Engineers often treat a PDF as a “picture” of a drawing.
But a PDF viewer doesn’t see a picture.
It sees objects, instructions, and layers much closer to how Excel sees cells, references, and formulas.
And this difference is the root of many surprises in P&ID digitisation and markup workflows.
Here’s a simple way to think about it 👇
When you edit a number in Excel, the chart updates — because the chart is linked to data behind the scenes.
A PDF works in a similar way. What you see is just the rendered result.
Underneath, the file may contain:
- A text object (“41-PT-102”)
- A polyline that only looks like a symbol
- An annotation layered on top
- A clipped region hiding another object
- Multiple overlapping instruction streams
- Or an image that was flattened from everything above
This means two PDFs that look identical to the human eye may behave completely differently when you try to read, extract, or modify them.
Thats’s why:
- A tag that looks editable sometimes isn’t.
- A symbol you erase still exists underneath.
- Markups appear or disappear depending on the viewer.
- Automation works perfectly on one P&ID and fails on another.
You’re not fighting the drawing — you’re fighting how the PDF describes the drawing to the viewer.
It’s not exactly “what you see is what you get”.
But as a mental model, it’s a good entry point into understanding why PDF behaviour can feel so unpredictable during engineering digitisation.
@ponnappa Well written and good insights.
Could you elaborate on why not to pivot to outcome-based billing.
We pivoted to outcome-based billing. The thinking is we still order from a restaurant when we have guests over though we all know how to cook well.
We also support Bluebeam workflows —
so teams can move from marked-up PDFs to structured data without retyping.
The PDF isn’t the problem.
Ignoring its structure is.
👉 https://t.co/TMozihfJh1
PDFs are trending again.
Most people are discovering that PDFs aren’t “just documents.”
Engineers have known this for years.
Especially anyone who works with P&IDs.
We built PIDtoExcel around this principle:
Don’t treat P&IDs as images.
Treat them as structured drawings.
Upload → Extract equipment/valves/instruments → Export structured Excel/CSV.
@ponnappa Well written and good insights.
Could you elaborate on why not to pivot to outcome-based billing.
We pivoted to outcome-based billing. The thinking is we still order from a restaurant when we have guests over though we all know how to cook well.
Diaphragm valves are versatile and highly reliable components in industrial systems, known for their simple operation and excellent flow control.
https://t.co/IiVGEl7hdf
Digitizing P&IDs manually is a cumbersome process.
We automatically digitized 100 P&IDs in under 30 minutes.
This would save engineers weeks of time.
But how? 🧵