which 3d software for plant design

[renatoperuffo71]

Hello everyone, I am new to this forum, and I need your advice.
I have begun these days to work in a new company where they used for the design of 3 types of software a cad2d, inventor3d, proe4, now they want to standardize everything to a single product and I will have to operate this choice. I always used solidworks. I immediately noticed that inventors and pros do not manage the wrong parts and that I consider it a limit. I don't know the latest versions of these programs, but so I wanted some opinion from who is definitely more experienced than me.
Hello, everyone.

 

[lattu]

if the discussion does not concern the use of autocad, we will move it in a more appropriate section

 

[davide75]

I know that inventor has piping module, pro/e I don't know

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Hello everyone, I am new to this forum, and I need your advice.
I have begun these days to work in a new company where they used for the design of 3 types of software a cad2d, inventor3d, proe4, now they want to standardize everything to a single product and I will have to operate this choice. I always used solidworks. I immediately noticed that inventors and pros do not manage the wrong parts and that I consider it a limit. I don't know the latest versions of these programs, but so I wanted some opinion from who is definitely more experienced than me.
Hello, everyone.

It seems to me to be the smartest thing that can be done, the choice of a cad, but if you allow me it must be done according to the criteria of process and must be analyzed properly, otherwise it is likely to fall into slightly weighted choices and most of the times hectic.
I would like to understand your problem better, what do you mean by disjoining parts? do you mean, like, swx structural members?
greetings

I know that inventor has piping module, pro/e I don't know

pro/e has a module for the eccezzionale piping!piping & cabling extension, driven by specifications, integrated with rsd routed system designer, which manages the two-dimensional of any type of pattern example hydraulic or pneumatic (p&id and hvac 2d) and by intelligence to the 3d models in a monodirectional manner, I mean that when changing something to plan level, proe communicates the modification to the 3d and update the components:

Hello dear

 

[cacciatorino]

years ago I had seen cadmatic videos, a highly verticalized plant package. I think he was born for the naval field.

 

[renatoperuffo71]

I thank you, of course the operation of uniforming will be weighted carefully and to do this we think to avail of an external consultancy study so as to have a objective point of view of the problem (who knows a product tends to that tool), this study knows all the main products but does not sell any and this seems quite serious.
as regards sw, when I speak of disjoining bodies I do not refer to the structural members (very useful however for frames), but to the simplest example of a "cross" consisting of a tubular and 2 pistre perforated welded to the ends, this component in sw is feasible as part keeping the cut distinction in (1 tube + 2 plates), but creating a single code, in inventor or proe4, I have seen to build it as a whole 1 for the axieme, 1 for the tube and 1 for the 2 plates), you understand that this dilates the coding and extends much the modification of a code to create a new set, this functionality has been introduced in sw creed since 2005 and I think it is wonderful. I don't know if the last wreck of proes is there. One thing we're interested in is the ability to import a file and keep it mathematical, I've heard of a new version of solidedge that does this and also a proe application. I have to document this.

Hi.

 

[renatoperuffo71]

Hello again, does anyone know or use cocreate? Can you tell me how he handles big asses?

Hi.

 

[Er Presidente]

teach others how to do it.
:smile:

 

[renatoperuffo71]

teach what?

 

[drnaik]

the president intends that in the great axiemi modeling (cocreate) is unbeatable. . .

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the advantage of the disjoining bodies... because if in the example of the traverse and the flanges if you do an assmbly and not a single part you have to codify the flanges and transverses?

 

[cacciatorino]

Hello again, does anyone know or use cocreate? Can you tell me how he handles big asses?

Hi.

I've had a little to do and it seems to me that I can charge very large assemblies without getting too wrapped up, of course, provided I give up the bonds of together and the black edges... :biggrin:

 

[renatoperuffo71]

If my piece is done aside and I have to change it to get a piece like this just save it by name (1 only file) and after proceeding to the changes, if instead it is done by together I have to save by name the axieme and then rename inside the new axieme the detail that changes (so 2 files) if the piece is a complex carpentry structure it complicates a little.

This is what I know with sw, I don't know if inventor and proe behave differently.


thanks for the answer on cocreate, so consider the case to deepen the knowledge of this software.

Thanks and good weekend.

 

[re_solidworks]

I don't agree with the wrong bodies. In my opinion, a group must remain together and I have been commissioned several times to work which had begun others in this way and have not left.
it is not necessary to extend coding, I also at the level of pdm and not only by hand, use of semiprogressive codes.
The choice of using the multibody for welded instead of traditional assemblies is in my opinion questionable.
I don't like this mode of work and it seems like a force, going to exploit a hole.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I thank you, of course the operation of uniforming will be weighted carefully and to do this we think to avail of an external consultancy study so as to have a objective point of view of the problem (who knows a product tends to that tool), this study knows all the main products but does not sell any and this seems quite serious.
as regards sw, when I speak of disjoining bodies I do not refer to the structural members (very useful however for frames), but to the simplest example of a "cross" consisting of a tubular and 2 pistre perforated welded to the ends, this component in sw is feasible as part keeping the cut distinction in (1 tube + 2 plates), but creating a single code, in inventor or proe4, I have seen to build it as a whole 1 for the axieme, 1 for the tube and 1 for the 2 plates), you understand that this dilates the coding and extends much the modification of a code to create a new set, this functionality has been introduced in sw creed since 2005 and I think it is wonderful. I don't know if the last wreck of proes is there. One thing we're interested in is the ability to import a file and keep it mathematical, I've heard of a new version of solidedge that does this and also a proe application. I have to document this.

Hi.

to avoid misunderstandings and useless polemics I tell you that I have been proe (for a year) I use it from 12 and before I was a technician, not for this I am not serious and not for that when I go to a customer to do an analysis by forcing it in the purchase, I do not even make corporate demos showing you a ktm, it does not need at all anything, I usually analyze the final product that has to get and do my considerations to make you understand what is quicker.

I think external studies that use more cad can not know so thoroughly the tools and have objective limits, they only see that side, for that I told you that you have to look at it globally.

I used swx at the time and also the structural members, and there was the encoding limit, so many pdms did not even recognize them now I know that you can do but in general I think it as re_solidworks, but I can tell you that even in proe there is the similar function as I think also inventor.

for importing files instead is a chapter all to itself... all have something but all have problems of any kind, if you import a math from another native with other kernel you can recover a lot, but always a bit of workaround you have to do it anyway, those that are commercial videos that make you glisten eyes, actually the substance is quite different. :smile:

You could stay here talking hours and hours of this thing...
having drawn up the coding as I told you value the cad+pdm offer in the choice, this will make the difference.

if you need more specific technical info are available.
greetings

 

[renatoperuffo71]

I thank you, I didn't mean to question the seriousness of those who sell, even if you allow me to say that everyone throws water to his mill (it's logical that it is so), in any case we decided to meet both dealers of our interest (proes and sw) to analyze our problems with them. I've already met sw, and since I know the program, I could judge things better, definitely next week when I meet proe, I won't be in the same position because I don't know the program, and so it's gonna be harder for me to weigh things. I have to say however that turning for these forums I have made an idea, no one talks bad about proe, someone who speaks bad (or not well) you sw I found it...... next week we will decide and I will tell you.

 

[renatoperuffo71]

I don't agree with the wrong bodies. In my opinion, a group must remain together and I have been commissioned several times to work which had begun others in this way and have not left.
it is not necessary to extend coding, I also at the level of pdm and not only by hand, use of semiprogressive codes.
The choice of using the multibody for welded instead of traditional assemblies is in my opinion questionable.
I don't like this mode of work and it seems like a force, going to exploit a hole.

You're probably right, and it gets even more important when you start using a pdm, which I'm very fast... Also this worries me a bit since you want to induce it... a lot of meat on the fire, we will see! !

 

[valerio11111]

...I used for more than a cadmatic year, it is very simple, complete and customizable and very light,
I highly recommend it. . .

p.s.: I am not a seller

In Italy, it's distributed by the [Bleep] [Bleep], [Bleep] or [Bleep], which are the holders, and they'll give you all the indications, you can tell him that Mr. [Bleep] suggested it, that I would be...
[Bleep]

 

[renatoperuffo71]

Thank you, it's a little I don't write, in the end we chose solidworks and dbcent, the 2010 version of sw has remarkable improvements compared to the 2006 I used before, for dbcent we are installing it these days, I will know how it goes.

 

[MarcoBi]

in the end we chose solidworks and dbcent...

do not take it bad but given the final outcome and the purchase of sw to make piping I am doubtful that the term piping has a different meaning.
if making plants means a skiddin with 2 pumps and three (3) tubes, then ok.. sw,proe,inventor,solidedge etc. make it quietly. . .
If instead we talk about plants, the real ones, then I'm sorry but we didn't even go near...:tongue: