I gotta ask - is anyone out there having astounding CADWorx success? I have modeling experience in other fields that was fluid and enjoyable, predictable and productive. I'm just not getting that warm fuzzy feeling of productivity with CADWorx. Is it just me or am I par for the course?

In a world of work arounds and patches...
...does it ever just work?

Thanks,

What application are you using CADWorx for? Petrochem, Mining, Marine etc.

Yea, we do. We can do a decent amount work with CADWorx. 3 guys, 6 months, 40,000 feet of pipe in a couple of process buildings. This includes about 100+ plans, 40+ sections, isos, as well as the 50 P&IDs.

It isn't just you, but a lot of the big time waster's are due to AutoCAD limitations. Though, I really do wish CADWorx would make more of a point to create batch routines.

No, it never just works...

i like to think we have pretty good success with it. we dont use cadworx to the full extent but it gets what we need done.
i agree with wolfe about the limitations pointing directly at autocad.
personally, i can fly along with cadworx, but i dont have any other programs to compare it to.

To me, using CADWorx is like drag racing. You spend two years building a car, setting it up and testing it, and on your first pass down the 1/4 mile, the head bolts let go....back to the garage.

That being said, once you have your specs set up, your projects configured and have a good grasp of the tools, you can fly right along.

There is a lot that I don't like, having used other programs like Inventor's Routed Systems. Being tied to the UCS drives me nuts. The autorouting should be better. Pipe ends should be constrained to valve and flange mating faces so moving equipment takes the pipe with it. You gotta remember that CADWorx costs a fraction of PDS or SmartPlant3D, but still gets the job done pretty well.

Being forced to work with the confines of AutoCAD must make the developers pull their hair out. ACAD 2008 has nearly 650 system variables. 2009 adds to that considerably.

Maybe COADE will start writing an add-on for SketchUp, and kick Autodesk to the curb! We can only hope.....

We've had very good success. We just finished a 54,000+ hour job on a 650 MMcf/d gas plant that was all modelled in CADWorx. You do have to be organized from the start though. Those of you who attended the class on model organization at the conference got to see parts of this model.

In my opinion, it all depends in the amount of work (Vessels, Steel, Piping, etc)that a designer has to do. In my case most of the work we get are small projects that has to be done in a hurry. I find Cadworx fits the needs greatly. I have also used Autoplant (Rebis) for a few years and can not say that is better than Cadworx. I'm not sure how the files in a large project will function w/ Cadworx. Anywho is either Acad or Microstation that most 3D piping softwares works with, so We Stuck with it.

We are doing very well with CADWorx. Its very user friendly, making it a *lot* easier to get people going with it than say PDS (what do you mean "no undo??"), PlantSpace, or AutoPLANT. The support side is also a lot simpler - try running the others without a dedicated database specialist. The fact that it works with AutoCAD solids is a big plus for us. We can send the models wherever we need to without object enablers or any other support (just a hint - the AutoPLANT object enabler is not compatible with the ProSteel object enabler). There is also native support for CADWorx components in NavisWorks.

Its capabilities are lesser than the others, along with the cost. It would be nice to be able to change specs to a different rating and have it stretch pipe to accomodate different component sizes for example. But the turn-around time on small to mid-sized projects is excellent, and the developer is responsive to its users.

a lot of you talk about some of the things that are in the works for the next generation cadworx. it is being developed as we speak. you will be amazed at the steps they are taking to get ahead of their competitors.
within the next two years and after the release of the next gen products, i wouldnt be surprised to see coade take a bigger market share.

We have had quite a bit of success with CDX. It is the only software we have used for various reasons. In the areas it lacks, we have adapted and created work arounds. I definitely agree with the ACAD limitations, escpecially with 2drep.