So you do provide a demo version
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2024 9:18 am
Come and contact us for more information: we will show you everything, tell you everything and share a trial version.
of PlantLinker upon individual request?
Yes, we work on individual requests. By the way, PlantLinker has been phone number in vietnamese used in training at the St. Petersburg State Technological Institute for two years now, and since this year, at the St. Petersburg State Marine Technical University. We replaced Intergraph Smart3D and Aveva E3D, since our technology matches these systems. At the same time, it works even on old university equipment with 32-bit Windows 7.
So far, no requests for licenses have been received from Moscow universities.
Were there any bad decisions in the PlantLinker system? How quickly did you recognize them and replace them?
Yes, there were. Initially, for example, we had a different version of the graphics core. The same Helix Toolkit has two versions: standard and with SharpDX support. At first, we used the standard one, since we did not plan to make large models at all, but then we changed it to the second version.
We also had to rewrite the code for the user interface system. There was a cumbersome and inconvenient version, which was replaced, taking Google's Material Design as a basis. In addition, the collision detection module was completely rewritten.
And there are many such moments. We used the hardcode principle to generate elements, and now we supplement it with parametric symbols.
How is the product development strategy currently formulated, is there a roadmap? Can users participate in the formation of new ideas?
Every time we demonstrate a system, we record and analyze the questions that were asked. If new functionality can be implemented quickly, we immediately try to do so.
Just recently we discussed with users the issues of creating drawings. They would like to see associative dimensions, like in Aveva E3D. We decided that if the customer wants this functionality, we will make it. And we implemented it in just one week, since the system has already accumulated huge internal potential for expansion.
As for the roadmap, I can say the following: the new version of PlantLinker 2024 is radically different from the previous one. It differs in that it contains almost all the modules that we planned to implement, parametric symbols, drawings and much more.
Equipment, building structures, pipelines were made long ago, but received a lot of extensions. The same applies to ventilation, cable trays, collision detection: everything gradually acquires a working form and is tested on large models. For the release of isometric drawings, we use Intergraph Smart Isometrics (ISOGEN), but previously wrote our own module for data preparation for this.
But this is only the basic framework of the system. We still have to refine and expand it.
Do you have a publicly available wishlist for the product, which users can comment on, add to, and vote on the priority of developments? Like, for example, large Western developers have a wishlist.
There is a wish list, but it is internal. We have an individual approach, and we prefer to work with each customer separately. But it may turn out that the requirements of different customers coincide and they become a priority.
of PlantLinker upon individual request?
Yes, we work on individual requests. By the way, PlantLinker has been phone number in vietnamese used in training at the St. Petersburg State Technological Institute for two years now, and since this year, at the St. Petersburg State Marine Technical University. We replaced Intergraph Smart3D and Aveva E3D, since our technology matches these systems. At the same time, it works even on old university equipment with 32-bit Windows 7.
So far, no requests for licenses have been received from Moscow universities.
Were there any bad decisions in the PlantLinker system? How quickly did you recognize them and replace them?
Yes, there were. Initially, for example, we had a different version of the graphics core. The same Helix Toolkit has two versions: standard and with SharpDX support. At first, we used the standard one, since we did not plan to make large models at all, but then we changed it to the second version.
We also had to rewrite the code for the user interface system. There was a cumbersome and inconvenient version, which was replaced, taking Google's Material Design as a basis. In addition, the collision detection module was completely rewritten.
And there are many such moments. We used the hardcode principle to generate elements, and now we supplement it with parametric symbols.
How is the product development strategy currently formulated, is there a roadmap? Can users participate in the formation of new ideas?
Every time we demonstrate a system, we record and analyze the questions that were asked. If new functionality can be implemented quickly, we immediately try to do so.
Just recently we discussed with users the issues of creating drawings. They would like to see associative dimensions, like in Aveva E3D. We decided that if the customer wants this functionality, we will make it. And we implemented it in just one week, since the system has already accumulated huge internal potential for expansion.
As for the roadmap, I can say the following: the new version of PlantLinker 2024 is radically different from the previous one. It differs in that it contains almost all the modules that we planned to implement, parametric symbols, drawings and much more.
Equipment, building structures, pipelines were made long ago, but received a lot of extensions. The same applies to ventilation, cable trays, collision detection: everything gradually acquires a working form and is tested on large models. For the release of isometric drawings, we use Intergraph Smart Isometrics (ISOGEN), but previously wrote our own module for data preparation for this.
But this is only the basic framework of the system. We still have to refine and expand it.
Do you have a publicly available wishlist for the product, which users can comment on, add to, and vote on the priority of developments? Like, for example, large Western developers have a wishlist.
There is a wish list, but it is internal. We have an individual approach, and we prefer to work with each customer separately. But it may turn out that the requirements of different customers coincide and they become a priority.