Single Settings and Database for P&ID and Plant 3D

[RickFrance]

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.

[h_eger]

@RickFrance ,

this functionality was rejected by the responsible product manager during the development of AutoCAD Plant 3D in 2008!!!

[RickFrance]

In 2008 P&ID was sold separately from Plant 3D so it had to be separate databases in order for it to function correctly. That is no longer the case since they combined P&ID with Plant 3D as one product in 2017. This functionality is now a must do in order to compete with other Plant software in todays market.

[Eugene05]

Maybe the next version should be enhanced by the Project setup collaboration between the Plant P&ID & Plant 3D.

[h_eger]

@RickFrance ,

unfortunately this is a misconception - it would of course have been possible to implement this in 2008 with just one configuration of Plant 3D and Plant P&ID, as we already had this functionality before the software used was sold to Autodesk, but as already written, the product manager at the time was against it (he came from AutoPlant) and they were never able to do this!

[h_eger]

@Eugene05 ,

well who believes in it I would be very happy if Autodesk would give in after 17 years.

[Eugene05]

I understand there is a different setup between P3D & P&ID as I said to enhance between the 2 setups. 

[h_eger]

@Eugene05 ,

no it would not be necessary to create 2 different setups between P&ID and 3D this would also be possible with one setup and more importantly only one database for P&ID and 3D so there would be 100% consistency control between P&ID and 3D.

[yheZJ9TB]

Correct, SSOT is the very basis of some of the Plant3D counterparts and the way it is handled here by Autodesk is just clunky.

[huhtima]

I would like to also say that this would be amazing if Autodesk would do that!

[johnbernard.asuncion]

Good idea, this will also keep track the items in P&ID and model, no need for Validation.

[Michiel_Valcke_GeoIT]

I understand that a one database system would be very complex (but not impossible) to implement. I don't think it is worth the effort, what users want is the possibility of having links between the tables of the different db's. This exists in a pseudo variety with the line list & validation functions and their corresponding settings in the project setup.  

What is missing is that there are no triggers in the database that see data being entered in one table and find the corresponding pid or p3d table to copy the data there.

To implement triggers on a db or software lvl like that becomes very complicated very fast because there are a lot of different scenarios that need to be accounted for. 

- you don't want circular references, so the user would have to specify if they want to go from pid to p3d or vice versa. And they would need to adhere to that choice.

- what needs to happen if a part does not exist in the corresponding db.

- what needs to happen if tags are not corresponding 

- do you want to be able to turn the feature on/off or switch db hierarchy 

- ...

I would also like to see this implemented, or at least have a more powerful link between db's. But i believe it is a huge development with limited returns.

[RickFrance]

I create, manage and work with SQL Databases literally everyday. I own and manage 5 websites since 1998 that are completely driven by the SQL data. It would be extremely simple to combine the data in to one database. The hard part is updating the code to look to the one database but in this case it would be a simple choice - update the P&ID side or the Plant side to be modified. It would be well worth the effort because it would make the software more powerful, user friendly, easier to manage and squelch all the complaints that the competitors software doesn't have these issues which would equate to an even greater share of the market.

However, your suggestion of just linking between tables would open the door for more complexity, less efficiency and more errors. I've tried that approach before on one particular website I own and it has caused the website to take 10 times longer to load a page than the others which use a single database. I am currently in the process of changing that particular website back to the single database system in between seasons for that reason. In no way am I saying that these databases are on the same level as Plant 3D and P&ID are, but the principle remains the same. A single database is a much better solution and more in line with the industry, technology and competition with Plant 3D making it the logical solution and in my opinion, the only solution.

[h_eger]

Thank you @RickFrance for your contribution. One SQL DB is always more efficient than many SQL DB's