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

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

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

A nice feature to have for Plant 3D would be a command to Match the Elevation of existing piping.   For example, you have an existing piece of pipe and you are adding new piping from a different location that needs to connect to the existing piping, however if the elevation is off by a small amount (say  1/8") you will get the "Piping - Cannot Determine Autoroute" dialog box. It would be a huge time saver to be able to select the Elevation Grip or another command on the ribbon or right-click menu and then "Match Elevation". Select the other pipe and it adjusts the elevation of the current piping to the exact elevation of the pipe selected to match.   This feature already exists in Civil 3D so there is no reason it cannot be added to Plant 3D. 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

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

The current mechanism for checking parts in pipe specs against the catalog (Ctrl + K) brings up a list of all found instances of catalog parts that have been updated since they were added to the spec. There is an option to Update spec parts to match catalog parts or Do not update spec parts. Essentially an all or nothing option to update every part in the spec where a discrepancy was found, or update nothing.   However, it's often the case that, for example, one size of one part in a catalog needs a dimension corrected, e.g. you realize the face to face dimension of a 4" valve is wrong. So you make the correction to the 4" valve in your catalog and want to adopt the fix in your project pipe spec. However, if there are already other instances of that same part in your project models at various sizes - in this case, maybe there are some 6" and 8" instances of the same valve in the model -  I've been cautioned against simply removing the valve from the spec and re-adding it as that can potentially create issues with existing instances of the part in the model (perhaps something to do with the PnPGuid or some other potential issue). I'm not clear on what could go wrong, just that I've spoken with Autodesk support representatives have recommended not doing this.   It's also often the case that Ctrl + K will find part updates that you do not want to adopt in your spec for whatever reason. But, again, the only options are to update everything or update nothing.   It would be very useful to have a mechanism added where users can select which individual parts they want to update and which to exclude. For example, a check box beside each item on the list could address this:   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

The "Add to Selection" functions in AutoCAD Plant 3D operate as a dynamic menu rather than individual commands.   Example Selections: Right-click > Add to Selection > All Connected Parts Right-click > Add to Selection > Connected Path Between Selected Parts Right-click > Add to Selection > Connected Line Number Right-click > Add to Selection > Entire Line Number Right-click > Add to Selection > Spool Number Unfortunately, these functions are not listed in the Customize User Interface (CUI), making them inaccessible for customization. Despite being essential for daily pipe modeling tasks, users cannot assign shortcuts or macros to streamline their workflow. A common issue arises when modelers miss connectors (primarily weld dots) while performing commands or swapping line numbers. This leads to inconsistencies in pipe models, which can cause errors when generating isometric drawings. If these dynamic menu functions were accessible as individual commands, users could create macros and custom buttons, significantly improving modeling efficiency by reducing input time and minimizing errors.     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

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

We are facing an issue while mapping Control Valve 3D Spec with its P&ID.  We already did the options and all the process available for Mapping P&ID and 3D Spec in PROJECT SETUP but issue was still there. The issue is: When Clicking the LINE LIST, it shows the Control Valve in the list and when we are placing the same it finally opens a dialog box asking the SPEC and SIZE again. After selecting the same, we can be able to apply on the Pipes Easily. But it doesn't bring the Line Number and the Tag along with the valve which is an issue. Properties are missing. We need to Map Control Valve Exactly what we doing with other spec mapping with their P&ID. Show More

I believe that having the capability to add folders within the Spec Sheet would be very beneficial to sorting, navigating, and finding components. Currently, our Specs have a lot of components and is tedious to find components. If the folders can collapse and expand, that would be a great feature. Adjust font size would also allow the Spec Sheet Viewer to be smaller. Show More

The opportunity to select the Layer which is used by the Iso- Annotations (Message) would be greatly appreciated. It would improve tho overall workflow of isometrics. This goes for all Annotations not just the message.   Show More

When first dealing with Project Setup, I was woefully disappointed in the ability to create, manage, and work with Project Setup, Project Properties and Drawing Properties.  Here are some suggestions to greatly improve their usefulness:   1)   Properties appear in the Project Setup (and underlying Database Table) in the order in which they are created.   Give the ability to custom-order categories and properties (move up, move down).   1b)  When opening/viewing the document properties, order the categories and fields by the user defined order, not alphabetically.     2)  Give the ability to set a default value when creating a document.  2b) Make an option available to use CHAR(160) as default, which will display as a blank when inserted as a field instead of ####.   This would be particularly useful for revision history / reference documents fields that don't always have a value set and #### should not be displayed in the field.    Currently the only way to set a default/initial value is to manually set them for each field, or do an SQL UPDATE query directly against the database.     3)  Give the ability to set string-formats to enforce some standardization for each field.   i.e. number of characters, numbers only, characters only, alphanumeric, custom string formats (phone numbers, document numbering, etc.)   4)  Make Document Properties available in the data manager.   4b)  Make Document Properties available in AutoLISP / Visual LISP object model.       Show More

Per this article: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/autocad-plant-3d-forum/add-3d-model-of-steam-trap-as-piping-components/m-p/9762020   Requesting the addition of Steam Trap to the Miscellaneous category in the Catalog Editor.   @safia.mohamed022  @rajendra.prajapat  @Tomislav.Golubovic  @alexalvandi  @h_eger  @patpat79  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

As in Civil 3D, Plant 3D should use the Shared Reference Point Tool to help the integration with Navisworks, Revit and Civil 3D. As such, it could unify the Isometric and Orthographics coodination system. Show More

It would make sense to have an out-of-box KKS Industry Standards symbol library available in P&ID drawings in AutoCAD Plant 3D. Are there any plans for this at Autodesk? Show More