Drop points as end devices

[wscooper]

A connector panel within the space should be considered an endpoint for automatic cable routing.

 

Currently the drop point requires equipment to be connected to it, even the connector panel drop style.

Having these as an end point for patch panels would be ideal.

 

Cheers,

Will

[Conrad Preen]

@wscooper Hi Will,

 

This particular thing goes both ways. The line between equipment and drop points is blurred. There are times when you'd like to take a cable path to a piece of equipment and there are times as you say when the drop point is in effect the end point of the cable. These things keep me awake at night!

 

The reason why we have drop points at all is workflow. Quite often you have to make decisions about the physical routing of cables long before you have any idea of what will be connected to them. Say you are called in as an AV consultant on a new building. You'll receive a bunch of architectural plans and the first thing you'll have to do is mark where cabling will go to - i.e. drop points. You will have to show what cabling (at least a guess) goes between them because some routes will become inaccessible during the building process. You can't specify equipment in detail before building works are complete because it will all be out of date by the time you install it.

 

But there are other situations I agree.

 

The way we do it now - attaching equipment  to drop points doesn't imply an extra length. The equipment simply uses the drop to access the path network. You could style a drop point to look like a patch panel, but then it wouldn't be in your equipment report. But you could customise the criteria of the report to include drop points. So maybe that's a way forward?

 

I like that fact that you've raised this point. Let's keep the discussion going and who knows maybe an even better solution will emerge?

 

Conrad

[wscooper]

Hi Conrad,

 

Firstly, thank you for the complete response, very helpful!

 

The drop point workflow makes a lot of sense for the scenario where you have to define cable routes before the system is finalised. I assumed it would 'just work' as the drop style name was exactly the same as the connector panel name.

The only down side is it's a two-step process as every drop point now would then need to have a device connected down the line at exactly the same point, for example a ceiling speaker, or to explicitly define a cable along the cable path.

 

Just thinking this through now, would the simplest method be to have the ability to tag a drop point directly with the device tool, or have a generic panel device that is assigned to the connector panel?

 

Being able to tag the drop point with the device tool would be very slick? So, thinking all the way down the idea here's an example.

 

You have a side of stage panel, with some XLR inputs to tie into the house PA, labelled FP-S/L. This same panel also has the output for the front fills.

On the schematic you would use the connector panel tool, so that you can do the layout as well.

You could then drop the front fill speaker onto the schematic as well (though currently you can't make the connection as its behaviour is different to a termination panel).

With the connection panel marked as a device itself, the connection to the speaker could be ignored as all the cables of this drop point are now automatically marked as having a device connected?

 

It would also allow other drop points to continue to behave as they do now.

Also, the additional cable on the schematic layer from the connection panel to the device could be flagged as a patch lead that is required for the job as well, much like adaptors?

This workflow would also allow you tag ceiling speaker drop points directly, so negating the need for a device to be specifically placed?

 

Hopefully I explained that well enough, nice to be able to explore ideas with you.

 

Cheers,

Will

 

[Conrad Preen]

2 hours ago, wscooper said:

The only down side is it's a two-step process as every drop point now would then need to have a device connected down the line at exactly the same point, for example a ceiling speaker, or to explicitly define a cable along the cable path.

 

I fully agree! Interesting suggestions too. There maybe a way forward like that but I will need to work through all the cases. I'll be back!

 

C

[spettitt]

I'd definitely be interested in this discussion as well. I haven't fully tested drop points to learn their behaviour yet, but for us, a connector panel is very often the endpoint of our scope of delivery.

 

If we're installing a theatre or concert venue with connector panels dotted everywhere, some ports on those panels will be used by equipment we are also installing (front fills, subs, projects), but there will be hundreds of ports (either distribution of services from a rack room or tie lines between panels), that are left for the future house technicians in that venue to connect to and use as they please. The panel will be tested and handed over - we will never know what's going on the end of them. So as such, the panel is very much our endpoint item that we plan cable to.

[wscooper]

So, as a workaround I tried connecting a speaker with a generic type, and gave it a CTP name. I haven't found any drawbacks yet, I'll post back if I find one.

Seems a good indication that being able to tag the drop point might be a good workflow. Thinking about it, being able to tag a ceiling drop point with a speaker ID would speed up things as well where a speaker object isn't specifically needed. Best of both worlds?

[wscooper]

So, this seems to work well for connection panels in racks. Once you've placed the panel in the 2d rack it finds a cable route and lets you add connectors etc.

 

However, when you attach a device to a drop point to establish the cable route for a facilities panel, you can't then duplicate it in 2d to layout the connectors.

 

It will let you layout the connector on the device in 3d space though...

Edited February 19, 2023 by wscooper

[spettitt]

On 2/16/2023 at 6:43 PM, wscooper said:

So, as a workaround I tried connecting a speaker with a generic type, and gave it a CTP name. I haven't found any drawbacks yet, I'll post back if I find one.

Seems a good indication that being able to tag the drop point might be a good workflow. Thinking about it, being able to tag a ceiling drop point with a speaker ID would speed up things as well where a speaker object isn't specifically needed. Best of both worlds?

Thanks Will. I plan to have a go with this idea as well - just so I understand, when you say 'tag the drop point', this means changing it's name to have a CTP_ prefix?

[wscooper]

So using the equipment tool, just not associating it with a spotlight device.

I'm currently working on a demonstration file which i'll link in shortly

[Conrad Preen]

There are two cases really:

1. when you don't know the equipment to be placed but you have to design the cable paths
2. when you already know the equipment.

I think for the latter case it would be quite nice for an equipment item to be able to function as a drop point so as to save having to place both. But we (ConnectCAD team) need to talk this one thru to make sure there aren't any rock in the road.

 

Conrad

[wscooper]

@Conrad Preen thanks for giving this some thought 🙂 Lovely to know the team is interested in developing the product with the users (however annoying we are :] ) requests in mind

[spettitt]

Hi @Conrad Preen, just looking at the drop point-per-panel-size workaround from the thread below, that also ties in to this one.

 

At the moment, if I just make a generic '300 x 200 Surface Mount Facility Panel' Drop Point style, I still need to tag the drop point with the CTP equipment item for the circuits on those panels to access the path network. The forced-2D panel would be hidden on the sheet layer, as connectors facing skywards aren't relevant.

 

But then, I loose reference to the ID of the panel. I tried making a Data Tag for the Drop Point, but it can only reference the count of equipment connected, not the ID of connected equipment (which makes sense, since it may be a string or an array of strings).

 

My current idea is a Data Tag on the CTP Equipment Item (complete with a custom field definition to remove the CTP_ prefix), and then leave the data tag showing on the sheet layer but not the EI that it is tagging. Is there anything easier with the current version please? This takes three items to sort out one panel, so is a lot of clicks.

 

For the future, as already discussed above, 100% agree on CTPs functioning as a drop point. I totally get the workflow of pre-cabling a model when you don't know the equipment, but this is only a portion of projects. To be honest, a significant portion of our project workload probably works the other way around - the job has been sold based on the kit spec with the client first of all. So this requires creating loads of drop points at a similar time as creating equipment/panels, just to be able to get it cabled.

 

Drop points are still very valuable, but I feel like a button in their OIP for 'Convert to Equipment Item' could bring up a list of CTP devices currently not linked to an Equipment Item, so you could take a pre-cabled model and swap the relevant drop points out for CTPs when you have a clearer idea of what ports are on them.

 

Other Equipment Items functioning as a drop point is an interesting one as well. Devices with link-throughs particularly. As far as I can tell right now, if I have an array of 6 devices cabled in series using link-throughs, and I want the cabling between them included in the path network for lengths etc, I have to leave a drop point by each device. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Edited May 2, 2023 by spettitt

[Conrad Preen]

Yeah in essence drop points are a promise to place future equipment. We need them for when the future has yet to arrive. They are also a node shared between separate equipment located at the same place. But they are not equipment. A drop point could be just a hole in a wall with a coil of cable emerging - that doesn't belong in your equipment reports!

 

On the other hand ConnectCAD is about saving you time, so we don't like the idea of making you place a drop point in order to add equipment that you already know about.

 

But if you think of a drop point as a named location then it doesn't seem unreasonable that it should be different from the equipment at that location...

 

These are the kind of questions that keep me awake at night 🙂

 

Conrad

[wscooper]

Hi @Conrad Preen

 

It's been a while since this thread started, has there been any progress internally on this you can share?

 

Cheers,

Will

[Conrad Preen]

No, but there are other exciting things in the pipeline 🙂

 

Haven't forgotten though.

 

C

[Jeff.Sullivan]

Bump..

 

I am just starting to make my first 3D building, and it would be so nice to use a drop point and the end destination. 

[Timo_Muu]

This is a very interesting topic. I share the same problem as spettitt. I am currently working on a theatre project with hundreds of different size wall and floor

boxes. The design team uses IFC model to put everything together. Currently it kinda feels that Spotlight is more oriented on live shows than permanent installations where these boxes are the first step in design. Of course you know the location of some equipment (like dimmers) in the beginning but it all really starts with cabling and boxes. It would be fantastic to be able to link the 3d and ConnectCad + easily modify the boxes to match the size and amount/type of connectors in real life.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Timo_Muu

[Jeff G]

It would be nice for connector panel IDs be able to coincide with drop point IDs.  Usually we're specifying structural cable before drawing functional schematics and there are multiple cables that run from wall plates to a patchbay in the rack.  Not all the cables are being used but they still need to be reflected as existing on the final drawing set.

[wscooper]

@Conrad Preen any movement on this do you know?

 

Cheers,

Will

[Conrad Preen]

@wscooper Dear Will

 

I have already tested this and made the video. It will be released very shortly.

 

Conrad

[Jeff.Sullivan]

@Conrad Preen How are things going with this? Where could I find the video?

[wscooper]

@Conrad PreenExcited to see this one too, does it tie in nicely with the new and better connector layouts?

[Conrad Preen]

@wscooper Not exactly clear about your question. By "new and better connector layouts" are you talking about connector panel design? And how does that fit in with drop points that essentially are locations of equipment that has not yet been specified?

 

Conrad

[carl_coddington_]

On 2/12/2024 at 2:59 AM, Conrad Preen said:

@wscooper Not exactly clear about your question. By "new and better connector layouts" are you talking about connector panel design? And how does that fit in with drop points that essentially are locations of equipment that has not yet been specified?

 

Conrad

I'm curious as to when this video will be posted. Patchbays are essentially the only thing left for me to addd to my model! 🙂 CC_Casgrain_Sample_BID.pdf

 

Thanks,

Carl

[wscooper]

@Conrad PreenI'm looking forward to the video explaining drop points as end points, noticed that there's an end point that's a connector panel in the resource manager and like the new connector panel tools, it could all tie together so nicely!