FAQ - WHY WE ARE DIFFERENT

We are we different because:

• Sound Data Structure EPLANT is built around a versatile Data Structure which allows Easy Project Setup and Absolute Consistency with Material Take Off.
• Small Size 3D Models EPLANT uses a simple compression method to achieve very Small 3D drawing File Size. A 3D Model with 1000 Piping Lines is in the 6-10 Mb range, for piping components alone. No other system has this performance.
• No Custom Objects EPLANT generates dwg Drawing files in the AutoCAD Native Format. They are 100% compatible with any viewer.
• Intelligent Isos and 2D Plans Both Piping Isometrics and 2D Plans retain full information of the 3D models.
• 30+ Years EPLANT was refined during more that thirty years with the help and valuable suggestions of our customers.
• AutoCAD and ZWCAD Compatible EPLANT is Compatible with an extensive range of both AutoCAD and ZWCAD versions: the user can use any of the supported versions and also mixing different ones in the same project.

Main Differences with other systems: two main groups

High End Systems: They are Costly and very difficult to set up and use

• Complex On Purpose Something complex appears to the user as having more useful features which justify a high cost. In big companies most inside people jump on this bandwagon for personal interest.
• Old or Poor Architecture Although these systems should have at their disposal very well trained developers, developing Engineering Tools require understanding Concrete Engineering Needs. It seams that most of nowadays programmers easily loose sight of the real objects of the tool, not having knowledgeable leaders as a guide.
• Net Result These systems work, but at what cost?
  For Big Industrial Plants, being Engineering Costs a little fraction of the Overall Cost, nobody cares. Above all, the end user who has to deal with these systems, has no voice in choosing them. Managers generally have a poor understanding of any system and relay on IT manager, not an independent partner.

Low End Systems: Limited Performances

• Suboptimal Data Structure It seams that they share some of the pitfalls shown for high and systems: a remarkable disconnection between developers and users.
• Brand Name They relay on the association with a known brand. This alone quash most of the useful critics they could receive to improve their products.
• Net Result Most of the small or medium projects are still done using manual methods. That is a remarkable fact indeed, especially if we reflect that the oldest 3D Plant Design systems have been available for the last forty years or so.

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 and ZWCAD environments.

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.

Has EPLANT a scope equivalent to major systems currently on the market ?

Of course it has. quite the opposite of other AutoCAD based systems, there is no upper limit in 3D model size.

Why EPLANT was ported to ZWCAD ?

There are two main reasons:

• Price The price tag of ZWCAD is significantly less than of the AutoCAD one, so a bundle of ZWCAD + EPLANT is really affordable. An additional reason is Autodesk without perpetual licensing that has encountered significant customer resistance.
• Superior Performance Take a look to our benchmark and you will be surprised. AutoCAD in the latest versions has been suffering a constant degradation on performance, only partially compensated by new features. EPLANT does not rely on these new features, so it makes sense to look for performance elsewhere.

ZWCAD uses the same dwg format, and therefore its drawing files are 100% compatible with those of AutoCAD and has a similar user interface.

Last updated October 30, 2024.