We are looking at upgrading our capabilities in the field of inteligent P&ID's and this package is one of our options. I heard some good things about it at the VPA Conference but that was from only one company. Is there anyone else out there using this package, with VPD/VPE or alone, I just want to know how they like using the CAD package?!?
We are using Smart Plant P&ID. I am only the interface so I am getting Inst dumps, line list etc out of the SPPID.
VPE probably will do the same thing, except because it is Vantage product, it may work with comparator a little easier. So when you finish the PID, in theory, you will be able to populate the PDMS model with the pipe(all line info such as temp, pres etc), branches with all inline fittings in correct sequence. The Vantage Router then will route lines while all the pipers are asleep and finish a $800 million chemical plant overnight. Then some low cost engineering center, aka High Value engineering can press the button and isos will come out.
In real life, this saving of time is not that tremendous, auto router does not work too well because the rules are NOT easily defined. The devil is always in the details.
I have personally used and implemented the AutoPLANT (Bentley) P&ID's and the Plant-4D (CEA) P&ID's. Both are open and database driven and can sit directly on AutoCAD. These 2 packages both allow you allot of freedoms with backend data manipulation by engineers without going into the drawings. Some of the advantages of the VPE P&ID is being able to compare the P&ID to PDMS and also the ties to WorkBench and also to VPRM.
Now both of the other packages have very similar functionality to VPE WorkBench and I bet you could link VPRM to those databases as well.
So the real questions are:
1.) "Is the cost and functionality of the Comparitor Module worth using?"
2.) "Is there enough benefit to implement VPE P&ID, Comparitor, Model Object Manager and Workbench (w/ Oracle)...which all are required to have the same capability of the other to packages?"
3.) "Is having direct access to the Access/SQL database a benefit?"
4.) What all do you want to get from the Smart P&ID's? (Line Lists, Valve Lists, Instrument Lists, Equipment Lists, Motor Lists, etc.) And do you want your engineers to have access to add to the data directly (pressures, temps, vendors, horsepower, rpm, etc?"
5.) "Do you want a package that is database driven or sheet driven?"
6.) Bentley & Plant-4D packages are both "object" based so any change made in the database is reflected in the P&ID and any change in the P&ID is reflected in the database. You do not have to run a report to see the differences.
7.) "Is the cost of each package a consideration? If so then either of the other 2 packages are are much more cost effective, but you must decide what you want out and long term goals.
When it comes to PDMS vs. Bentley/Plant-4D on modeling it's PDMS without questions, but in the realm of P&ID's we are thinking long and hard because it's not so cut-n-dry. Make sure you do your homework. I cannot speak on Intergraph's Smart Plant P&ID system. I have never seen it or used it.
You can PM me for further details and also for direct contact information for both of these other 2 packages. I can also provide alot more insight into the other packages for those who are interested.
[QUOTE=de_ding]We are using Smart Plant P&ID. I am only the interface so I am getting Inst dumps, line list etc out of the SPPID.
VPE probably will do the same thing, except because it is Vantage product, it may work with comparator a little easier. So when you finish the PID, in theory, you will be able to populate the PDMS model with the pipe(all line info such as temp, pres etc), branches with all inline fittings in correct sequence. The Vantage Router then will route lines while all the pipers are asleep and finish a $800 million chemical plant overnight. Then some low cost engineering center, aka High Value engineering can press the button and isos will come out.
In real life, this saving of time is not that tremendous, auto router does not work too well because the rules are NOT easily defined. The devil is always in the details.
de_ding, or anyone else who have already used Auto Router,
Do you have an idea of how many percent of hours is possible to save for piping modelling using the Auto Router?
As you said, its configuration is not easily defined, but how many time is needed for that?
We've been using most of the Aveva Vantage suite for three years, and I find it pretty manageable. We use VPE P&ID with AutoCAD, and it's quite easy and intuitive for the users. We had a few growing pains with the system, mainly from lack of documentation from the vendor, but we've figured out ways to do things to get the data/connectivity we need.
My company's decison to go with the Vantage suite was a "lesser of all evils" choice. A recent new hire who came from SmartPlant said the VPE P&ID program was much easier and friendly than the SP package. I'll have to take her word for it.
I have had some significant problems getting the SYNCHRONISE routine to work in the later patches of P&ID. I find that it works just fine if I'm only validating and not connected to the database. If I try to save to model or resolve differences, it seems to choke when it starts the data transfer. Is anyone out there running a patch higher than 15 successfully with the synchronise routine?
I'm running 6.2 Fix 20 right now and everything works fine. One trick is if synchronizing to upload to Workbench (I'm using 5.6 SP1) is that you have to install the Workbench Oracle Runtime (and patch) onto the P&ID machines to be able to log onto Workbench.
