Re: Download Keygen Xforce For AutoCAD Plant 3D 2016 Key
Rocki Stenger
My question is simple. Why is Plant 3D set up the way it is? I come from a background of using Inventor for my 3D modeling and loved it. I like the interface. I liked how models and drawings were linked. I liked how parts and assemblies talked to each other and all the other great things about Inventor. Then I took a new job and we use Plant 3D as our modeling software. To be blunt, Plant is great at modeling pipe and equipment on pipe (pumps, tanks, valves, etc) But the drawings are a pain. The whole project folder for each project seems odd. It's to the point where I wonder if I could model/detail it all faster in Inventor. Thus back to the question of why is it the way it is? I'm confused how two softwares, both owned by autodesk, that do extremely similar things, can be so different. Example, Inventor in the drawing you can right click and open on a view. Plant you can't. Inventor you can see what's ballooned on a drawing, Plant's whole BOM is a pain. I get that plant is made for piping but why does it have to be so different? Plant 3D just seems like it was a software someone thought would be cool and then gets put on the back burner of all the CAD programs. Part of me wonders if it would be more accepted to just add it's piping capabilities to Inventor. Maybe it's been done and I just never used that stuff in Inventor. Plant just seems odd, even when comparing it the regular AutoCAD and how everything is setup there. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Any comments or suggestions are always appreciated.
Because it makes money currently without investment. It is about the cheapest piping design software and a vertical. People will buy into the autodesk ecosystem once they have the very cheap plant 3d.
That makes sense to me but I don't understand why that effects drawings and BOM. I assume they'll say Cad engine verse AutoCAD engine but some of these things seem so simple that they should be used in both even if you can't copy/paste programs. Like the BOM. Both have BOMs that identify parts in the assembly and give information on those parts and qtys, etc. Why is the one in Inventor so much better than Plant? I can get over the modeling aspects and how they differ. I understand why Plant is better for plant engineering. It just seems like the drawing/detailing aspect is lost in plant 3D.
This is going to sound dumb but why? Designing/modeling aside, you make drawings in both and they pull similar information. I get they are made at different times (1989, 1999, 2009) and how that can affect how the engines in the background run, but what's preventing the integration of features such as opening from a drawing? Plant just seems to be lacking it what you'd think it could be able to do.
if AutoCAD Plant 3D does not meet your expectations, I can only recommend you to look for a similar product in the field of piping design.
We will not deviate from the concept of Plant 3D not after 12 years!
I must apologize if I'm coming off harsh. I do like what Plant 3D can offer. I'm not meaning to trash the software. I'm more trying to understand why features can't be integrated. I'll stick to one. Why can't we open a model from the drawing? What issues would that cause or why is that not possible?
Kind of. It's more why is there the extra steps. In inventor I can right click on the model in the drawing and it allows me to open the model up. I get that they are different programs, I just don't understand why one has the extra steps and the other does not. They both clearly have a link to the model anyway so I can't see why it's the way it is. I must add that everything I know about modeling, I've learned on Inventor. Thus I'm bias to that program, it just seems lightyears ahead of where plant is sometimes.
The two software packages (AutoCAD and Inventor) began development in different eras with different visions, goals, resources, and developers. You could just as easily ask why Inventor doesn't function like Revit or Forge.
As to why some functions haven't been added, @George.Endrulat answered that above. The bottom line is that the software is not perfect, but it gets the job done well enough (and cheaply enough) to continue to be marketable.
The Ideas Board is where you can post suggestions to make the software better. At some point though, it's wasted time to complain about the tools you have and you just have to work with them best you can. There is also lots of ways you can make them better yourself if you are inclined.
I have three custom fields which are added for all Plant3D objects. The field mapping seems to be working as I can see the fields on the components in the P3D model, and have been able to pull the fields to the isometric bill of materials (which is the objective). Values may be supplied in these fields through P3D, and when saved, do appear in the database.
But, the values of the fields will be updated directly in SQL by other means, from another source. Where I am stuck is that I cannot find a means by which to pass the data from SQL to the new fields in the model(s). I have investigated using VBA to cycle through all model objects, which is working, but I have not figured out how to pass a value to the new fields.
Your suggestion may present an alternative method through which I may be able to achieve the desired result on the isometrics. I've already created an LDT and mapped it my title block attributes. This was quite easy. That said - it only seems to work when I generate an iso from the PCF file, and not for quick-iso. I will have to set up and test your suggestion to see how it could work.
That said - it doesn't answer my question. I have modified the class definitions to have additional properties, and I need to be able to update these class properties in the model without going one-by-one manually. Still looking for an answer to this.
I'm going to flag your suggestion for linking through the PlantXDBManager as the solution. It's pretty easy to setup, and achieves the desired result. I was going to externally manage values in the EngineeringItems database table, but I can manage a separate table, and through the linking pass the desired values to the EngineeringItems table. I've done some testing on updates and such and it seems to work.
Be careful with plantxdbmanager, it doesn't travel, i.e. when you create a new project based on this project you'll have to set it all up again, every time for each new project. I've gone very far down that rabbit hole. What I do now is the simplest method, create the new properties in project setup, if I need to update them externally I export them to excel, make my changes, import them back. This has checks and balances implemented (on our part) while direct import from something like a datasheet / database of datasheets / etc might seem great, it means that there's no one checking the data as it's imported and no one clouding the changes / revisioning after import, pretty much makes it useless for us.
Hello Sir. Can you please let me know how you have achieved to link the 3d properties to your external database? I have also setup the database via the plantxdbmanager. My problem is that the mapped properties will not update. Do i have to run a specific command to do so? In the P&ID interface it can be achieved using the datamanager, righ click and refresh from external source. This option is not available in the 3D interface. I would appreciate your help a lot.
As was pointed out by others, the PlantXDBManager needs configuration on each project used. As such, I have moved us away from using it, and have added persistent properties to the classes so that the values are saved in the model and project database.
Doing this, I am still able to update the model from the database by using the PnPLocalDataCachePurger utility located under C:\Program Files\Autodesk\AutoCAD YEAR\PLNT3D\ after updating the database with the desired values.
As for how I have our system configured ... it's more than just updating values manually in the dcf file ... by far. I would never do this manually, and I avoid the dcf files. I have our system setup to use a central SQL database. The biggest advantage of going this route is that SQL databases support stored procedures, whereas SQLite databases do not (to my current knowledge). I have incorporated the engineering line list into one SQL database (with a GUI obviously for users to interface with). When their data is finalized, I push the data from the line list database to the model database; updating the line group information from the line list based on recognizing which line numbers are in the model. Then after a purge of the local cache and re-opening P3D - the updated data appears in the model.
When selecting / deselecting component sizes for a specific component in the spec editor, all check boxes have to be induvidualy selected. Especialy with components with a lot of different sizes like reducers and reducing tee's this is very time consuming. Is there a way to select multiple at the same time (in almost every program "shift" is used for this).
Plant 3D 2022...it appears this is still a problem. Now that I've warn out the space bar across nine versions of the software, any plans for a fix? This is pretty well the only 3D piping platform on the market that makes this so difficult. Of course, we could import these specs from Autoplant...but then we'll just use Bentley's product.
Plant 3D is generally a solid product...but when the people making the decision about what platform to use (CAD Admins) are the people facing the worst efficiency issues in the software (Admin interfaces, such as spec editors)...well...lets just say Autodesk's market share on this product could be bigger.
Perhaps any light at thee end of the endless click tunnel? I have to agree with @chris.perryYFTJY been using plant since 2012, Autodesk can reeeeeaaaally spend more time on UI improvements for Plant 3D... my wish list is becoming a "reasons not to use Plant 3D" list.
AutoCAD incluye conjuntos de herramientas diseados para ahorrarle tiempo con funciones mejoradas y objetos inteligentes. Aumente en un 63 % la productividad media en las tareas realizadas mediante uno de los siete conjuntos de herramientas.*
7fc3f7cf58