Link Vault with Plant 3D and Autocad P&ID

[tserson]

My company is currently trying to link Autocad P&ID with the Plant 3D. Not validate but have them linked so all the information stored in the P&ID such as tank capacity, tag, voltage, etc. is passed onto the Plant 3D model. We are also trying have these properties imported from Vault.

• My ideas would be create a way for P&ID data to populate the Plant 3D model
• create a better interface to import data into the P&ID from Vault

[RickFrance]

In my opinion, the better solution would be to have Plant and SQL using the same data tables and fields in SQL.

In other words if you are looking at the Properties for a Tank in P&ID you are looking at the same Properties for the same Tank in Plant 3D because it is the same data in SQL. That way there is no passing info back and forth between P&ID and Plant because they are looking at the same info - no need to Validate data just whether they are both in the P&ID and the Model. You change an MFG in Plant - it's changed in P&ID and vice versa.

This is the way Revit and Inventor works (just not with SQL) and this is the way we need Plant & P&ID to work in my opinion. 

[tserson]

That is a great idea my only concern is that when my company design a mine and are in feasibility we only want to model pipe larger than, say 3" but we want to have all our lines in our P&ID's.

[RickFrance]

Then either mark the small bore piping as Ignore in the Validation when it tells you it sees a 2" Pipe in the P&ID that is not in the Model but then you would be marking all the small bore pipe, valves and fittings as Ignore.

So Better Yet

Autodesk adds to the Validation Settings under 3D Piping - "Ignore Small Bore Piping of <?> or less in P&ID

with <?> being a user defined number.

[dgorsman]

Flow sheet <=> model validation for piping is a good idea in concept.  But in execution it has always fallen flat for a variety of reasons, the main one being the extra time required for "proper" use of the P&ID program isn't available at deadlines resulting in P&IDs being finished in a semi-intelligent or even fully-dumb state to meet the project schedule.

Kinda-sorta on board for common data for equipment, but it's not uncommon for flow sheets and models to have different data requirements.

[dsl145]

---

re: dgorsman

I would agree that most companies that have a tight deadline aren't going to try and get all the proper things of the program setup to meet a deadline, but it's also pretty dumb that Autodesk doesn't even have the option available for those that want to properly take the time. Having companies buy an add-on package from a third-party vendor isn't a solution.

Whether it's a linked SQL or a single SQL that's reference by both programs; the goal is to only have to enter the data into ONE spot and not have to duplicate all the data manually. 

[RickFrance]

No one says you have to validate all the time especially in the event of a deadline, but it is nice to have that option when you are ready to run that type of check.

However, if both sides of the program were using the same tables and fields, there would be no need to validate and sync up data since it is one and the same.

That would render validation to be nothing more than - Pipe Line 6"-CS150-PW-1001 is in your P&ID but not in the model and Valve V-1001 is in the model but not in the P&ID.

Plus if it using the same tables, you change the valve from a gate to a ball valve in the model - don't even touch the P&ID - it is already changed - and if the P&ID's are going to be truly Spec Driven as started in 2017.1 Update, then change it to a Butterfly in the P&ID then based on the Spec it should be able to make the same change in the model.

Like I said - I can do this in Revit and Inventor. SQL is even more powerful so it should be able to be accomplished in Plant & P&ID.

[tserson]

Yes that is exactly what my company thought Plant 3D would do, make a change in the model change the P&ID and vice versa.

[dgorsman]

Guys, I've been around this block more than one time with multiple software packages.  As I said, a good idea in theory but it's always fallen flat in execution.  Just relating my own experiences in the real world; as always YMMV.

[cbenner]

I'm not sure where this discussion is going because I don't use Plant 3D, just the P&ID.  And I find it completely unacceptable that there STILL is no way to push a Vault property value (such as REVISION for pete's sake) down to either the project or a drawing.  This is madness and it makes me dread the day that I have to tell the boss we are not using the product that we paid for a three year subscription of.... because it doesn't work!

[pcoleman]

Hi Chris

It is possible to push properties from Vault to a Plant Project. Though this needs to be carefully actioned. e.g. there is a command that needs to be run everytime a property is modified within the Vault Client. It is: PLANTVAULTRECONCILEPROJECT

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad-plant-3d/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2018/...

[KenFoyster]

Over 2 years later and no response from Autodesk.

The current relationship between P&ID's and 3D models means that in the real world they will remain separate. Agree with all the links and the transfer of properties/metadata should be able to be linked/associated anytime and bi-directional. It might as well be 2 applications.