Jump to content

Thomas_

Member
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

5 Neutral

Personal Information

  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Can you give an example of the data viz solution you mention? Obviously I have brought up this before of being able to hide sockets, so very curious on this. Thanks! Thomas Vecchione
  2. Having done at least a decent bit of programming over my life, I am fully aware. Correct it might not necessarily be easier, but will it really be harder? If not and one option allows for more workflows and options then that would seem to be the better path forward. In this case the differentiation between a term panel and connector panel is odd to me when in the real world no such distinction is ever made that I am aware of, it is just a panel and if I tell an installer that they understand what I mean based off the connector loading. I could be the only one, and just have never experienced this in my dealings and everyone else makes such a distinction, but it would surprise me if so. From a software standpoint it would seem to be determined primarily by the connector loaded as well. And that may work great for you. However I will point out a couple of things: 1. In theater (The world I came from and still teach in, though I also do system consulting as well for installation) I should be able to hand this off to a worker and have them replicate exactly my design. It should be very exact in fact as if it isn't things get missed on the shop order. That isn't to say it will ever be perfect, but the more complete, legible, and precise it is the easier time everyone has. And it means that the crew running the show are more able to follow my paperwork in troubleshooting and if they were involved in the build they know it that much better and can just reference it when needed. 2. As a system designer (Installation or Entertainment) I often use the documentation to double check my work, and often will catch problems or missing equipment because I am this precise. That means less wasted time on site building or waiting for parts to come in. 3. My installers generally don't shut off their brain, if they do I tend to not use that contractor again. Very rarely do I run across that, but they do often appreciate how thorough my designs are (Recently had some confirm this in front of a client) as it means they have to worry less about catching issues, and just need to follow the instructions, and if they do have questions they give me a call as needed, but often times know me well enough to understand where I am going in those occasions and haven't shut off their brains so that I rarely have an issue. Thomas Vecchione
  3. Yes but that isn't really what I was asking, what I was looking for was having both a passthrough, and a term connection on a single panel? For instance one example was a small AV rack I put into a gym for a client where I had soldered XLR and a pass-through HDMI connector (Along with various RCA, etc.) for them to plug in either an external system or video presentations etc. Specifically how to show those connectors on a single panel in the rack elevations especially. Thomas
  4. Assuming I understood your differentiation from correctly, a term panel would be primarily passthrough connectors correct? This isn't the case for a panel I design necessarily, I might have soldered connections just the same there as well. Though I will admit to possibly being still confused on that differentiation, I don't find it very clear in the documentation I have seen on it. EDIT: And there have been and will be cases where I want both on the same panel as well honestly. Though truth be told I am not sure why there needs to be two different tools anyways for this honestly. It feels like the differences (Soldered vs passthrough) should be options on the connector symbols that are easily switched between, and that a single panel type could cover both. I might be able to make this argument for a jackfield as well, though that is easier for me to agree on a different panel due to it affecting connections between sockets (normal, half-normal, etc.) Thomas
  5. Ahh that might be why I didn't find it the first time, good to know! Thank you. This does bring up another question, is there a way to show the quantity of summarized items? For instance in a recent system I had 8 mini-converters that summarizing would shrink them down to a single row, which is great, but I would love to be able to get the quantity at that point to still know how many are needed? Thanks! Thomas
  6. Ahh that might be why I didn't find it the first time, good to know! Thank you.
  7. Thank you both, I swear I looked there, but went back and double checked that and realized what I was looking for (Equipment.User1) was under Field Value, instead of Record, sorry about the noise. Thomas
  8. Hmm not sure if I am misunderstanding you here, or you me. What I am really looking for is an easy way to have a single physical device in multiple places on a schematic to help clean the schematic up. In doing so, removing ports that are in use elsewhere seems like a good idea. So my ideal is actually be more along the lines of: A command to take a schematic block, and make it two 'linked' blocks. If a connection is made at one of the two linked blocks, that port is 'disabled/hidden/whatever' on the second block to prevent a second connection being made to the same port, at least on inputs (Splitting cabling on outputs is obviously more normal, and probably easily argued should be allowed though when talking about the possibility of splitting by connecting the outputs across both blocks it is less obvious and could be argued). Also in the same line of thought, when the drawing is checked, the 'Check Drawing' command as a precursor to actually checking things, might take the two linked blocks and treat them as a single device in terms of ports, to prevent labeling things as duplicated ports that really aren't. To tag along with this, a visual indication of the 'linked' blocks could be provided, and at least one standard I know of for this is explained in the USITT sound graphics guidelines document from 2008: https://www.usitt.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/Sound_Guildelines_2008.pdf See page 2 where you have two examples of ways a block drawing could be visually modified to show that it is 'linked' to another block elsewhere in the drawing, complete with an optional text descriptor of this as well. This is a tricky subject honestly I agree, and one I haven't given to much thought to, but one possible option would be utilizing classing and telling the Check Drawing command to ignore certain classes. This could even be defined by regular expression for instance, so that *IGNORE classes are ignored as an example only. So moving something into an ignored class would tell Check Drawing to ignore that class, and could be broken down by Equipment, Ports/Sockets, Connections, etc. each with their own ignore rules. But again I REALLY have not given that enough thought as it is really secondary to me to the above, but still a possibility to increase the power available to it. Thomas
  9. Yes sadly not checking sockets/devices would mean losing the functionality for that brought by that tool, one of the strong suits of ConnectCad honestly. Would be nice down the road to get a little more flexibility out of it then, as it is a great tool, but use cases like the ones I brought up here do tend to break it. Thomas
  10. So sadly not a clean solution then. Is there any way to tell Check Drawing to ignore certain 'errors' like this, or when I have an item with identical NAMEs to represent the exact same piece of equipment more than once on the schematic? Thomas
  11. More of a generic question I suppose, but specifically in ConnectCAD is there a way to filter worksheets, such as when I add a user-data item for 'Owner Furnished' (OFE) or not and want to run a report for a BOM that includes only devices that are not owner furnished to hand off to the contractor? I can obviously export to Excel and filter there, but would be great to do this in Vectorworks as well not only to simplify workflow, but also to more easily include it on output PDFs. Thomas
  12. It has been option previously, at least it has worked. Issue arises when you have example some small devices(3-6pc) from different manufacturers which you know that fit in same real life rack unit and are to be installed to generic rack shelf with out dedicated rack mount. There right most units might not get RackU location to schematics. Half rack might be option in this case. Some times it is not when you have to put two little ones on top of each other. Agreed, non-rackmount items are very common in tour racks, etc. for instance as much as I might like to have everything rackmount, not always a case. One example from a current project is a blu-ray player, where for my client I can either spend <$100 for a non-rackmount or +$1000 for a rackmount, guess which one they went with? This also applies for a lot of equipment that just isn't rackmount like small scarlett audio interfaces, etc. Thomas
  13. Ok, I will try this moving forward then, but will I get issues with the 'Check Drawing' command though as the ports still exist at that point? Thomas
  14. Thank you, the select item command was precisely what I was looking for. I knew you could edit in the worksheet, however I needed to know what the device was before I could edit it, which finding the device in the schematic was what gave me that information. Thomas
×
×
  • Create New...