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: 

Wish List AutoCAD Plant3D 2014

199 REPLIES 199
Reply
Message 1 of 200
ybogdanov
13558 Views, 199 Replies

Wish List AutoCAD Plant3D 2014

I turn to say the same like in the previous wish lists, and I hope that the developer team will help:

- Cable Trays for Plant 3D! It's imposible to design Industry Plant without this component.

- Better Ortho generation: auto dimensions, auto anotation, view hide pipes,...

- Any basic civil modelation (e.g. walls in 3D with special hatch pattern in ortho)

- Better structural modelation (the same like in Structural Detailing)

- Better P&ID integration on 3D, e.g. equipment list P&ID in 3D for insert it

 

Those functions now exist in AutoCAD MEP and Structural Detailing, I think that it will be good solution to integrate the same in Plant3D and convert it in the best Plant software. Because the integration between ASD, Plant3D and MEP it's not good, is not posible have all objects in the same database. It will be better,  to have all Plant solutions in the same softare and in the same database, where with one changing workspace you can design: structural, cable trays, pipes, civil, and after this generate ortho views with all details automatically, generate list of material,... 

 

For Plant Design Suite:

- Add in ultimate suite the Robot for calculation of structure (the same like in building design suite 2013)

 

With those changes the Plant3D will accelerate it integration in industry, and in few time will be the best and more usefull.

Thanks

-----------------------------------------------------------
Yury Bogdanov
ASIDEK(Grupo CT) - Partner Directo de Autodesk
Barcelona (Spain)
199 REPLIES 199
Message 81 of 200
Kflachofsky
in reply to: ybogdanov

I need better hidden line control in ortho. I would like to see dashed or dotted lines for hidden lines as an option. We need to be able to select the angle at which we view the ortho as well, vertically as well as horizontally.

Tags (1)
Message 82 of 200
Gabriel.N
in reply to: ybogdanov

I would like to make a suggestion, that we used the "+ kudo" to highlight the topic you think is important or interesting.

I believe it will give a good idea for the Autodesk Developers about what is more important, by the amount of "+ kudos" a topic received.

Tags (2)
Message 83 of 200
Gabriel.N
in reply to: ybogdanov

I wish:

 

1 - May we to be given tools easier to maintain dimensions and coordinates more full, to avoid broken numbers.

When using imperial units you should not have this problem because the components are only a fraction of the main unit, but the metric with most components originating from the imperial system these problems appears. What we generally do is compensate in the tube, e.g. for the distance between two curves at the edges to be an integer. This greatly facilitates the manufacture and assembly, and helps when a pipe is used as a a reference point for anything else.

1.1 - It could be possible to constrain a position through a coordinate or reference with another item as a equipment, using something like Dimension Constrains.

 

2 - It should be possible to determine the minimum distance between the pipes including understanding when insulation is present.

And when the distance is smaller shall be given some sort of warning with a different color. And also with a list of alerts.

 

3 - Clash Detection for items of Plant 3D on Plant 3D.

 

4 - Other Nozzole Types as: Slip On Flange, Lapped Flange.

 

 

There's much more, when I remember, I write again.

Message 84 of 200
R.Hoesel
in reply to: Gabriel.N

My dearest wish for new Plant Realease would be improvement of Iso-creation and options. The isometric should be again an schematic drawing and not a referenced drawing from 3D model. I am often faced with very long pipes (lines) on the isometrics while branches etc are all stored in one part of the isometric drawing.

A reference to the building grid would be very nice.

 

Second wish would be angular handrailing, steelwork and open mesh-flooring.

 

It would be nice, if most of the attributes given to a line group could appaer in NavisWorks. I know it is possible to show attributes in Navis exported from other 3D tools, so it should work also for "inhouse" applications.

 

For material bill using the naming stile (sorry I use the german version there it´s called "Stile für Langbezeichnung") there is a need to get 2nd and 3rd-size information for reducers and tees by selecting them. Otherwise I have to set the description for each size by myself if I want to get second size and wall thickness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 85 of 200
Peter_Jansoone
in reply to: ybogdanov

OPEN CLOSE state for control valves, now it only works for valves (you can first create the valve as closed and then convert it to control valve, but then you can no longer change it !)

---------------------
Peter Jansoone
Plant Design software consultant at Arkance Systems Belgium
Message 86 of 200

Layer and Color settings:

 

We use the settings Assign layer by Spec and Assign color by Layer. I need to be able to set the color of the layer is this dialog as well, therefore when it creates the new layer it also gives it the correct color.

 

At the moment it creates a new layer with the spec name but sets the color to white, this means I either have to have the layers already present in the drawings or set the color afterwards.

Message 87 of 200
blorich
in reply to: ybogdanov

I do not know if this has been mentioned yet or not, but to allow us to Produce  Production ISO's and Exports to PCF's by more than line number. It would be nice to be able to run  by service, size, etc....   This will allow us to export all our high pressure steam lines into one model so we can give it to our stress for them to run a full stress on it. With some programs they cannot combine lines, and it makes their jobs harder.

Message 88 of 200
blorich
in reply to: blorich

Another I forgot to mention would be drip pan elbows.   Also to be able to put in a flex hose and have it be all "bendy" looking.  

 

I know I can make all these custom parts and still have it work, just would be nice to have.

Message 89 of 200
PatrickByrne
in reply to: blorich

Cutback Elbows:

 

On the isometric instead of saying that it is a cutback elbow show the angle instead. This gives us the option of showing the angle on the isometric but not in the material list.

Message 90 of 200
PatrickByrne
in reply to: PatrickByrne

I was really surprised this was still a problem in Plant 3D 2013. The work arounds are below but we should not have to do a work around. Basically when I use the Route pipe (PlantPipeAdd) or Line to pipe (PlantConvertLineToPipe) commands I want Plant 3D to follow the route I have selected or the points I have picked and add a cutback elbow when the elbow is non-standard.

 

If we had a Mitre command, I could use that if we need to Mitre the pipe.

 

Bends between 89.9 and 84 degrees:

For example a pipe falling at 3 degrees and dropping vertical. Using the Line to Pipe it will draw the pipe and bends, but the bends are incorrect and are drawn in at 90 degrees instead of 87 degrees.  The danger here is that it does not show up as a problem.

The way around this is to set the variable PLANTSLOPETHRESHOLDANGLE variable to 0 and use the Route Pipe command.

 

Bends between 90.1 and 96 degrees:
For example going from the sump to a distribution box, we have a 3 degree fall on the line so it drains back to the sump, therefore when it goes into the box it has a 93 degree cutback elbow. After getting feedback from Bruce Trevena the only way to do this is a use the Pipe Bend command, I have yet to test this but believe that would need to know the angle before adding the bend.

Message 91 of 200
PatrickByrne
in reply to: PatrickByrne

Stub flange:

We use a lot of poly pipe with stub flanges and backing rings. I don’t mind having to select the backing ring to put them in the model but if I later erase the pipe it should not erase the stub flange as well. They are actual items that would be better treated like a WN flange and not a connector.

In reality they can be welded back to back and this should be allowed in Plant 3D.

Message 92 of 200

Usage of cutt back elbows in the line-to-pipe command do not depend on PLANTSLOPETHRESHOLDANGLE variable or on the activation of cutt-back.

The angle from which cutt back elbows are used in the lien-to-pipe is set in DefaultConnectorsConfig.xml (in your project's root folder).

Look in the section <Joint Name="Buttweld"> for

 

<SlopeTolerance>3</SlopeTolerance>

 

and set the value to 1/2 of the maximum angle value that works without cutt back.

 

Set it to 0.1 to have no cutt backs (0 would place no elbows ....)

 

see attached file with some samples . the blue pipes have cutt back elbows

---------------------
Peter Jansoone
Plant Design software consultant at Arkance Systems Belgium
Message 93 of 200

Thank you for the cutback information, I will check it out. This is the first time somebody has been able to give me a solution, not even Autodesk subscription support could help.

Message 94 of 200
Gabriel.N
in reply to: ybogdanov

As I was saying in another topic, if Autodesk wants to be a serious competitor to AVEVA PDMS, which dominates the Brazilian market (because of Petrobras) and worldwide, it must also invest in the 3D performance, and be able to handle more congested and large models.

 

Orbit, PAN, Zoom, Move Pipe Arrangements, all that is Direful.

 

I think it is more than acceptable to invest in hardware than spend time of the modeler waiting for the software to process. The last workstation I bought cost about a month's salary of a modeler. In other words leave the workforce waiting is much more expensive.

 

There are two technologies that everybody is using: GPU and Multiprocessing (cores and threads).

 

Staying in the stone age is unacceptable.

 

Please Autodesk, hear us.

Message 95 of 200
dave.wolfe
in reply to: Gabriel.N

Honestly, this isn't something the Plant team can truly address. They can make the 3d objects more efficient, but the 3d graphics still comes from AutoCAD...so Plant can only be as good as AutoCAD. 

 

Until AutoCAD can update the graphics engine, break your models down using xrefs, and use Navisworks heavily.  You can be a very effective modeler while not spending exorbitant amounts of money.

Dave Wolfe
Isaiah 57:15



Tips and Tricks on our blog: ASTI blog
EXPERT ELITE MEMBER
Plant 3D Wish list
Message 96 of 200
Gabriel.N
in reply to: dave.wolfe

That is not a solution, just we doing our best with we have.

In 2014, they could change that.

Message 97 of 200
Gabriel.N
in reply to: ybogdanov

Yet about the 3D performance.

 

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.

http://vimeo.com/44501042

 

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."

Message 98 of 200
dave.wolfe
in reply to: Gabriel.N

My comments were to explain where AutoCAD is.  Clearly, AutoCAD needs a better 3D graphics engine, and with today's technology there are tons of easy graphic modelers out there.  However, for Autodesk it is a bigger issue that that.  Not only do they have to make sure the 3D graphics works well, but 2D graphics as to be just as good (which surprisingly is harder).  Also, their implementation of a 3D graphics engine has to include as few changes as possible for all the developers that write products based on AutoCAD.  

 

The reason I made the comments is because for the most part, the Plant development does really control the graphics...AutoCAD does, so posting that we need a better graphics engine doesn't really help anyone here...we just all agree.  I really doubt that you'll seen any other product within the same dollar range as plant that has better graphics and is as comprehensive. 

 

Most people have learned to put up with the graphics, because they can still justify the low cost of Plant compared to the amount of time saved and construction issues averted. Yes the design process would be smoother...but there is still a valid argument for the amount of money and time saved now.

Dave Wolfe
Isaiah 57:15



Tips and Tricks on our blog: ASTI blog
EXPERT ELITE MEMBER
Plant 3D Wish list
Message 99 of 200
Gabriel.N
in reply to: PatrickByrne

I think justify the situation of the software gives Autodesk a certain comfort, while we supposed to be pressing them for a change.


There are several 3D software in diverse areas that are cheaper than the Plant 3D, not specifically in this area, probably due to lack of interest.

 

If this is a Wish List AutoCAD to Plant3D 2014, I must emphasize this issue, even though it seems obvious.

And even it is been obvious, I did not notice yet any intention of finally change this situation.

 

Claiming that this software is cheaper and therfore it does not have a good 3D performance, seems a lame excuse.

After all we're talking about AutoCAD, and this indeed is the most poupular general CAD software since always.

 

Forgive me if  in some point I may seem rude, it is not my intention. This will be probably a translation mistake.

Message 100 of 200
raytbolton
in reply to: ybogdanov

Pants don't fly

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report

”Boost