

Message 9 of 27

Hi,

I cannot see that this issue from last year has been resolved.

 

I made the recommended changes to the buttweld joint section in the DefaultConnectorConfig.xml. I then spent a lot of time trying to build a piping model with flanges that are skewed with respect to the centerline of the pipe to which they attach.  No luck!

 

Is there anything else I need to do to get Plant 3D to relax the colinearity constraints?

 

This is a real-life scenario where an existing piping installation is to be modified. A laser-scanned model of the existing installiation provides location, rotation, and tilt of the existing flanges to which new piping is to be connected.

The fabricator delivers complete spools that fit directly into the installation without any site welding.

The project deliverables are piping isometrics for new piping with corresponding annotation and dimensioning for flange tilt and rotations.

 

Any new information will be greatly appreciated.

 

 

Message 10 of 27

This issue with the pipe slope and connection tolerances has been addressed in Plant 3D 2016.

 

Please refer to this page for more information:

 

AutoCAD Plant 3D 2016 - New Features

 

 



Jason Drew
Designated Support Specialist
Message 11 of 27
jhallajian
in reply to: jason.drew

We are using 2015 and the problems is still there. Can Autodesk suggest a workable solution for 2015? This is taking a lot of my time and energy.

Message 12 of 27
Cmycroft
in reply to: Cmycroft

Sorry about the original post everyone - for some reason the text got rather messed up. It gave me a headache just re-reading it! 

 

But anyway, it seems that most of these issues are still relevant 3 years later? (I don't consider a solution in which you need to do registry edits or similar programming edits to be an actual solution. If these are expected to be solutions then I had better start learning some computer programming!)

 

Small update to the original thread. Last year I used plant 3D 2015 extensively on a feasibility project and noted many of the same problems are present. During this time I noted a new issue in which when changing a line from one spec to another spec, that any selected reducing tees revert to equal tees. This requires the user to go back and rectify the arrangement. This problem occurs even when the only difference between the spec's, are the name of the spec's. That is to say, both spec's have the exact same catalog of materials to chose from but they just have different names. Is this just another bug in the program that we have to be aware of or is there an actual solution?

 

Thanks in advance everyone and wishing you the best of luck routing some pipe! 

 

Kind regards,

Cmycroft

Message 13 of 27
ybogdanov
in reply to: Cmycroft

Your bug is not program problem. It's happen because your spec is not difined correctly. You need to define objects priority.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Yury Bogdanov
ASIDEK(Grupo CT) - Partner Directo de Autodesk
Barcelona (Spain)
Message 14 of 27
JC4159
in reply to: ybogdanov

I agree that the specs must be fixed to make it work. But that takes quite a bit to understand them.

 

I have recently just had the same problem

 

But now it has made one into many where it simply showed it as one. I know this sounds crazy but simple changing the material specs should not do this. I have encountered it before with other projects. And when I did have someone who knew what he was doing he could not explain to me why it did what it did. And could not fix it, before he vansihed.

 

I believe it might be a simple fix, but the knowing is hard to find answers that is online. So if there is an answer to fixing the specs it would be great if there was a better guide. Simply saying check your specs and find someone to learn off is not that easy. 

 

And as much as I would love to fine someone to help teach me as well. These resources are not that easy to come by. And the help on line doesn't adquately have enough information to help answer the questions that I have.

 

I guess I will have to wait until the 2016 update.

 

that's my 2 cents worth, and it is great to see that other people out there are having the same issue

Message 15 of 27
dave.wolfe
in reply to: JC4159

Assuming we're talking about the spec/tee issue (which is hard to assume since this thread covers several topics), it sounds like a branch table issue to me.  Make sure the branch tables match and that the priority from the branches match.  If however, a user manually change the branch (ie from reducing tee to tee + reducer), it will still change it to a reducing tee when switching the spec, if that is the highest priority. No fixes, other than education and learning how the software works.

Dave Wolfe
Isaiah 57:15



Tips and Tricks on our blog: ASTI blog
EXPERT ELITE MEMBER
Plant 3D Wish list
Message 16 of 27
JC4159
in reply to: dave.wolfe

I agree with learning how this software works, which I am doing.

 

My work shelled out for s imple 2 day fundamentals course for me to use this. While the person who hates it got the full 5 day course (still can't figure that out and stop my whinge) and still to this day does not touch it.

 

I just don't like people in forums who say it is a simple fix, or just find someone to learn off. With out really giving any infomation.

 

It is not that simple, finding the resourses for both is hard. And from what I have seen when I am, it is next to impossible in close proximaty to where I live. And finding help online is confusing as it is hard to give an answer for this without actually seeing it.

 

So learning and fumbling it seems is the answer. Mind you that is how I have found out most of what I haev learned so it is not that bad a thing.

Message 17 of 27
patpat79
in reply to: JC4159

Hi, I feel you of not having the luxury of learning the software before being involved in a project. I have been recently assigned to help our PDS project, which i havent used for almost 2 years (have had only training back then). It was a hard time knowing and learning the software's limitation, its flaws, its advantages, but after 2 weeks, had been able to be productive due to the colleagues who are adept already in the software and asking them things i dont know. Same as in Plant 3D, there are many problems that you will encounter and 80% of them are "fixable" via experience and knowledge of the software itself, 20% are software limitation which can also be solved by quick-fix. I am back now to be a Plant 3D Admin again, (after being a PDS designer for a while) and one thing is for sure that i know. Autocad Plant 3D is still the best Piping and P&ID software for me as of the moment and there are no problems that cant be solved, softwares have limitations that's why there are Admins and Designers out there to utilize them to the full extent.

 

(P.S. using PDS makes me see that not only Plant 3D needs work around ^_^)


Best Regards,
Pat Andres
Autodesk Expert Elite
Plant 3D Administrator
GHD Manila

Message 18 of 27
JC4159
in reply to: patpat79

I agree most softeware has it limitations, I have learned that in my past, I myself have had to teach my self 3D and much more in AutoCAD. And found most of my problems were fixed with little answers which is most of the time. (try appling for a job and say most of what you did was self learned)

 

Was just hoping like teh guy that initally started this question for an answer.

 

Which is basically, after doing a change to the 3D pipe work in plant. And after creating many succesful Welding isometrics, basically all in one. It suddenly makes it into heaps. With nothing really being altered.

 

Me I have one that all fit into one page, and now that I have updated the parts spec (I find you learn pretty quickly when you have to) it seems to make it into many ffrom 1 to 10 generated welding isometrics.

 

I am playing around with the parimeters right now. And have I admit improved it. And it has been set to mot breaking up, and no isometric spilt markers have been put in it. But when it beraks it up it really breaks it up. now fitting are on independent pages, to spools in a few pieces (note this is a very small setup). Just frustrating and it has done to me on a few other jobs. One where it did all the runs but the last one properly which was seperated into many peices, with the same settings in its parameters.

 

But it felt good to read that other people have this problem, I don't feel special anymore. but I should hopefully figure out the answer soon.

 

Thanks for replying 

Message 19 of 27
Cmycroft
in reply to: ybogdanov

Hello,

 

Cheers for the input but how would you suggest assigning priority for reducing tee's when you use all of the available run/branch size combinations? That is to say, sure I might assign say, for a 200NB run, a branch priority of 100NB. But then all of the other size combinations will default to 200x100 when I don't want that. What I really want is for the program to look at what is currently there, and replace like-for-like (size-for-size).  

 

Note that the spec name determined the actual items called up; Ie sch.40 pipe; #150 weldneck flanges etc etc. The spec was fully defined on a dedicated material specifications sheet independent of plant3D. This has proven an effective method for eliminating re-work and reducing catalog and spec work overall. The model was essentially just used to layout the system, provide a pretty picture, control information and ultimately count up the materials by spec name. But I digress.

 

And just to make sure this it clear for everyone.... this was my method:

**note I did have varying flange classes which is where I utilized another blanket spec - but lets just assume everything was say class 150.

 

1) Create a spec and assign priorities as required - lets call this "spec 1" a blanket spec.

2) Run all the piping on blanket "spec 1"

3) When satisfied with the layout I generated the other required specs from "spec 1" - literally just saving "spec 1" as different names as required (spec 2, spec 3 spec 4 etc)

4) Once the other specs were generated I swapped the piping over from "spec 1" to "spec 2" "spec 3" etc etc. I emphasize that the only difference between the specs was the name of the specs - everything in behind was the same.

 

As I swapped the piping from one spec to another all reducing tees reverted to equal tees. As previously mentioned assigning priority for reducing tee combinations wouldn't work unless all of my reducing tee's were the same size. So I doubt assigning priority would have helped at all - the program simply didn't fully recognize the reducing tee that was modelled and instead replaced all reducing tee's with equal tee's. I note that the program did recognize the pipe sizes and replaced like-for-like, it only had issue with tee's. So the functionality is there, it just isn't applied to tee's. 


Or I could be completely wrong.... But that said the NZ service provider for Autodesk was stumped also and couldn't offer a resolution. Typically we troubleshoot our problems with them; that is to say, we are of very similar experience/expertise as them. We are not some spring chicken crowd with no clue 😉 

 

I hope this thread is of interest to Autodesk, for product development, and can help other users once adequate fixes are found. 

Cheers and happy piping. Have a good day everyone.
Chris.

Message 20 of 27
patpat79
in reply to: Cmycroft

Hi, havent encountered your problem as of the moment, but as to your output, the tees converted to other spec became straight tees intead of reducing right? quite a problem there but i think not much of an issue, but could be better if would be solved immediately for users having the same problem as you. But for info, changing spec of already routed piping in "Other" software compared to the problem you have encountered is "Devastation" (to exaggerate it). If i were to change spec in PDS, i will just re route the line, havent tried in SP3D and PDMS, but yeah... I'll stick to Plant 3D as of now ^_^ (the best yet for me as of the moment).


Best Regards,
Pat Andres
Autodesk Expert Elite
Plant 3D Administrator
GHD Manila

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report

”Boost