That is a remarkable fact indeed, especially if we reflect that the oldest 3D Plant Design systems have been available for the last thirthy years or so. Much of the Medium to Small size projects are still done manually or with 2D CAD.
The answer is simple: they are either too complex and costly or too limited. But although Plant Design, as a technology in itself, is not an easy one (lot of people, requirements, specifications and documents involved) the technology to computerize this environment is not necessarily so complex.
EPLANT was designed with simplicity in mind. It has no frills to impress the casual user, but instead it is very easy to setup and use. It works seamlessly integrated in the AutoCAD environment, using native AutoCAD format: no Proprietary Objects that break down dwg compatibility and create visualization problems, without the original application that built them.
After so many years it is the only system on his class on the market to automatically generate Material Requirements integrated into the system, not simple MTO. Reliable Material.
We think there are many reasons. Some of them suffer from very old architectures. Others, paradoxically, from new architectures designed without sound criteria. Sophisticated programmers, working ages from every day Engineering facts, design fancy systems to build big business, just to justify the astronomical license costs, training, etc.
The most expensive the product, the farthest the user is from whom has the power to decide
its purchase.
Designers and drafters are generally not in the decision chain.
And when a system is setup, "computer specialists" will stick to it.
The very people that everyone assumes should be technology driven will resist new and more
efficent technology if that technology puts at risk the value of their expertise and salaries.
Let us not be naive:
how are they going to suggest changing to an easy tool that can set them aside?
No, unless most tecnical managers were willing to use common sense and take minimal risks going against their own IT recomendations.
No. It saw first light in 1991, with AutoCAD R11. Since then, hundreds of projects have already been made with it, stimulating new and better versions.
Of course it has. Unless other AutoCAD based systems there is no upper limit in 3D model size (3000 piping lines are feasible). Moreover, using the EPLANT-PDMS Converter, 3D models generated with EPLANT can be exported to the PDMS system (recognized as one of the most complete system available, see www.aveva.com) with perfect compatibility between both systems.
There are two main reasons:
ZWCAD uses the same dwg format (and therefore its drawing files are 100% compatible with those of AutoCAD) and has a similar user interface, although more simple than the current versions of AutoCAD.
Last updated August 10, 2018.