Just some jumbled thoughts:
Yeah, COADE's CADWorx looks pretty good at this time [1], cost and capability-wise (this conclusion after I spent about 2 total, disconnected, non hands-on experimentation hours of research). I originally was introduced to "3D CAD" for piping with Rebis' AutoPLANT running on ACAD, and it was pretty easy to grasp and use effectively. Later, I used CADWorx and didn't kile it, but that was in a poor working environment (I don't bitch and tell about crappy companies I've worked for) so I'm sure that played a major role.
Another possible advantage of the COADE product is that it's done by piping stress engineers (Caesar) and they promise that you can talk directly to the programmers if you have a problem. Whether that's true or just marketing, I don't know. Warning: downloading their demo modifies the original acad.pgp file and the way to undo it is not immediately clear (I'm a keyboard command/shortcut type, not an icon-clicker).
It's fairly surprising how many 3D CAD piping programs are out there. Surely the core concepts are licensed from somewhere (anyone remember the lawsuit that Rebis won?), since there are only a few effective, common-sense ways to route piping that mimick the old way of piping design.
My perception is that most users/designers function within a sphere of understanding. I.E., "PDS is best because I know how it works, everything else is crap." Or, "AutoPLANT is the best because of the TCO and can do 95% of what PDS can do at half the cost. And I already know how to use it." It seems to all be about which artificial pencil works best and how well your multi-thousand dollar pencil interprets your intentions.
I'm slowly accumulating data and plan to post a comparison chart of all available 3D piping programs. I doubt I'll get many responses from the vendors.
Paul
[1] Although their website says they're working on an equipment modeler, even though they claim to have one already built-in.
> I've been a fad and doing 3d for over 10 years. I cant stand going
back to
> autocad and never got good at it anyway.
> I love SW (but Routing is weak for piping , great for add on strings
eg
> hydraulics, pnematics etc), Cadworx is great but has a learning curve
and
> needs specs set up. Ive used rebis lots and prefer cadworx by far. PDs
and
> Microstation suck in my opinion. far from intuitive. The formats are a
> disaster in an integrated file transfer world. (only export to _xt
> (parasolid) or IGEs (crude.)and even then under great duress with
Bentley.
> They dont want you doing transfers (talk about head in the sand).
Turbocat
> and datacad are just cons. Claims that just arent lived up to.
> Ive tried many (all I could find) ducting layout/drafting programs and
dont
> like any of them.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Bowers [mailto:pbowers@pipingdesign.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 6:44 PM
> To: <a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=7epOmZIWpnPETG5wZEXj_-atrz84o50KJaTjfyqoUa6YQrU3YEiK3djoDNWWqhxcPVuYf8yFe3efgA8gb6eE9IymZBFCAw">PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com</a>
> Subject: [PipingDesign] 3D CAD Piping Software
>
>
> Does anyone have any comments/opinions on what is currently on the
> market? And relative cost of use?
>
> I am currently bashing my head against a wall doing 2D piping in
> AutoCAD. Might as well draw by hand, as far as I'm concerned.
Received on Fri Feb 27 19:39:00 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 04 2008 - 11:40:32 EST