These new import and export table buttons are nice but they are pretty limited.  They should not be the same icon They silent fail (no user feedback) when your table isnt formatted correctly They force you to make a new list but it would be nice to add to an existing list Theres no way to make the new list a shared list between 3D and P&IDs The only way to name the list is by naming the tab in Excel (only figured this out by trial and error) but it would be nice to be able to rename any of these lists including the ones you import from excel   Show More

Hello everyone,   since we are becoming more and more digital and a hard copy is now also out of date, an interactive PDF would be very useful and worthwhile. For example, the competition already does it so that the PDF export looks like this: 1. when you hover over an icon in the PDF, for example a pump, all the information available (what you have chosen before) in the parts list is displayed. Such as manufacturer, motor power, frequency, etc. It is also freely editable which information should be displayed in the PDF when you hover over the symbol and which should not. 2. It would also be nice if page links could be created for the arrows of pipelines that continue on other pages in the pdf and not just in the system. For example, line X continues on sheet 18. If you now click on the written "sheet 18" in the arrow in the PDF, you jump directly to page 18. I think these additions would be the right way forward and away from paper 😉 Conserving resources should be the order of the day. Show More

P3D,    I’m currently facing an issue with insulation in P3D. For piping, the insulation works fine, but when insulating flanges and valves, it doesn’t follow the correct outer diameter (OD) of the flange — instead, it uses the pipe OD, which is incorrect. I understand there’s a function for full/partial insulation, but that doesn’t resolve the issue. What’s needed is for P3D to apply insulation based on the actual flange and valve OD, not the pipe OD. This issue has been ongoing since 2020, and I hope it can finally be resolved by 2027. It’s a critical feature for accurate clash detection. Without it, designers — especially juniors — might assume there are no clashes, which leads to problems later in the workflow. Insulation volume takes up physical space and must be represented accurately. For valves, a helpful improvement would be to add an option to insulate them using box-style insulation, as done in the field. Ideally, when clicking on a valve, a pop-up could ask for the insulation volume (length, diameter, height) so users can define it manually when needed. Another long-missing feature is equipment insulation. Since 2020, there has been no option to apply insulation to equipment in P3D, which is a major gap. I’m currently using both CADWorx and P3D. Both are great tools, but P3D would be even more powerful if it improved its insulation functionality. CADWorx already includes these features, and adding them to P3D would make a big difference in real-world project execution. Show More

It would be great if conditional statements would be available in the calculated properties in a similar way as to what is available in AutoCAD Architecture / MEP. https://www.autodesk.com/support/technical/article/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/To-use-conditional-statements-in-formulas-for-annotation-with-leader-in-AutoCAD-Architecture-or-MEP.html   A lot of companies/sites use classifications where the value is dependent on some other property. For example, the Equipment code of pumps is changed based on the size of the pump. Smaller pumps are PS, larger pumps are XSP, etc... One way to solve this would be to allow conditional statements in calculated properties. So the values could be hardcoded. A nicer way to solve this would be to allow the user to create a 'mapping list' from inside Plant 3D. This mapping list would have 3 columns' (Description, KeyValue (unique), MapValue) Ideally mapping lists functions would be available in the calculated properties: fe. Map (LookupProperty, ListName) This would return the MapValue from the denoted list where/if the referenced property has the same value as the KeyValue in the list.  Such a setup can be achieved with the current mapped properties and external databases, but those properties are not available for reports or for other calculated properties and work poorly with tags etc. It can also offer a workaround for the most commonly requested type of conditional statement and prevents having users to hardcode a mapping list. Show More

Hi,   I'm looking to create a custom component that is a saddle tapping valve such as in this link:   https://ntgplastik.com/en/products/product/ef-tapping-valve   Other similar saddles/tapping components, i've created as block based 'olets' and this seems to work successfully. However, for this to be a valve, it can only be an inline component.   Can a component that allows this interaction be created?   Or even better, can the property that determines placement (branching/tapping vs inline) be completely separated from the property that determines function (valve, etc)? Show More

Hello, I would like to see the 2025 Spec-Editor back. In the current version, I am missing feedback on whether the catalog or the pipe class has been saved. In addition, the component filtering is no longer as nice as before. I can only filter one column. And in the German version, the handling of decimal separators is unfortunately quite buggy. Regards Laurenz Show More

When creating a Calculated Property it would be nice to have a Function for If, Then, Else and some Operators for Comparison.   For instance, Creating a Calculated Property For InsulationText defined as:   If (InsulationThickness > 0) Then { InsulationThickness || '" ' || InsulationSpec } Else { '' }   On a Piping Group with Insulation Thickness set to 2 and Insulation Spec set to H450, then InsulationText would be 2" H450   If Insulation Thickness was not defined, InsulationText would be an empty string. Show More

 The MATCH TO EXISTING PIPELINE feature would work like Match Layer by setting line number, spec, size, etc., saving time, reducing errors, and boosting profitability for large projects. Show More

In Project Setup there is a section for P&ID DWG Settings and Plant 3D DWG Settings which correspond to two separate databases in SQL as well. This made sense pre-2017 when there were two products, but that is no longer the case. There should be one single database for everything. Using a pump as an example, Pump P-1000 on the P&ID should be the exact same pump P-1000 in the Model PERIOD. All Properties that are on the P&ID pump such as Flow Capacity, Dynamic Head, Voltage, Phase, Frequency, etc. should also be on the same pump in the model. If I change the Flow Capacity on the Model, it should change on the P&ID and vice-versa because it is the same exact pump and data in the database.   I should not need a Service List in P&ID and a Service List in P3D - because it is one database and therefore one single list. In Report Creator I should see all the Equipment in both the P&ID and the Model even if a tank is in the Model and not on a P&ID yet or vice-versa. One database, one data for all.   Is that not how BIM is supposed to work? The only thing that keeps it from working in Plant 3D is the fact that the two databases have not been combined and since the software was combined in to one in 2017, then there is no reason whatsoever the database cannot be combined today. I should be able to go to a Gate Valve, see all the the Properties regarding that valve as well as the P&ID Symbol preview and setup with a single setup of the Tag format plus the P&ID Valve Annotation as well as the Orthographic Annotation. All data whether that valve is in the P&ID, the Model or Both.   No need for P&ID Object Mapping - they are already the same objects. No need for Pipe Spec Object Mapping - they are the same object. No need for Validation of Property Mis-Matches - they are the same object. No need for duplicate information and entries - they are the same object. No need for separate reports - they are the same object.   One Single Place for Settings. One Single Database. One True BIM Solution. Simplified Project Management with Fewer Opportunities For Potential Mistakes. It is time to merge the settings and the database together and make Plant 3D the undisputed Standard in the Process Industry. Show More

Please add flexible hose components to spec editor & isometric symbols Show More

In other software solutions, there is a very useful feature that allows users to create several drawings at once. Users can specify the number of drawings and their discipline (e.g., INS for Installation). For instance, if 10 drawings are needed, the system automatically generates them as INS-0001, INS-0002, ..., INS-0010. This streamlined process is a considerable time-saver for project teams. In our firm, it is common practice to create individual drawings for different floors or areas within a project. Introducing a "Create Multiple DWGs" feature in Plant 3D would vastly improve our workflow, enabling a project manager or user to generate multiple drawings at once. This function would greatly facilitate the assignment of drawings for specific floors or areas to different team members. Additionally, it ensures coherent and sequential numbering of drawings, thereby maintaining organization and consistency throughout the project. This feature would bring several benefits: Efficiency: Rapidly creating multiple drawings with automatic numbering saves time and effort. Consistency: Ensures drawings are number-sequenced, aiding in better organization. Project Management: Simplifies the task of assigning drawings to various team members, improving coordination and project tracking. I strongly believe that incorporating this feature in Plant 3D will greatly enhance user productivity and project management capabilities. Show More

I understand that this conversion is not offered by Autodesk. Approaching the support for both plant 3D and Navis works. I realize they work in silos. Request Autodesk to invest some effort to use Gpt or GitHub to make this conversion possible for users. Show More

It is widely used practice to make the insulation transparent in Federated model. When Plant 3D dwg model is federated using ACC Model coordination this is not possible, since ACC cannot read transparency from the original file for some reason. Please add this option. Show More

There is no way to create a fastener in a catalog that uses block-based content. It would be nice to have this ability, and I'm not sure why it doesn't already exist. This is also true for the 2026 version of Plant 3D. Show More

The idea came from this forum post: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/autocad-plant-3d-forum/ask-to-replace-tag/m-p/13209722#M72461 Sometimes when I assign a TAG, it asks me to choose another one or give the TAG to this piece of equipement. That is good, but rare.   But otherwise it just displaying an error saying the tag is already used, which is a very limiting way of showing this data. You don't know which is the other component. A dialog box could open up here to let you fix the scenario.   There are basically three scenario's The tag of the original component is correct, you change the tag for the current component The tag of the original component is wrong, you change the tag for the original component and can then confirm the chosen tag for the current component. The tag is not used by a component and only exists in the database tag registry. You have to clean up the database. I think it would make the software more user friendly and make it feel more powerful if you had an interface or dialog box at that point that allowed you to edit both tags. It would allow you to change the existing component's tag and continuing with yours, but it would also help with catching erronuous tags in existing components and general understanding of a project if you can actually see which component has the conflicting tag. I can see a lot of *Oooh, Right ...* kind of moments to be had. There's also the case where a tag can exist in the PnPTagRegistries table of the processpower database after Plant 3D experienced a crash, but there is no actual component with that tag in the database. It will cause the above error, but if you don't know what's happening it can be hell to figure out how to fix it.  The dialog box would be able to check and see that the tag only exists in the tag registry but has no component linked to it and would give the user the option to either remove it from the registry, or reassign it to the current component or pick an untagged component of the same class to link it to. Show More

Double-clicking a component in the Spec Editor tab of Autodesk Spec Editor brings up the Spec Property Editor window displaying all available sizes for a given part. Checking / unchecking the box in the Remove From Spec column allows you to set which specific sizes of that part are available / unavailable for project use. However, the boxes can only be checked one at a time. This can become a tedious process, particularly when it comes to parts like reducers, reducing tees, etc. where there are potentially hundreds of size combinations listed. It's often the case that only a limited size range of a particular part is specified for use in a given pipe specification and all sizes outside of that range are not applicable. It would be a welcome and time-saving feature to update this field such that selecting multiple rows and then clicking in one of the boxes would then check / uncheck the box for all selected rows. This change could make it so that 3-4 mouse clicks would accomplish what currently requires 100+ clicks in certain cases. Alternatively, a right-click context menu offering two options could be used to accomplish the same thing (e.g. "Check All Selected Rows" or "Uncheck All Selected Rows").       Show More

The Plant 3d Spec Editor has not been updated in the 10 years that I've been using it.   It needs a complete overhaul.    1) Catalog editor - Custom properties should be able to be added easily across component types and part categories. 2) In the Spec editor we should be able to search and filter by any data field in the component Catalogs, as well as customise and save our default search settings within the UI. (including all port data) 3) Ability to customise the fields in the Advanced Editing Table. (including all port data) 4) "Find in Catalog" button to Actually find in Catalog editor UI. 5) Ability to Split Spec and Catalog Editors on Different windows / screens. 6) Ability to split the Advanced Editing Table onto Different window / screen.    Regarding 1,2,3) The current UI restricts us to only 12 field columns.  Size Range Long Description (Family) Short Description Material Material Code End Type Facing Pressure Class Schedule Design Std Design Pressure Factor Manufacturer If we go to the trouble of adding "Flange Std" data to every valve or flange in our catalogs, when we want to add particular components to the spec we are unable search or filter by the "Flange Std" in the spec editor UI to differentiate them and bring them into the spec.  This simple limitation is forcing P3D administrators to put multiple fields of data into the 12 searchable fields above. OR if they see the fundamental problem with putting multiple data into single data fields, they may not bother to fill in the Flange Std data in the first place.    Either way, the end result is Plant 3d BIM data being either corrupted or lacking detail, simply because of the users requirement to work around the software's limitations and restrictions.  Whether Plant 3d users acknowledge this or not. I see an overhaul of the Spec Editor as fundamental and extremely important for the future of Plant 3d. Why?  Because the world is moving at light speed towards connected data. In order to connect data to other data it needs to... a) Exist b) Be consistent. c) Be Clean   If Autodesk keep preventing their customers from achieving these fundamental data requirements, simply because they don't want to spend any money improving something that hasn't been updated for more than 10 years,  I have no doubt Autocad Plant 3d Software will be overtaken by competition very soon.    Show More

Every time I open Plant 3D, it opens the project I was last using, even if I closed the project prior to shutting down. This is a terrible UX, as many projects I work with are very large Collaboration projects. Once I start P3D it takes many minutes to refresh and connect, and I have to wait until it's done, even though typically I don't want to be in that project at all.   I would prefer to be able to set Plant 3D to start up with no project loaded into Project Manager, and then choose which project to open. Show More

Currently when an equipment item is selected in Navisworks, the entire equipment item is selected including the associated nozzles. The nozzles on the equipment item cannot be individually selected.   In some cases only the nozzle needs to be selected to quickly see perhaps the nozzle tag or just the properties on the nozzle. Just knowing the selected nozzle tag is helpful when identifying what it is connecting to in the connecting pipe line run.   Would like to see in the future that Plant 3D equipment nozzles can be selected individually. Show More