Community
Hi Abilio,
As I read through your posts, I am wondering if you are speaking only of AutoCAD Plant 3D performance, or if you are also talking about AutoCAD's performance. If you are noticing a performance issue with AutoCAD, please let me know and I can connect with the AutoCAD team.
Thanks,
Eileen Foran
Autodesk
Eileen Foran
Community Program Manager
Autodesk Plant Solutions
Autodesk, Inc.
.
As I read through your posts, I am wondering if you are speaking only of AutoCAD Plant 3D performance, or if you are also talking about AutoCAD's performance. If you are noticing a performance issue with AutoCAD, please let me know and I can connect with the AutoCAD team.
Thanks,
Eileen Foran
Autodesk
Eileen Foran
Community Program Manager
Autodesk Plant Solutions
Autodesk, Inc.
.
I believe PDMS is database-backed, unlike Plant3D. This provides *very* fast management of the large volumes of data typically seen in overall plant models, along with a number of nice management tools for verification and mass changes. The downside of this is a cooresponding increase in overhead needed to manage those databases and a decrease in the flexibility to do radically different things. This makes it good for very large projects but not so much for the smaller, specialized ones. I would like to see some speed improvements but without running off a database (or one of those really big "aha!" software design moments) a large project will never run quickly in Plant3D.
After all, its all about choosing the right tool for the job - rubber mallet, claw hammer, or 10lb sledge?
After all, its all about choosing the right tool for the job - rubber mallet, claw hammer, or 10lb sledge?
----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.
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... 
----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.
Forums Links
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.
Post to forums
