Conrad Preen

@TwoBeAss Thanks for the file! I will submit a bug for this because I think something may have changed in the rules we use to reshape circuits when devices are moved. Doesn't look like a complete show-stopper. Visually it's not offensive. Here's a few more tricks that might help: - draw one new circuit and use the ReRoute tool to apply its path to a bunch of selected circuits - use Connect Selected command to connect sockets facing each other - use the double-click (Connect Next) function of the Connect tool connect the "next socket" between 2 devices. You first create a circuit using the Connect tool, leave it selected and double-click the next source socket with the Connect tool under the one you just connected. This will automatically connect the next pair of sockets. - Connect tool multi-mode can create multiple circuits between devices. Lot's of ways to connect up quicker. Hope I've helped a bit. Conrad

@fips thanks for posting this. Allow me one observation though... I'm not a fan of forums because although they contain a mass of useful information it is so badly organised that no-one can find the answers they need. Having a thread titled "ConnectCAD Issue Tracker" doesn't tell you what its about. All it says is "someone has a problem" and human nature being what it is, that is true of pretty much every post on the forum. So I would encourage everyone to create a new topic with a descriptive title for each new issue. It makes it a lot easier to find. Thanks again for your valuable feedback. Conrad

@TwoBeAss Hello! The Circuit object is supposed to detect the case where vertices are collinear and remove redundant corners. So I am curious as to how your file got this way. I suspect that there is a very slight vertical misalignment which is causing the Circuit to think that these points are not collinear. If you select the source and destination devices and execute Align to Grid, and then select the circuit and nudge it up and down (using Shift-arrow keys) to force it to reset does that remove the extra vertices? If not, please PM me the file and we'll take a closer look. Conrad

@Greg Abel I would agree that it would be cool to be able to just drag an equipment item out of a rack and drop it into a slot inside another equipment item. But I can't think of a real-world case where an adapter card could be both stand-alone inside a rack frame or plugged into a device. Very cool. but definitely not worth the coding effort. Adapters are not devices. They basically transform one type of socket into another. We leverage them to provide a way to model complex devices that can have multiple option cards. And adapter slots are just a way of visualising the physical cards on layouts. Rack frames on the other hand are containers for stand-alone devices which on the schematic could be all over the place. So they really are different things. Conrad

Just want to thank everyone for raising this issue. I have an idea how to make life easier here and I will push for this. Conrad

@scobb Hello! There's nothing stopping you creating schematics on sheet layers if you want to. Some people do that. The downside is that you can't squidge up a big drawing a bit when it just exceeds a standard paper size. But maybe that doesn't matter any more. If you create schematics on design layers there is no way the flag can show the sheet layer because a design layer can appear in multiple viewports on different sheets. Vectorworks doesn't like things having the same name but you could do something creative with underscores or hyphens - just a thought.. Conrad

@ErikvanderKuijl It's already on our list! Coming soon!

@FKA More than one way to do this: - Use a script to get the "CableCalculatedLength" parameter and set the "CableLength" parameter to the next longest preset length. Needs some extra skills but worth learning. - Use the Circuit report - add extra columns for your preset cable types and use a formula to check the calculated length and put a 1 in the correct column. Then the worksheet does your totals for you. Here's a couple of pics. Might get the job done? Conrad

@fips In the operation you are showing here all ConnectCAD does is tell Vectorworks to switch layer and pan / zoom to center the equipment item corresponding to your device. So your point really concerns Vectorworks generally. If you would like me to take a look please PM me the file and if I see unusual behavior/slow down I can create a bug for the appropriate team to look at. Thanks also for sharing with us your experiences as a new ConnectCAD user coming from other software. I'm really interested to hear this because I want to make that transition as smooth as possible !!! I wrote the first cut of ConnectCAD some 25 years ago because I tried Vidcad and didn't like what I saw. Having my own CAD system gave me a way to catch whatever curve balls my boss threw at me. And now as part of Vectorworks I try to keep that spirit going. There is a whole lot of thinking behind every design choice that has guided the product over the years. You mentioned design layers vs. sheet layers - as Niko says there's nothing to stop you drawing schematics on sheet layers if you want to. Being able to shrink a large schematic that is just too big for one sheet has saved me on some occasions. Or the symbols vs groups debate. The reason for this is flexibility. Half the device maybe be on a different schematic - take the case of audio/video mixers. And you hardly ever use all the ports on a device - do you want those cluttering up your drawing? Perhaps not. Adapters on the other hand are much more standard items that can't really appear on more than one schematic so we use symbols in an object wrapper to represent them. Generally we don't prevent you from doing things that might cause problems. We know that sometimes the shortest workflow from A to B is by going through an illegal state and we let you do that. So instead we warn of any potential issues via the ConnectCAD Status palette and the Check Drawing command. Thanks again. And do reach out if you need help. Conrad

Just to add to Niko's reply, that's the way to do it for a specific Circuits. If you want to customise the text at a global level then go to the General section of the ConnectCAD Settings dialog and use the Edit Circuit Graphics button in there. Conrad

The template and the blank document have different layer scales. And ConnectCAD uses its own grid (see ConnectCAD Settings menu ) to lay out objects on schematics. This is so that you can draw sensible-looking schematics at any layer scale. If in doubt use the templates and life will be easy. If you still have problems do PM the files and I'll take a closer look. Conrad

Yes. Drop points are for those cases where we need to specify our cabling before equipment is finalised. In the case of facilities boxes, since you basically design these and their technology doesn't go out of date that fast, I would create them as equipment and use them directly. My 2c worth. Conrad

@Daniel Dickman @Pat Stanford being able to have multiple schematic instances is a valuable feature and I don't think anyone would want us to get rid of it. The best object to count for reporting is probably the physical Equipment Item because each device name points to only one Equipment Item. We don't enforce unique Equipment names because that would make it hard to copy/paste/rename bunches of equipment. But error checking detects duplicates. But I get it. Not every project needs you to do physical layouts. ConnectCAD is truly drawing-based instead of having a database lurking underneath. Not having the stringencies of a relational database to deal with allows for more flexible workflows. But like everything in life there is a price to pay. C

@R_Teunissen a Rack Frame object does not have to be in a rack! It can be, but it can also sit wherever you put it. So I think it is a close enough fit to what we need and it's better not to re-invent the wheel. The main issue is the variable size of modules. But if we put a little water in our wine and work with fixed size slots I think we can achieve some useful results at very low cost. Certainly better than what we have now. I will plan a change on these lines and see where it takes us.

@Rabbit Abbott If you like please PM me the file, Seth never replied AFAIK. Conrad

If you're making new panel connectors, have a look in here and follow the same naming conventions with your connectors.

Sounds like there might be a case for a DIN rail style for rack frames. The user can then set the slot width the way they want maybe with 18mm as a default. The only question in my mind is will this satisfy enough of the people enough of the time? It's a curious thing but if we bring out a feature that provides some useful automation that covers say 80% of cases, the people in the 20% will hate us even though this wasn't a feature they had before anyway. Human nature I guess. Let's keep the conversation going Remco - I think there's something here and I do agree that DIN rail is a popular mounting technique. Conrad

Hi @R_Teunissen Remco! That's interesting. My own research and the discussion above showed that although 1M = 18mm is common there were a lot of deviations. In order to automate any process we have to standardise. If industry users will accept 18mm as a standard for DIN rail slots and that deviations become their responsibility then we have a basis to move forward. Regarding solutions, we already have one - the Rack Frame. Essentially the DIN rail is a variant of the rack frame. So we don't really need any special new tools or behaviors to support this, just different graphics. This would be an easy win - IF we can settle on an 18mm slot width. If we can't do that then we will have to number modules ordinally left-to-right and accept the inefficiencies that will result from inserting /deleting a module in the middle (renumbering everything else to the right throughout the drawing). As engineers we all think in terms of how we would solve the problem. But that's jumping the gun! The first step in any project is to define the requirements. Establish the goals. Then work out a solution that meets those requirements. The forum is always fun because I have to work backwards from the suggestions to figure out what the goals were. I'm happy to put this one on the road map if I can get some clarity about the requirements. In my view the simpler the better. Conrad

Hi everyone! You might be wondering why we even have this Schematic Objects Grid setting, 'cos yes it can cause some headaches. But, it also has a benefit. And that is it allows you to draw schematics at scales other than 1:1. This can be incredibly useful when you have brought in architectural floor plans and you want to draw the schematic on them to scale. Take the case of a very simple event setup with some speakers and mics on stage and a mixing desk out in the seating area. By drawing the schematic to scale you can read off the rough cable lengths directly from circuit perimeters. Obviously this is just a quick and dirty method but for those really simple shows it gets you there very quickly. And without having to do a full-on physical layout with cable paths etc. which would be the way to go for more complex installations. Just thought I'd take this opportunity to fill in the "why?" of this feature. Conrad

@Phil B Hmmm just to make the software happy eh... lets have look at a few of the myriad special cases invented by audio manufacturers that complicate design software. To begin with, isn't it amazing how many different connectors the audio world has invented to pass analog audio XLR, RCA, RJ12, RJ45, 1/4-inch jack, 3.5mm jack, 2.5mm jack. etc. etc. all that to connect 2 wires and maybe a shield. And to make matters even more interesting we now have chassis connectors that can accept an XLR or a 1/4-inch jack so now we have 2 connector types possible for a given cable end - to automate that we have to read the users mind! Another goodie, hybrid analog/digital inputs that can accept AES or line level, so now some inputs (but not others) can accept 2 different signals. But we expect the software just to "know" what is correct. If audio guys had to write software I suspect they would become a lot more consistent about how they handle signals. Sorry Phil, sometimes I have to push back a bit. Software and audio are going have to meet in the middle I think.

@Phil B ConnectCAD is blissfully ignorant about what signal types are compatible in the real world. Hoping to change that but without complicating the product too much. Conrad

@R_Teunissen Hi Remco, I'm aware of the demand for this workflow. Implementing it involves some steps, which we are currently taking. In the current version the Equipment Item knows nothing about connectivity i.e. the sockets present on a device. So it isn't possible to automatically create a device from its physical equipment counterpart. However you can create devices from a worksheet. So here are the steps: Create a report of equipment items listing Make an Model Convert to a non-report worksheet using ConnectCAD > Documentation > Convert Report to List... Then create devices from the list using ConnectCAD > Update > Create Devices from Worksheet ... That will get them there today. Moving forward we will create a more streamlined approach. Conrad

Hi @Andrew.Stansfield Assuming we are talking about scripting here, I don't think you will get an event when a record is updated. Probably the simplest is to create a command that copies the changes to all the other instances by traversing the drawing list with a FOREACH. Conrad

Hi @Seth Moak Would it be possible for you to PM me the file? I was trying to reproduce the problem and I didn't see it. Best regards Conrad

@btgroves If you have a reproducible case and you can share the file, please PM it to me with the "how to make it happen" and we'll look into it. Conrad