Conrad Preen

@btgroves We have no plans to remove this feature. However I do urge you to check out Niko's demo of how to use the Data Manager to automatically add any record you like to every new device. You have to scroll down a bit to find it . Maybe you will like this better...

@btgroves Please PM me the file! I would like to check this. Conrad

@spettitt Yes I've come across a few of those in my time... but I was always grateful of that extra 1/2U to let the equipment breathe a bit. Conrad

@Daniel Dickman No harm at all - they are simply there to show you the way. Conrad

Hi Daniel, Yes I'm seeing that when I try using the imperial template. I'll file a bug. Conrad

@Dendecko It does work, I just tried it now. You'll just need to include the Socket.tag parameter in your report and you'll have to change both the Name and Tag. The reason Devices and Sockets have separate name and display tag parameters is because on drawings you need to save space while in reports and lists you need longer more descriptive naming because you don't have the visual context.

@SAmmerman It's always the same at this time of year. The questions we get are 90% stuff that is about to change for the better 🙂. I understand your frustration. However in the last 20 years no-one else has raised this issue. The way DA's are drawn is pretty standard, and it's useful to be able to quickly set the number of outputs. That doesn't mean that I don't want to accommodate your wishes, but I also have to consider all the other users too and prioritize the use of limited resources. I've noted these points as matters to be improved. Conrad

@btgroves Just want to point out that there are better ways now to add extra info to ConnectCAD objects. You can automatically attach your own records and display their values. But you probably know that. We will continue to support the old way but I want to encourage everyone to go towards attached records. Regarding your question, do you want to PM your CustomParams.txt file and the exact steps you took and I'll look into it? Conrad

Maybe try using worksheet reports - just a suggestion - I haven't tried it. Conrad

@wscooperWe will get to this as well. It's a question of hours in the day.

@wscooper I agree that we don't have a specific model for multicore cables and right now we leave this up to the user. In the interests of simplicity we have sort of merged the physical cable with the the signal connection. I am very conscious of how intimidating ConnectCAD can already be for the new user so I want to be very careful about adding yet more complexity. I hear you but I'm searching for a solution that will keep simple things simple. Conrad

@SAmmerman Interesting food for thought. Just to give you perspective, we have to tread a fine line between having a feature-rich product and one that is simple enough for a new user to get useful work done in less than a week. The learning curve is massively important. So now some answers: 1) you do not have to use our DA tool. You can create your own devices with the sockets laid out the way you want them. Nothing constrains you to rectangular boxes either. You can use any graphics you like inside a ConnectCAD device. You only have to create the device your way once - just click the Save as Symbol button to keep it and share it to other documents using the Resource Manager. 2) Well that's an idea. But maybe even better just allow the Prefix to have a numeric suffix that determines the starting socket number. Say the Prefix entry is PORT05 then the series created would be PORT05, PORT06, PORT07... formatting and start number in one go without any extra UI. Conrad

We got the message!

@spettitt thank you very much for the feedback. These are all basically content wish-items. The extent to which they can be addressed depends on available resources. I will log them but at the moment I can't make any promises. Of course you can develop this for your own use including adding extra classes. If you create a well-structured library I could certainly propose the idea of Vectorworks buying in this kind of content from power users. Best Conrad

@wscooper I think we need to moderate our expectations. Cable cross-section is calculated as a rough guide to help estimate the requirements for cable containment (trays, ducts etc.). The cross-section is calculated as diameter x diameter - nothing too clever. And that needs to be de-rated to take account of cables passing over each other as they turn corners. The realities of installation can make a huge difference to how much space is taken up. Same is true of cable lengths. An installer whose brain isn't functioning can destroy any estimates simply by dressing the cables in a weird way. Then add to that the fact that cables come on spools of a give length so again your installers can easily cost you several extra spools. And it might not even be their fault - it could just be logistics. Of course if there are ways to improve this in a manner that is practically useful I'm all for it. But let's not chase the dream of a perfect computer model only to have it trashed by the realities of life on site. Conrad