Paul you speak to truth!
But I would like to clarify some points and in doing so I must let
it be known that I do work for COADE so I want that to be taken into
account by all that may be reading this post.
PDS are currently moving away from the Microstation platform and
going to SmartPlant.
PDMS have never been on any generic (AutoCAD, Microstaion) platform
but now have linked up with Autodesk to produce AutoCAD
deliverables. This month at Daratech in Houston they will be showing
their AutoCAD based P&ID product and for 2D deliverables from the 3D
model they will be showing 'Final Designer' (I think that is what it
is called) that will allow the creation of these deliverable and, as
i understand it, provide some bi-directionality with the model.
I have heard the same information about the backward compatibility
between SmartPlant and past PDS offerings. As for PDMS i would be
very surprised if compatibility will be lost with older jobs - PDMS
have always done a good job in that regard. Backward compatibility
may not mean a lot to many people but could you imagine creating a
plant in a system and then not being able to access any of the
millions of $'s of design information that you have been investing
in? This is a sin.
Bently offer PlantSpace that for the Microstation platform and
AutoPLANT for the AutoCAD space. I did hear that these may be
bundled as there are few seats of PlantSpace in the market space
anyway. Maybe this will be a move to offer a Bentley Plant solution
instead and remove focus from the plattform that they work on - but
maybe those mambers of this forum that work for Bentley could
comment on that.
You are right that because Rebis no longer exists then they no
longer part of the Autodesk Developer Network (ADN). What this will
mean short or long term only time will tell. Bentley have brilliant
programmers. have lots of money and a loyal (& largest P&P) user
base that they are still serving - so who knows.
A Bentley stumble? Are COADE (we) counting on this? Not really. We
are just doing what we feel is best for the market. No one wins just
because others fail. If a sprinter wins a 100m dash in 20 seconds
because everyone else trips they should not have any pride in their
achievement. Likewise we are producing what we feel is the best out
there - we are not relying on others to falter - that is just a
bonus.
Prices not showing them is the norm but COADE have posted our $
price on our web site for the last 3+ years.
Web sites to look at:
CADWorx from COADE www.coade.com
CADPIPE is from AEC Design Group www.cadpipe.com
AutoPLANT and PlantSpace from Bentley www.bentley.com
SmartPlant PDS from Intergraph www.intergraph.com
PDMS VANTAGE from AVEVA www.aveva.com
If feels they need to correct anyting that I have said I would be
glad to know of it so I can keep myself as current as posible.
Vornel
- In PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com, Paul Bowers <pbowers@p...>
wrote:
> Some clarification of the current 3D piping design software
business,
> please correct any mistakes that I might have made (it's difficult
to
> keep track these days) and some of this is just my opinion:
>
> Bentley's MicroStation is the CAD software that PDS and PDMS are
based
> on. COADE's CADWorx, Bentley's AutoPlant (which was purchased from
> Rebis), AEC Design's CADPIPE and a few other smaller players are
all
> based on AutoCAD.
>
> Both PDS and PDMS have "changed names" to Intergraph's SmartPlant
3D and
> Aveva's Vantage Plant Design respectively. As far as I can tell,
both
> SmartPlant 3D and Vantage Plant Design no longer use MicroStation
as
> their CAD engine and have gone with a proprietary solution.
>
> Intergraph seems to have a pile of cash (or used to) from a
settlement
> with Intel regarding chip design legal issues.
>
> Also, in my understanding, the successors to PDS and PDMS
(SmartPlant 3D
> and Vantage Plant Design) will be/are not compatible with older
file
> formats.
>
> MicroStation offering an AutoCAD-based 3D piping program (ex-Rebis
> stuff) as well as their own seems a bit "off", since they are a
direct
> competitor to Autodesk and some say that support from Autodesk for
the
> ACAD-based, ex-Rebis code will just go away.
>
> CADWorx is counting on this to happen, as they are probably the
largest
> AutoCAD-based 3D piping software and have historical links back to
the
> highly-respected CAESAR stress analysis package as well as
official
> Autodesk support. They also claim that all their support people
are
> professional engineers that are experienced with process piping
and
> plant design.
>
> I don't know where CADPIPE fits into this hypothetical scenario.
>
> One thing that I find annoying about some of these programs is
that many
> of them do not indicate pricing on their websites.
>
> At least these days we are no longer locked-in to specific
hardware.
>
> Finally, I'm including a partial quote from the latest
upfront.ezine:
>
> "At the same time, creating artificial boundaries due to
proprietary
> representations is probably more of an impediment to an industry.
> Imagine a part catalog that couldn't establish standard
characteristics
> of common components just because the different vendors didn't
want
> their products to be readily compared against similar products.
From a
> consumers' (in this case, the designer's) perspective, that just
doesn't
> make any sense."
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> vornel wrote:
>
> > Dear OMID,
> >
> > I agree, as an ex-user of both packages I would say that PDMS
has
> > the edge in user friendliness and openness but both perform
> > exceptionally well if administered and set up properly AND both
> > payback well when projects are large. But I do have a small
> > correction to what you wrote...
> >
> > ...CADWorx is from COADE www.coade.com, CADPIPE is from AEC
Design
> > Group www.cadpipe.com and AutoPLANT is now from Bentley
> > www.bentley.com
> >
> > Eko - this is the nature of the beast - these system were never
> > designed to be simple or easy - they were (are) designed to be
> > comprehensive.
Received on Thu Jan 13 09:47:00 2005