AVEVA E3D Design vs Octave Forte 3D: choosing between the plant design benchmarks
The two systems that dominate large plant design are closer than their marketing suggests. The deciding factors are usually the owner, the rest of the toolchain and the people you can hire.
For large process plants, offshore facilities and power projects, two 3D design systems keep appearing in owner specifications: AVEVA E3D Design and the product formerly called Intergraph Smart 3D, which Octave now sells as Octave Forte 3D. In the EPC Index they sit one point apart (82 and 81) and on capability and scale they score the same. Choosing between them is rarely about modelling features.
Where they come from
E3D Design is AVEVA's successor to PDMS, which AVEVA stopped selling and supporting on 1 April 2024. AVEVA now positions E3D as the 3D component of AVEVA Unified Engineering, alongside its P&ID and Diagrams and Electrical and Instrumentation applications, delivered on the desktop and through AVEVA's CONNECT cloud on subscription credits.
Forte 3D is the rule-driven, data-centric design system that Hexagon developed as Intergraph Smart 3D. Since the Octave spin-off in May 2026 it sits in Octave's Forte line, next to Facets P&ID, Facets Instrumentation and Aspect Pipe Stress, the former CAESAR II.
What is genuinely similar
- Both are multidiscipline: piping, equipment, structure, HVAC and cable trays in one model, with drawings and reports generated from it.
- Both are proven on very large, multi-office projects with concurrent design across sites.
- Both are demanding to run well: catalogues, specifications and rules need specialist administrators, and new designers need real training time.
- Both have large, experienced user communities, so neither is a staffing gamble in major engineering centres.
Where they differ in practice
The first difference is the surrounding suite. E3D's value multiplies inside AVEVA Unified Engineering, where diagrams, 3D and E&I data share one environment and the cloud is part of AVEVA's delivery model. Forte 3D's value multiplies alongside Octave's P&ID, instrumentation, stress and information-management products, which have a long track record of working together on large projects. If your instrumentation team lives in Facets Instrumentation, or your stress engineers in Aspect Pipe Stress, that integration is a real argument.
The second difference is how each vendor talks about deployment. AVEVA puts cloud delivery and flexible credits at the front; Octave's documentation emphasises rule-driven design and global work-share. That is a difference in emphasis and packaging rather than a hard limit, but it affects how IT teams will plan hosting, licensing and administration.
The third difference is timing. Octave is a new company with new product names. That should not change the software, but procurement teams will meet unfamiliar names on quotes and renewals, and it is sensible to confirm support and roadmap commitments in writing during the transition.
How to decide
- Start with the owner. If the operator specifies a platform or a handover format built around one system, translation later costs more than any licence difference.
- Look at the rest of your stack. Pair the 3D system with the P&ID, instrumentation and stress tools your teams already run well.
- Count the people. Check how many experienced designers and administrators you can staff in each execution centre for the project's peak.
- Test the round trip. Run a pilot area through P&ID, 3D, stress and materials before committing, and measure the rework, not the demo.
Either system will build the plant. The better choice is the one that fits the owner's requirements, your existing data flow and the teams you can put on the job.
Sources
- AVEVA E3D DesignAVEVA · accessed 22 October 2026
- Octave Forte 3DOctave · accessed 23 October 2026
- Product namingOctave · accessed 23 October 2026
- Octave separationHexagon · accessed 23 October 2026