Jump to content

elc

Member
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

15 Good

Personal Information

  • Location
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hi @Mark Aceto depending on the amount of devices this sounds like a good approach. Another questions: is there a function for floors? Or are you just talking about the design layers that you use as floors? In your image you are using the room function on the schematic layer, right? As far as I know, this does not work with the room data attached to devices (schematic layer) only with equipment (in the rack elevation layer)? Or how did you set this up? Best, George
  2. hi @Conrad Preen, yes, exactly. any of the standard record fields or at least the cumstom user fields (1-8). but I was thinking ot the devices (source/destination) only. don't have VW with me right now but I couldn't think of any socket records I would use other then the name itself. thanks for looking into it, george
  3. hi @Mark Aceto, that's a good questions, that can't be put into two sentences. what I've learned so far though, is that it greatly depends on what your final outcome has to look like. In my case I need A3 sheets for each room. And I don't seperate systems (audio, video, control, IT,... and so on). Everything is in the same drawing. Also I am not using Spotlight. I am really only here for ConnectCAD. At least for now. But the file is huge (40MB) already and tools are starting to get slow. So I am not sure, if I really want to explore all the 2D and 3D options VW gives us. 😉 But in a nutshell: started out with one layer per room and am (in a second project) trying the one design layer per floor approach due to technical and workflow issues. A bit more details if you are interested: Since I haven't heard back on the forum, I just started with one design layer per room. While layers/rooms with a lot of equipment have to be spread out so they can be printed on seperate layout sheets. (might require arrow connections for in-room equipment). Main reason for this was that I could assign the room name to the layer and reference the layer in my said arrow connections (e.g. "--> Layer/RoomName - Device Name - Port Name"). But the workflow of moving arrow connections between layers is not as fluent as one might hope. And I had issues with inter-layer cabling (lost connections with no solution yet). Which is a pain when you try to move large amounts of devices with a box select. But it seems to happen mostly(?) to EXT devices. I don't know. I just try to select the devices without the arrow connections. But I am getting off topic. 😉 Because of the above unsure situation and the fact that a few tools only work on the same layer I wanted to try to keep the amount of layers for the schematics to a minimum and only have one layer per floor. Let's see how that goes. 🙂 Again a pretty long post, sorry. But it is still just a fraction of the issues questions I would still have. 😄 Still in the trying-to-wrap-my-head-around-VW phase though. Hope this helps anyway. Would be intersting what you decided on and what output you have to generate regarding paper size and system separation? (We were also thinking about just going with A0 for larger rooms instead of multiple sheets and arrow connections) Best, George
  4. thanks @drelARCH for the hint. it is acutally the way I added rows and columns so far, but it is a bit tedious when you have to add let's say 1000 rows (although chessboards and rice come to mind). and the "drag to add" doesn't just let you drag infinitely, but only to the edge of the screen from what I can see. (it also doesn't give you a row count of how many you added.) ...just to give some feedback on why I would greatly appreciate a different option to add columns. 🙂 I thought, that's where we are right now? Or should I open a new topic?
  5. since it is causing me trouble again: may I add another "tiny" future/feature request? 😬 In another post @Nikolay Zhelyazkov mentioned that the circuit description (for arrow circuits) is limited to a select number of data elements for source and end device. a bit of context: in my current case, I am trying to reference the room of a device which is stored in a custom user field instead of having to place every device in a room in the rack elevation view) unless I missed another option (can't put it in device name or tag): any chance that these will be extended? not sure, what part of the programming requires a limit, but maybe the user data fields could be added? (where anything could be stored via the data manager) thanks a lot, george
  6. @Pat Stanford that drag to add rows/columns feature is pretty handy. possible feature request: is there any way rows could be added when pasting content? e.g. I would like to paste content with 50 rows in a worksheet with 30 and VW just adds the additional 20 automatically? or a dialog asking for the amount of new rows? (or both 😉 ) thanks, george
  7. Good morning, let me start out with: I am a happy renumbering user. While I understand things shouldn't get overcomplicated, there is one use-case that maybe you could look at? --> renumbering devices with more then 1 digit with the first digit staying the same. e.g. I'd like to renumber: Device-32, Device-33, ... to Device-38, Device-39,... or Device-120, Device-121,... to Device-150, Device-151,... Currently, I can't. As CCAD creates: Device-3-38, Device-3-39,... and I have to change all devices to Device- first and then start renumbering starting with 38. (given that they have the same name/ are of the same device type. Wouldn't work in @JonnyAVC's case) Possibly give the option for a current prefix (what to look for, with none as an option) and a prefix for the renumbering (as done currently)? best, g
  8. As I am working on the rack elevations new questions start popping up. Like general questions regarding the way rack elevations can be drawn in ConnectCAD. here's some feedback/ feature request: As many of our clients are used to getting detailed rack elevations showing line drawings of front and back of almost all rack equipemnt, it would be very useful if all rack equipment could really be represented by a symbol as well. Currently this only works for regular equipment (RackU 5,6) and for single cards (Slots 1 and 3 in RU9), but not for rack frames (and possibly for the actual rack). Hope, there is still some space on the team's issue tracker. best, george
  9. hello @Nikolay Zhelyazkov, since scripts are still unexplored territory: any plans that this will be implemented as a standard feature? device and equipment kind of represent the same piece of hardware and are linked already (via name/ID, make and model)? edit: and I think your nice method of using worksheets does not work with user-n fields only with custom records, right? I couldn't get it to work. 😕
  10. That's the thing, I would like to avoid rendered (pixel) views in the documentation, as it is very limited in use. Scalable line views (vector) as in all other CCad documentation elements would be the ideal. For now I'll just use a. - the classes-for-views-with-a-flipped-rear workaround. 🙂 as always, thanks a lot for your help and taking the time. learned a lot again. best, g
  11. a. yes, that's what I figured, but then the Rear view has to be mirrored in the symbol, when using your method of mirroring the hole rack frame, right? 😕 b. yes, I had tried that too. but then that change only applies to that single instance of equipment. not the other ones used in the rack. and this time around I can't use the device picker tool to apply the same to my other items. or did I do something wrong? c. yes, I had tried that as well. :) but the problem for me here is that I can only have a rendered view of the 3D object and not a flat line view. or not? d. have you had a chance to look at the section view path as seen in my file? this would be the best option to me, but I just can't get the 2D views to work on my layouts. (since this is one of the main benefits of VW: combining 2D flat views for printing with 3D rendered views?) best, g
  12. oh, an one more thing: 2. is it possible, that rack frames (frames inside racks) won't show the individual items in 3D view?
  13. sorry @Nikolay Zhelyazkov but I can't find a way to add different views to the Equipment Item. I assumed I have to create a symbol and connect the equipment item to that symbol in the OIP (please don't mind that the symbol does not correspond to the name. 😉 ) edit: and it only shows the top view of an object (not the front) in that symbol I have created front and rear views of the object, but *how* can I display them? https://app-help.vectorworks.net/2022/eng/VW2022_Guide/Symbols/Concept_ 2D_components_for_symbol_definitions_and_plug-in.htm#h btw I tried working with section views. looked promising. but with no luck. the 2D views just won't show up. 😕 (see attached modified file) Half-rack rear mounted and symbol insertion point Test_g.vwx
  14. hi @Nikolay Zhelyazkov, we might be talking about two different things? I don't mind the rack ruler position, it's about the view of the devices. both front and rear view show the front of the bottom device (while the 2D text of the half rack device is mirrored). or what is it you meant? 🙂
  15. btw: think I found a workaround using the detailing option of 2D-plan views. but that would be just that, a workaround as it is quite fiddly.
×
×
  • Create New...