Switching from CadWorx to Plant 3D

[PatrickByrne]

On a previous occasion I asked was it a good time to switch from CadWorx to Plant 3D. At the time it was a resounding no as I could not find anybody to give it a tick of approval on a large project.

With the latest release of Plant 3D, Autodesk appears to have fixed most issues, I would appreciate any feedback from the users.

We will be using Plant 3D in conjunction with Inventor, normal AutoCAD and Prosteel, therefore it will not be the dominant software on the project, is this a problem?

Has Plant 3D been successfully used on a large project? did you come across any major issues.

What is the main advantage over CadWorx Plant?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Patrick

[ybogdanov]

I don't tried it, but my customers did. And now they work with Plant3D.
It's the same as cars. You can buy Mercedes A180 with the motor of Renault. Or buy Mercedes A200 with the motor of Mercedes. I prefer to have car and engine of the same manufacture.

The price of Cadworx is not competitive now in the market. You need to buy AutoCAD, Navisworks, Cadworx, .... The best solution Plant Design Suite!

[Arun_Kumar_K]

To Fishrofgriz: I will deliver more better than what CADWORX does, it is all about who drives the software. I had used CADWORX earlier, I know what is the present features. The greatest advantage is orthogen, an autogenerating annotation and dimensioning. Except nothing. Hope Autodesk also will bring the equivalent feature soon.

[FishrOfGrizz]

No I haven't tried CadWorx 13 or 14 but I'm going to look into it.
Thanks

[patpat79]

I dont know what's good about ISOgen, but we have SP3D, PDMS and PDS here in our company, and as per ISO, i could say that the AP3D iso is the best, not the out of the box version, but as per admin's ability, like our ISO, it's better than those  software's output. Thanks

[cleschber]

Does anyone have any experience using CADWorx in conjunction with Vault?  What are the pros/cons?

[eadkins73]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned the database features.  P3D comes with the communication between the P&ID and the 3d model out of the box.  Whereas with CW you have to buy PIDMO and PLANTMO in order for you to connect the two and the generate things like Line Lists, Valve Lists, Instrument Lists, and Equipment Lists.

This comunication also allows for validating the project to make sure the P&ID and model match up as someone mentioned before.  That alone to me is worth it.  The Isos and orthos are practcally the same to me. Also the project manager is very helpful at keeping all project drawings organized.  This is a big problem for some of my designers.

[mtchad]

I used only CADworx for almost 8 years and I now use both Plant3D and CADworx and never thought I would say this but I prefer Plant3D it is much more flexible and the interface is easier.  I will say that it wasnt an easy transition because it took me awhile to get used to how plant3D interface works.  Once I got used to it and stopped trying to run it like it was CADworx.  I definately prefer P3D.

[dpb]

In my roel we used CADWorx for 5-6 years then got switched to Autodesk Plant3D, developed our library within it for a long time, had professional training invested a LOT of time and $$$ in the switch then when we started project work with it and it was horrible. It does have many good features but the whole time it took us to integrate it into our workflow CADWorx had released 2013/2014 and we switched back. CADWorx took no time to integrate with our workflow and since we have utilised much more of CADWorx features than previously. All the Plant3D features we switched for CADWorx aquired in 2013.

Can honestly say all here are happily back on CADWorx.

Two things that played a large role in killing Plant3D for us was:

Firstly, when editing specs you must close down the link drg files. This process took so long!  CADWorx specs & catalogs can be updated on the fly and refreshed, takes seconds!

Secondly, the steel modeling within Plant3D was too crude, it was not sufficient for us to model steel in a session of ASD (Autodesk Structural Detailing, which has been killed of now as it too was horrible) and pipe in Plant3D. Needs to be simultaneous.

I can see that for large EPC's and co's that have designated CAD administrators Plant3D woudl be on par with CADWorx (IMHO)

also, i suspect that Autodesk created their own isometric engine to avoid ISOGEN, particullarly considering Intergraph aquired Alias (Intergaph own Coade who make CADworx and Alias make ISOGEN)

[dgorsman]

I don't have any problems with non-ISOGEN isometric engines, as the lack of competition was leading to some horrible stagnation in the product.  They help make ISOGEN better, and ISOGEN helps make them better, both by pushing the others to get better.  I am a little disappointed the cloud-based isometric generator didn't make it out of the labs though.

[Arun_Kumar_K]

It's my long year wishlist to Adsk, there should be a strong steel modelling [ not required detailing tools] and basic cable tray modelling tools. If both comes in Plant3d, it will Rock.

But it seems Adsk kept a logic of investment in a product where there is more users, but they should understood, Plant3d is not still a perfect tool equivalent to Cadworx and Cadison. Unless they invest, users will not be added.

[AKingslayer]

Autodesk Plant Design suite includes REVIT which is the answer for c/s modeling.  But, it takes someone willing to re-think how they do 3D modeling for steel and concrete.  REVIT is a modeling and parametric database driven tool, that also creates drawings - but not to fabrication level, which is the structural engineering standard for contract documents, steel fab drawings are a different business.  AutoCAD is a replacement for hand drafting, and can be force-fit to function as a 3D modeling tool - and do quite well, but it just wasn't built with that inention in mind.  REVIT models can be directly read in Navisworks or exported in seconds to an AutoCAD 3D file for coordination.  It just takes someone willing to try a completely different approach.