we're investing big money not becuase we can produce nice looking 3D
models. although i must admit its a breeze using either Itergraph or
Bentleys. We're investing because its the only sensible way to
maintain our ISO certification, comply with the OSHA PSM, increase
our productivity and leverage technology to improve our bottom line.
How and why? what we're really after in managing and controlling
tech docs and work flow is the built-in intelligence found in the
PDS and Planspace software. Take this out and its just another CAD
program.
- In PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com, "Steve McKenzie" <Mechproj@x>
wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> it appears you have "stumbled" onto a way for this group to pay
its bills.
> Plenty of CAD resource and plenty of market. We supply, for a
price,
> passive interactive 3D models, according to vendors drawings, of
equipment
> which the vendor then includes as part of his sales package. The
vendor pays
> for the model, and assumes liability. Is this your drift? If so
10/10 and
> thank heavens I have absolutely no CAD ability whatsoever.
>
> Strike while the irons hot.
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve McKenzie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Bowers [mailto:pbowers@p...]
> Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 10:57 PM
> To: PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [PipingDesign] 3D CAD Equipment Models
>
>
> Thanks for the input, CV, great comments. PDS and PDMS are the
Ferraris of
> plant design, and from what I've heard, those that use them would
never even
> consider an AutoCAD-based solution.
>
> But companies that cannot afford the large up-front
purchase/rental and
> maintenance (I.E., specialized support personnel) costs of these
programs
> are not likely to use them. They are just too complicated and
expensive to
> acquire. These are programs for "the big boys" only, the companies
that can
> afford to spend the bucks.
>
> ACAD-based solutions, on the other hand, are quite comparatively
affordable
> and there is a huge user base out there (PDS/PDMS is pretty much a
closed
> shop). Even the lowest level Pentium4 or AMD Athlon chip with
enough
> inexpensive RAM and a decent graphics card can now run AutoCAD in
3D quite
> easily. Yes, I know that AutoCAD and MS Windows have their
limitations.
>
> In particular, I'm thinking about smaller consulting firms that
bid on
> projects (or upgrades to existing facilities) but are shut out
because of
> "incompatible software".
>
> Paul
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gang Cvg" <cvg_gang@y...>
> To: <PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [PipingDesign] 3D CAD Equipment Models
>
>
> > Dear Paul,
> > I have over 34 years of experience and am attached to
> > a detailed plant model engineering consultancy
> > organization catering to the hydrocarbon sector
> > (essentially refineries). We are in the business of
> > designing 3D plant models and extract all the required
> > working deliverables, like GADs, isometrics and MTOs
> > in 2D formats. During the last 7 years we have
> > executed more than a dozen processing plants through
> > this route. Our system is Intergraph's PDS (Plant
> > Design System). Here, the piping engineering
> > department, to which I belong, caters to almost all
> > the 3D modelling activities, starting from the
> > foundations, underground piping and equipments to the
> > above ground piping and on-line instruments, including
> > pipe supports. Our clients are quite happy with the
> > outcome and the result is that we are loaded with jobs
> > slightly beyond our dispensing capabilities.
> > PDS supports all the needs to a great extent.
> > regarding off-spec items, a thorough customization
> > exercise has to be taken up in the beginning. Then the
> > database takes care of the items and all get accounted
> > for in the final download of material take off. Our
> > judgement is that this system is adequate for our
> > needs. It need a responsible person to do the
> > administration of the project in the PDS set-up.
> > There is equally powerfull software called PDMS
> > serviced by CADCENTRE also available in the market. We
> > had done some evaluation of this software as well.
> > To begin with, we had Autoplant, which was
> > subsequently discarded due to various reasons. It is
> > rather difficult for Autoplant (Rebis) to support a
> > very large database which a plant demands.
> > Please give a thought to what I have mentioned and
> > decide your course of action. Lining up a third party
> > to do the detailing work needs a dynamic connectivity
> > (leased line) of the central database at the home
> > office as well as at the agency's office. Often this
> > may end up in sharing the intellectual property.
> > Handling the revisions in due course of engineering
> > also needs attention.
>
> > --- Paul Bowers <pbowers@p...> wrote:
> > > Is anyone aware of a third party company that
> > > creates and sells 3D models of
> > > process equipment?
> > >
> > > I've only worked with Rebis, which has a package
> > > option with which designers
> > > can customize various parameters of common equipment
> > > (centrifugal pumps,
> > > tanks, towers/reboilers, etc.) to create a model
> > > that can be inserted into
> > > the overall model. The piping connections have
> > > "connectivity" built-in, so
> > > that the finished model "knows" the spec of the
> > > connection and when running
> > > piping up to the nozzle, it auto-connects and
> > > returns an error message if
> > > the pipe spec doesn't match with the equipment spec.
> > > This is fine for the
> > > more common pieces one sees in process plants, but
> > > equipment used in pulp
> > > and paper or mining operations (for example) don't
> > > fit into the available,
> > > customizeable components. This means that these
> > > elements have to be created
> > > in straight 3D AutoCAD by a fairly proficient
> > > modeller - who may or may not
> > > be a piping/mechanical person - and the end result
> > > has no "connectivity".
> > >
> > > It would seem to be worthwhile for equipment
> > > manufacturers to provide these
> > > models themselves, but maybe it's seen as not being
> > > cost-effective. After
> > > all, a process engineer is not going to spec a piece
> > > of equipment purely
> > > based on whether it has a CAD model available. And
> > > for a third-party company
> > > to expend the time, effort and money also seems to
> > > be a non-starter, as such
> > > models would likely be easily copied without having
> > > to pay the developer.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> Discussion List sponsor: Texas Flange - a good source for
information on
> industrial flanges, all they ask is for referrals for designs they
help
> with.
> 877-610-8924.
> www.texasflange.com
> =====================================================
> unsubscribe: PipingDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> =====================================================
> Somebody email this guy: RAMESH@A...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Fri Dec 06 22:27:00 2002