Jump to content

Deleting App based connectors and signal types


Recommended Posts

  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

Hello @hihosilvey,

 

Currently there is no way to do this, except for directly editing your app folder data files which is not recommended at all and might cause unexpected behavior.

 

User connectors and signals types should always be on top of the list of choices, so default connectors and signals should not be making it hard to work with user data only.

 

Best Regards,

Nikolay Zhelyazkov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

@hihosilvey Well, this became a subject of internal discussion too. Basically we are not going to be able to expand the device database content we offer without moving towards a standardised set of signal and connector designator codes. We have plenty of demand for more and better content and our challenge is to produce and maintain that without it becoming a major drain on our resources. We are pursuing some ideas to achieve that.

 

We also see plenty of demand for being able to share ConnectCAD designs between offices all around the world as more and more people collaborate internationally. That again drives us towards establishing a common language. So I think that gives you a picture of where we are heading.

 

There is nothing to stop you from "rolling your own". But as Nikolay says, it will be hard for Vectorworks to support you if decide to edit the app folder files. With great power comes great responsibility. We give you that choice - other software does not.

 

We could debate the idea of a switch in the settings to turn off all app folder content, but I would like to see several more votes for that before it goes on the road map. Anyone in favour of that please raise you hand here.

 

Conrad

 

@Pat Stanford my 2c worth on this

  • Like 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Conrad Preen said:

We have plenty of demand for more and better content and our challenge is to produce and maintain that without it becoming a major drain on our resources. We are pursuing some ideas to achieve that.

 

We also see plenty of demand for being able to share ConnectCAD designs between offices all around the world as more and more people collaborate internationally. That again drives us towards establishing a common language. So I think that gives you a picture of where we are heading.

oh, wow. this is getting interesting.

Not sure if it is possible to have a library that works for everybody. Especially if I want to add a device "now" and not wait for it to be added by VW. And the goal of "without it becoming a major drain on [your] resources"... I don't know how that is going to work out. There are quite a few open issues as is. IMHO
But making device creation a bit more comfortable could be a huge help (and factoring in external edits)?
 

37 minutes ago, Conrad Preen said:

Basically we are not going to be able to expand the device database content we offer without moving towards a standardised set of signal and connector designator codes.

And this sounds interesting and frightening at the same time, because it seems to be a big constraint on the custom schematic design? (Wouldn't work for us currently, as we like to give our cable and signal types custom names.) What would be the ISO document for said "standardization"?

 

39 minutes ago, Conrad Preen said:

We also see plenty of demand for being able to share ConnectCAD designs between offices all around the world as more and more people collaborate internationally. That again drives us towards establishing a common language. So I think that gives you a picture of where we are heading.

👍 As mentioned before the language route VW took is currently a huge pain (at least for my German version). Especially because the localization adjusted variable names (the tags for variables so to speak), which caused a lot of frustration in my past first VW weeks. 🙂 Any improvement on that end would be a huge relief.

 

44 minutes ago, Conrad Preen said:

We could debate the idea of a switch in the settings to turn off all app folder content, but I would like to see several more votes for that before it goes on the road map. Anyone in favour of that please raise you hand here.

In our case, having the user content on top is perfectly fine. But if that switch could easily be implemented, why not? Not sure how practical one switch for all content would be, though. Maybe one switch per content type? (numbering, cable types, signal types,...).


my 20c. for what it's worth. 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment

Thank you all for your ideas and knowledge.  I can see where you're headed with this and I don't disagree with standardization, however, I would be in favor of a switch to turn off selectable app data, such as the switch you have to turn off the device builder database in the ConnectCAD settings.  Maybe a switch to turn off the connector and signal type data bases as well?  

 

The real genesis of where this question arose is that the connector and signal type drop down lists as is can get extremely long and hard to navigate if you've already spent the time building custom connector and signal lists for use in earlier versions. The App Data plus the custom signal lists can be 100 or more connections, some of them duplicated in name only with no customization (ex. class line colors, etc.)  I agree with @elc.  Maybe there is a way to apply filtering similar to the Make/Model filtering in the device builder?

 

On the flip side, I've been a ConnectCAD user since 2016 and have built, customized, and curated these lists to work with my workflow.  To now have to sift through a lot of useless and duplicate data (to me) is frustrating.  I remember when I used the app data starting out and it came in handy, but for experienced users things like this are aggravating. One of the things I've loved about ConnectCAD from the beginning is how flexible it is to make it your own.  This feels like a little bit of a regression.  

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
10 minutes ago, hihosilvey said:

The real genesis of where this question arose is that the connector and signal type drop down lists as is can get extremely long and hard to navigate if you've already spent the time building custom connector and signal lists for use in earlier versions. The App Data plus the custom signal lists can be 100 or more connections, some of them duplicated in name only with no customization (ex. class line colors, etc.)  I agree with @elc.  Maybe there is a way to apply filtering similar to the Make/Model filtering in the device builder?

 

Hello @hihosilvey,

 

If the data you are using is in your user folder, isn't it always on top of the lists? If this is the case, which it should be, then you should not have to scroll trough all the data in the list but just through the top user entries that you use. So basically, this should be the same as not having the app data in the list. Additionally, these lists are searchable, so you can easily start typing the data that you want and the list will get filtered to show you only the matching entries.

 

A question for everyone who wants to remove the app folder signals/connectors. What would you expect to happen with the devices that use these signals/connectors if you do not have them in your user folder?

 

Best Regards,

Nikolay Zhelyazkov

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Nikolay Zhelyazkov said:

A question for everyone who wants to remove the app folder signals/connectors. What would you expect to happen with the devices that use these signals/connectors if you do not have them in your user folder?


good point. once it is added from the device manager, the corresponding signals and sockets are added to the lists?

but to make it easier for myself, I currently don't use any pre-defined objects anyway. as I might not like the naming of outputs you've pre-configured or the order. that's why even if (currently on the rare occasion) the device is in your list, I just copy it and add it to my user data. I then just give them "none" as device group, so I don't have to deal with another drop down menu in the device manager. (as it is always set to the wrong group anyway, when I create a new device... murphy's law and all.) the search function for make and model is all i need. currently.

but that is only my workflow after 2months of VW. probably will look a lot different in 6 years. on that note: don't listen to me. 😄

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

Yes this is becoming one of those long threads.

 

@hihosilvey Chad - I have already noted that the pop-up lists are getting unwieldy and we are doing something about that to make sure that the stuff you are always using is at the top of the list.

 

When I was a  designer I always created my own devices, signal and connector types so I could be sure that there would be no surprises when it came to installation. Using other peoples work meant checking it exhaustively, which took just as long as doing the work myself. But, the market wants ready-made content, quick fixes etc., and competitors boast about their huge device libraries. People are swayed by these arguments. They find out later that the massive library is not that useful because in fact the buck stops with you the designer. So ConnectCAD has had to tick that box. Life is too short to sit and fight with people.

 

Bottom line - I hear what you are saying but we have to live in the real world. We will do our best to make it comfortable for all 🙂

 

@elc George - ConnectCAD is 22 years old (it can buy itself a drink in America!). The Device Builder is only 8 years old. We had no device database for decades - our focus was always on making it so easy to create your own devices that you wouldn't need a library and you could create what you need right now.  So I am concerned by your comment "But making device creation a bit more comfortable could be a huge help". What do you find difficult?

 

It is quite possible to have a database of device specifications that everyone can use. We just have to use the same codes for signal and connector types. As in all human communication a common language is more important than the perfect language. I mean look at English! It sucks - the spelling is madness - grammar is all over the place - but here we all are talking it. German and Greek are way better but what to do?

 

7 hours ago, Nikolay Zhelyazkov said:

A question for everyone who wants to remove the app folder signals/connectors. What would you expect to happen with the devices that use these signals/connectors if you do not have them in your user folder?

 

This is why such a "switch" would have to be for everything signals, connectors, devices etc.. It would isolate your ConnectCAD in its own little world where you may start using terms in different ways from other ConnectCAD'ers around the planet. Not an easy place to return from if you need to share documents with another office. Personally I would say don't go there.

 

Best

 

Conrad

 

Link to comment

Ahha I am coming back into things here doing my every couple month of checking in on the forums and see this....

 

So put me in as a raised hand of those that would appreciate a switch to remove the 'defaults' as I find many of them useless for me as I recreate them to be more precise in many cases.

 

5 hours ago, Conrad Preen said:

"But making device creation a bit more comfortable could be a huge help". What do you find difficult?

Difficult?  Not really though when you find you need a connector not in the list for  new device you don't normally work with, that could be easier.  Tedious?  Very.

 

I will preface this with, I understand the difference between what i am about to discuss and the amount of information tracked in VW/CC so please keep that in mind, this is just a demonstration.

 

Some time ago I started creating basic tools to do signal flows in diagrams.net (Was draw.io).  The basics were, you created a device by drawing the rectangle, and dragged in the connectors to make IO connectors, and if the connector was within the bounds of the device, it would be added to the device, so that if you drug that device, it would drag all connectors, etc. much like you would expect.  I have a basic training video and documentation if it would help on this to demonstrate I can send (That I do send to students in fact because it doesn't require them to know VW to make basic diagrams).

 

The difference in speed building a piece of equipment there is tremendous.  I don't have to create the device, then edit the symbol, then create each port, then edit each port, the leave the symbol/realize I need to reexpand the device, so edit the symbol again to guesstimate how big my device needs to be, etc.  I just created the device, drug in the sockets onto the device, and could select each socket and edit the name etc. individually.

 

Taking that one step farther via things like the eyedropper in VW would make it even easier, being able to apply 'standard' settings, such as Line Level XLR connectors, Mic Level XLR connectors, etc. but being able to drag and drop them directly onto the drawing rather than having to edit the symbol first and having that disconnect between the symbol and what it encompasses and the rest of the drawing that makes layout more difficult.  Not to mention the ability to save equipment as symbols and manage them easily does wonders as well to save time in the future for standard equipment obviously.

 

Obviously there is a lot more information in VW, but dang if I kind of dread building the signal flows to start with because I wish it could be much quicker than it is.

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

WOW! @Thomas_

 

How much of ConnectCAD are you not getting?  From what I see you are going the long way round.

 

It is pretty alarming to realise that you didn't discover that the Socket tool happily places the socket directly into the device you just created with the device tool! No need to enter the device at all unless you want to shuffle things around.

 

image.png

 

I'm wondering how we can make it clearer that the Socket tool places the socket inside the device? We do highlight the device in red.

 

image.png

 

Ok it's not drag and drop... but I thought the highlighting would make it pretty obvious. Obviously not - you got me worried!

 

Love the idea of favourite socket configs - that is going in!

 

Let's keep the conversation going!

 

Conrad

  • Like 1
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Conrad Preen said:

the Socket tool happily places the socket directly into the device you just created with the device tool!

oh, cool! didn't know the socket tool could directly edit device objects (although I don't quite understand how that makes it fastern then opening the device edit mode as I most likely have to change my device rectangular to add sockets as well?)

(btw another case of: Why not make a real ConnectCAD tutorial that explains what it can do in half an hour? I still don't understand why there is so little easy access documentation on ConnectCAD. And I am not talking about the long -randomly detailed- VW help.)

 

On 4/8/2022 at 10:37 PM, Conrad Preen said:

It is quite possible to have a database of device specifications that everyone can use. We just have to use the same codes for signal and connector types.

which is why I was asking about what US/international standard for connector types and abbreviations you were thinking of. 😉

 

On 4/9/2022 at 4:00 AM, Thomas_ said:
On 4/8/2022 at 10:37 PM, Conrad Preen said:

"But making device creation a bit more comfortable could be a huge help". What do you find difficult?

Difficult?  Not really though when you find you need a connector not in the list for  new device you don't normally work with, that could be easier.  Tedious?  Very.

maybe for other reasons, but thanks, that's the word I should have used. Tedious. Didn't want to cause any concerns. 🙂 Don't get me wrong, I kind of like the device builder, but more often then not I find myself in the position, where it is just too time consuming to make edits there.

As a tiny example (but maye I missed another function as well 😉 ) : Let's take an amplifier with speaker outputs for 2 speakers and spdif loop.
1.
if I want the outputs to be called SPK L and SPK R I have to create a new output line (can't duplicate it, why?), as the default 2 output function only allows SPK 1 and SPK 2 and set all those good settings again (signal type, socket, cable)... Excel 10sec.

2. asuming it is using a coax cable I've set the spdif output accordingly and name it Digital Out. later on I am told that it is using a regular shielded stranded wire and am

changing the cable type, that possibly changes the connector type and name automatically again, so I have to click around to get those updated. Again in a worksheet 5sec.

 

Maybe not the best examples. Obviously the above is do-able, but if you have that issue wih every other device and 10 ports each and might want to make changes at a later stage...  I hope it helped illustrate my issues I am having with the device builder.
 

Some improvements I could think of... for starters it would be great, if the device.txt would be a lot more ´"Excel friendly":

  1. e.g. headers and make and model or any other column (e.g. a random device ID) on every socket line for easy sorting.
  2. Maybe in the future when VW is a bit further with it's usability with worksheets/tables the worksheet edits could be done inside VW?!)
  3. maybe doing it in VW would eliminate another issue: not having to restart VW to make edits to the device.txt
  4. one of the biggest issue I am having (of which I know it currently can not be changed as it is systematic) is that the devices are not symbols but unique plug-in objects. I still have not read one convicing argument other then "It's how it has to be done, because that's how VW works"... which obviously is something that can't be argued against, I know. But let me dream, thank you. 🙂

 

Again, the device builder is a nice tool and I use it for small edits, because it's all in a neat selectable list. Just hoping for a few updates so I don't have to use all of the current workarounds (to deal with the points in my list above).

 

 

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
7 hours ago, elc said:

one of the biggest issue I am having (of which I know it currently can not be changed as it is systematic) is that the devices are not symbols but unique plug-in objects. I still have not read one convicing argument other then "It's how it has to be done, because that's how VW works"... which obviously is something that can't be argued against, I know. But let me dream, thank you. 🙂

This is the problem with forums - you explain and after a month it is buried under a heap of other posts and no-one can find it. So... "why are devices not symbols?"

 

a) because editing a symbol changes EVERY instance of that symbol and you may not remember everywhere it was used until your installer/technician comes up against the problem

b) it is very useful to re-order the connectors of the same type of device in the schematic to reduce the number of circuits crossing over

c) it makes for much clearer drawings if you do not clutter them up with unused connectors

d) you may well want to have the same device on multiple layers e.g. and audio / video switcher will appear on the audio schematic and the video schematic but with different sockets showing

e) you need multiple instances of the same device (but different sockets on that device) in different areas of a schematic to have a clear signal flow - example: patch panels.

 

That's the first 5 arguments that come to mind. There are more.

 

There is nothing arbitrary about it. It is a conscious design choice on my part and I stand by it. I know that this means that editing every instance of a device is a bit harder but that saves you from unintended consequences for which YOU as the designer will be responsible.

 

To assist with making changes to multiple device instances we have created the Device tool eyedropper mode. It handles the issues that some of the sockets you may be changing will already be connected - symbols don't have the brains for that.

 

This is not an issue I intend to revisit. I have to say that I take exception with this tone which implies that I do not think things through. Believe me I have spent a lot longer exploring the options than you have.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Conrad Preen said:

This is the problem with forums - you explain and after a month it is buried under a heap of other posts and no-one can find it. So... "why are devices not symbols?"

that is indeed a problem. but thanks for taking the time to answer anyway. much appreciated.

 

1 hour ago, Conrad Preen said:

That's the first 5 arguments that come to mind. There are more.

yes, I hear your arguments! but from my current experience I can not agree, sorry. but that may very well be due to a lack of experience on my part! and I guess it also depends at what point in a project you are.

 

may I add that your list does have quite a few implications on how the software "should" be used and how schematics "should" be drawn. which makes me wonder again, why VW is not offering more specific tutorials or workshops on ConnectCAD (and not just "Entertsinment") and how to use ConnectCAD in particular (aka BestPractice)?

 

 

2 hours ago, Conrad Preen said:

I have to say that I take exception with this tone which implies that I do not think things through. Believe me I have spent a lot longer exploring the options than you have.

I am sure you have and I can understand that having the same topics come up with the new guys like me is frustrating. but I always felt having this kind of exchange of views also adds to refining the software. as obviously not everybody has the same workflows. not sure at what point you felt a lack of respect for your work again but there sure is none. on the contrary, as I said before.

 

just a bit sad, that this topic shifted from it's initial topic, which is the device builder and further down feedback on how to possibly improve its options.

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

Be assured that your positive input is appreciated and is actively considered in our ongoing development. I have already filed enhancement requests based on some of your comments. You will see this in future versions.

 

If we have diverged from the original topic it is owing to your question/assertion that a basic design choice in ConnectCAD (devices not being symbols) is incorrect. Since this is absolutely not the case, I took the time to explain some of the reasons for and advantages of the way we do things. I am beginning to feel that this was not time well spent since you dismiss my detailed exposition just by saying that you cannot agree based on your experience. I welcome rational debate and believe me I constantly re-examine my assumptions, even those which have so far stood the test of time. But if you cannot accept my line of reasoning and you cannot explain yours then I think we are stuck.

 

Kind regards

 

Conrad

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 4/11/2022 at 9:28 AM, Conrad Preen said:

a) because editing a symbol changes EVERY instance of that symbol and you may not remember everywhere it was used until your installer/technician comes up against the problem

b) it is very useful to re-order the connectors of the same type of device in the schematic to reduce the number of circuits crossing over

c) it makes for much clearer drawings if you do not clutter them up with unused connectors

d) you may well want to have the same device on multiple layers e.g. and audio / video switcher will appear on the audio schematic and the video schematic but with different sockets showing

e) you need multiple instances of the same device (but different sockets on that device) in different areas of a schematic to have a clear signal flow - example: patch panels.

 

To be fair, there is a fair amount I disagree with Conrad's approach on some things, but his logic here is sound in my experience (In terms of why it makes sense that every instance of a device is not a symbol that would be tied to every other instance) as all of these are perfectly valid things that I have done repeatedly.   Now whether this is an argument about making each device an instance of a unique symbol vs a plugin, eh that I can't weigh in on.

 

On 4/11/2022 at 2:15 AM, Conrad Preen said:

How much of ConnectCAD are you not getting?  From what I see you are going the long way round.

 

Very possible, as has been obvious in other places, very often you and I have very different ideas on workflow

 

On 4/11/2022 at 2:15 AM, Conrad Preen said:

It is pretty alarming to realise that you didn't discover that the Socket tool happily places the socket directly into the device you just created with the device tool! No need to enter the device at all unless you want to shuffle things around.

 

It is likely the being forced to shuffle things around that caused me to miss this, as, for instance, when I started I immediately went to the device builder to start building devices.  Then to edit those devices, you have to enter the device to move things around, as a result I completely missed this functionality apparently as it is the only interaction that can happen from outside of the device editor.  I would be surprised if I was the only one to miss it given this though as I suspect many people probably follow a similar path in their exploration of ConnectCad.

 

So then what would it take to be able to manipulate more about sockets in a similar fashion to what I described above from outside the device editor?  As mentioned, since when entering the device editor it changes your view so that you lose your place in the overall drawing, so if trying to align sockets to a device next to it, you need to enter the editor and then zoom back out so you can see it, repeat step one for each device.  It would speed that entire process up tremendously, though I am guessing is not a small amount of work as that is a fundamental change in workflow/operation.

 

Edited by Thomas_
Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

And finally, and hopefully to close this thread at last...

 

Everyone has the right to their own opinion and the right to express it. But... I ask you: does it move the conversation forward to just say that you disagree without being specific as to WHY?

 

Looking forward to engaging with you all in a constructive manner.

Link to comment
On 4/12/2022 at 8:55 PM, Thomas_ said:
On 4/11/2022 at 3:28 PM, Conrad Preen said:

a) because editing a symbol changes EVERY instance of that symbol and you may not remember everywhere it was used until your installer/technician comes up against the problem

b) it is very useful to re-order the connectors of the same type of device in the schematic to reduce the number of circuits crossing over

c) it makes for much clearer drawings if you do not clutter them up with unused connectors

d) you may well want to have the same device on multiple layers e.g. and audio / video switcher will appear on the audio schematic and the video schematic but with different sockets showing

e) you need multiple instances of the same device (but different sockets on that device) in different areas of a schematic to have a clear signal flow - example: patch panels.

Expand  

 

To be fair, there is a fair amount I disagree with Conrad's approach on some things, but his logic here is sound in my experience (In terms of why it makes sense that every instance of a device is not a symbol that would be tied to every other instance) as all of these are perfectly valid things that I have done repeatedly.   Now whether this is an argument about making each device an instance of a unique symbol vs a plugin, eh that I can't weigh in on.

yes,  @Thomas_ It looks like most people use it the way you do and the system was designed, I can see that now. Guess I misinterpreted or misread a statement made somewhere else, sorry about that. I understood devices have to be PIOs as the circuit connections wouldn't work otherwise, hence my comment of a suspected "systematic issue". But I guess that is wrong or at least not the main reason. and sorry for going waaaay off topic. (:

 

sorry, @Conrad Preen I didn't want to go into detail on those points as I felt I just might know too little about them yet. Especially when the function in question would not be revisited as stated. but I will try to elaborate a bit (see below).
tl;dr: the main reason why I wished for symbols instead of POIs is that in my current workflow the amount of work I have to put into changing types of devices at a later stage and possibly missing some changes trumps the other drawbacks in your list. For now at least. 😉 

 

 

best,

george

 


 

> a) because editing a symbol changes EVERY instance of that symbol and you may not remember everywhere it was used until your installer/technician comes up against the problem
that is actually what I am after in a file and the eyedropper is a fine tool, but it doesn't feel as inuitive (yet) to me as it maybe should.
for example:
1. All layers have to be made visible, all devices selected and then I have to make sure the "master" device is clearly visible and selectable between the other 200 now appearing devices to get the features I want with the eyedropper. That felt like many extra steps for a small change.
2. Renaming sockets doesn't work that way when a circuit is connected. I can bulk rename them through the worksheets of course. (although only with another workaround) but that's again many extra steps. (though I have to say again how fantastic the editing capabilities through worksheets are already)

rough idea:

as with other symbols used (e.g. the ones for the connector text) VW could ask what should be done with devices in a drawing when pulling a similar device from the library into the drawing or when the master device in the library was updated when opening a file? (maybe similar to how fusion handles external components? probably not feasible)

 

> b) it is very useful to re-order the connectors of the same type of device in the schematic to reduce the number of circuits crossing over

I can see how that is very practical although I didn't really consider this a problem yet.

 

> c) it makes for much clearer drawings if you do not clutter them up with unused connectors

I can only assume that this is indeed very good for many drawings. e.g. with audio or lighting mixing consoles and such? but we don't use those, so I don't know. in fact I was specifically asked at times to draw available connectors so that when revisiting a site for an update or while remotely troubleshooting, support can see what is still available on a device. it does add redundent info to the drawing but in our case it wasn't too distracting yet (and I do leave connectors out that are extremly unlikely to be used)

 

> d) you may well want to have the same device on multiple layers e.g. and audio / video switcher will appear on the audio schematic and the video schematic but with different sockets showing

not using layers separating systems (yet)

 

> e) you need multiple instances of the same device (but different sockets on that device) in different areas of a schematic to have a clear signal flow - example: patch panels.

similar use case as c) and d) and I definitely see the benefit in patch panel devices being different to regular devices (although for now I decided to treat patch panels as modular devices to be able to spread them out on the schematic instead of the standard patch panel device function as they felt harder to read.)
also the use of arrow connections

 

very rough idea (for c,d and possibly e): have different "visibility states" for each socket of every device instance. (which sounds impossible to do in a userfriendly fashion of course)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...