We are having the same issues as the post above. We currently use Bentley and are testing Plant 3D. We also want to move to Plant 3D, but at what cost. The cost of the software is miniscule compared to losing a client because you can't get the project finished in time.
What we have found is that the performance is terrible. Just try xrefing a 30 meg drawing and time how long it takes to change views, 20-30 seconds, had no prior issues with Bentley running on top of AutoCad 2007 with 200 megs of Xrefs. Orbit, forget it, go get a cup of coffee and come back. I can send all kinds of files for the software developers to work with if they need to test it themselves.
We are running I7 Zeon based workstations with 18 gigs of ram. I have been an Autodesk user for 13 years and paid subscription up until 2007 when I got tired of looking at new software sitting on my shelf that I installed and unistalled due to the fact that the programs ran slower. The 3D performance issue with AutoCad based products is not new. We have all seen what happens when you use 3D orbit and the many fatal crashes that occur in Land Desktop, Map 3D, Civil 3D, AutoCad and now Plant 3D. Plant 3D should have not been released until the graphic engine was fixed.
Buying software is not like buying any other consumer product that if it doesn't work you can send it back for replacement or refund, your stuck with it hoping for the next patch.
I may sound a little angry, but i'm more dissapointed. I think that in time Plant 3D will be a great product, but at this time it's a sheep in wolfs clothing.
Hi, darryl_sharp
WELCOME TO MY WORLD!!!!
As you know AutoCAD IS NOT A 3D SOFTWARE ,I'm also 15 years AutoCAD user from Version 12 to 2011 I have never seen AutoCAD or AutoCAD based products perform well in 3D, it is getting slower in each version they release. Also the resources consumption is increasing in each version. I have a Plant 3D model that takes 1.5Gb of memory and each time I move around or pan the memory consumption keeps increasing up to 2Gb. Also each time I move, 3Dorbit or PAN I can take break for a coffee
I remember the explode command on older versions that hoes just a click, now in the current versions sometimes it takes 5 minutes to finishing the command.
I don't think you will see AutoCAD Plant 3D perform well in 3D in the next years, they can't have PDMS performance because AutoCAD uses a complete 3D/Files/Database approach. I can guarantee it doesn't meter what expensive graphic card you buy it will not help you, I have Nvidia FX 4600 and I have seen AutoCAD Plant 3D perform better on a Geforce Graphic Card.
Unfortunately for me 100% AutoCAD lover, and I'm complete honest here, if you need performance or you have large Plant Projects them AutoCAD Plant 3D is not for you.
I hope one day they can make AutoCAD plant 3D perform has good has PDMS
Buying software *is* unlike other consumer products. Check with your car dealer to see if you can have a 30 day free trial, with the possibility of another 30 day extension on top of that. And, until very recently, once that car was purchased the dealer wouldn't take it back either. Most of them won't, after a point. This is why trying it out is vitally important before laying out that kind of cash (car or software).
Me, I'm not disappointed in this software. Slow? Yes, much too slow. Difficult to use? Almost impossible. BUT I also recognize its also first generation software, so I don't expect them to hit a home run on their first step up to the plate. For most corporate users first generation software is completely unsuitable. It will always have bugs, along with limitations that are in place to speed up the development. No point in developing fancy options if you need most of your budget to get the core program functioning efficiently. Comparing it to software that has had generations of development across multiple releases of operating systems isn't really fair. Users have been a little spoiled over the past few years as "new" software has been released which is little more than upgrades to established products, leading to expectations of immediate perfection in every product, first time, every time.
AutoDesk is stepping into the design cycle at a bad point with this program. The yearly release cycle benefits established software the most, where they have had time to work out the major problems and now are in the process of adding a few new features or fine tuning existing ones. The short cycle allows them to get these new features and fixes to market quickly. A whole new software, though, needs major work done to its core programming during its initial stages which can look like product stagnation. With a fixed budget (or even a reduced one, with economic considerations) this leaves little room for developing the new features that make for attractive sales pitches. "We finally fixed the speed problems but we haven't gotten around to adding isometric views" doesn't read well to the executives who allocate funding.
Another cycle-related problem is the number of legacy models in place. Companies that have been using other software to create models are unlikely to switch to a different program if it renders all that legacy data unusable. Clients don't like it when a new EPCM is hired and has to redo entire models that it already has on file.
So, going forward, I think there are two major areas where the Plant3D team can make the most of their efforts at this early stage. The first is to push the program for multi-threading data processing capability. The application virtually begs for this development, which would directly improve speed. Push the platform as a test bed, if you have to. The second area addresses my last point above, which is dealing with legacy models. AutoDesk could gain a great deal of good will from the piping community by establishing an open platform-independant piping data system, likely as an XML schema. This would allow companies to more easily share models which will in turn make it much easier to adopt a newer program like Plant3D. Those that want to use the program will not be shut out of multi-company collaborations simply because "we can't use that type of model". If the standard is well thought out and well managed (volunteer commitee from industry with rotating chairpersons, probably) it will be easier for other software developers to adopt, getting over the whole don't-support-the-competitor stance.
And... thats lunch folks...
abilioramos,
As a (reasonably) long term PDMS user / admin person, I welcome you to the world of PDMS!
It will be a grind to learn the system - it operates a little differently to CAD based systems. It certainly has advantages, and speed is one of them, but it shouldn't be considered the nirvana of 3D systems. It can 'sing and dance' but only with a lot of customisation and good operators. Size is one thing it does handle well though. It will handle almost unlimited native PDMS content. Drawings will eventually slow down, but you seldom get any glitches or downtime due to crashing.
It was actually developed back in the 70's! So yes it is optimised, but yet still carries baggage. Some features in v12 are very smart, whereas others seem to be stuck in the nineties.
Happy modelling!
Hi abilioramos,
As a person who has used both PDMS and Plant 3D for real projects I should say that your company is doing you a favor not letting you get into the hassle and frustration of working with Autocad Plant 3D. I'm sure learning to work with a new software is not going to be easy but it would be far more easier than trying to the impossible, I mean sucessfully finishing a project in Plant 3D.
Regards
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.