Schematic Intelligence - D-Tools Forum

**Kevin Mikelonis** · 10-26-2007, 03:48 PM

Will intelligence come back to the schematic page?

Back in the day...a wire connected to a device on the plan view page came onto the schematic page automatically when the device was added to the schematic page.

As it stands now, I can connect a wire with a specific COMP ID to a device on the plan view page, then connect the same wire to a different device.

This is not good - bug - oversight?

I would welcome this feature's return, it's very important

RandyB · 10-27-2007, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin Mikelonis

Back in the day...a wire connected to a device on the plan view page came onto the schematic page automatically when the device was added to the schematic page.

We'll take a look at this for a future release (ref #2762). There will be a wiring upgrade in the first half of next year.

Originally Posted by Kevin Mikelonis

As it stands now, I can connect a wire with a specific COMP ID to a device on the plan view page, then connect the same wire to a different device.

If you connect a wire on a plan view, then connect the same wire to a different device, you should be seeing a warning that you are changing the connection. If not it's a bug. We'll take a look and see if there's something that needs fixing.

- Randy

RandyB · 11-02-2007, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by RandyB

If you connect a wire on a plan view, then connect the same wire to a different device, you should be seeing a warning that you are changing the connection. If not it's a bug. We'll take a look and see if there's something that needs fixing.

Kevin, I took a look at this and the warning was removed to reduce the number of prompts. We took the approach that a schematic connection automatically overrides a connection made on a plan view.

I also noticed that in SI4, while the wire drops onto the schematic with the product (if connected on a plan view page), it is randomly attached to one of the ports on the device. However, the user is free to change this any way they want, including connecting it to a different device, which presents the same problems SI5 has.

We'll take a look at dropping the wire together with the product (ref #2762), but does anyone have any comments about the logic we should use when user tries to connect a wire to a device that is different from the one it's already connected to? Is it as simple as letting you know that "hey, you've changed the connection, do you want to proceed?".

- Randy

**Kevin Mikelonis** · 11-30-2007, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by RandyB

Kevin, I took a look at this and the warning was removed to reduce the number of prompts. We took the approach that a schematic connection automatically overrides a connection made on a plan view.

I also noticed that in SI4, while the wire drops onto the schematic with the product (if connected on a plan view page), it is randomly attached to one of the ports on the device. However, the user is free to change this any way they want, including connecting it to a different device, which presents the same problems SI5 has.

We'll take a look at dropping the wire together with the product (ref #2762), but does anyone have any comments about the logic we should use when user tries to connect a wire to a device that is different from the one it's already connected to? Is it as simple as letting you know that "hey, you've changed the connection, do you want to proceed?".

- Randy

Randy,

We recently completed a large project in SI5.

There is NO PROMPT if I connect a wire on a schematic page to a different device on than the same wire is connected to on the plan view page.

This is a mess.

Our solution to keep things aligned, was to run a wire checklist report, and cross reference COMP IDs while building the schematic.

This worked well, mostly because our room naming/numering and COMP ID schema is tight, but this added 6 hours to the schematic development process.

Having the right wire come in with the item is a must and really needs to be fixed.

Keeping the right input connection is a must as well.

The SI5 behavior is counter productive to the SI4 behavior.

Overall, this project went together very well in SI5, really like the control of the PDM, but to be happy with it, filtering and collaping the PDM is a must - and that is only as good as your data is organized and your project's framework is structured!

Jack Frost · 12-23-2007, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by RandyB

We'll take a look at dropping the wire together with the product (ref #2762), but does anyone have any comments about the logic we should use when user tries to connect a wire to a device that is different from the one it's already connected to? Is it as simple as letting you know that "hey, you've changed the connection, do you want to proceed?".

- Randy

Randy,
I would think that the software should address the user w/ a dialog as you suggest. If the user chooses to proceed, the change should be propagated to the plan view(s) and/or any other pages where the connection is represented (inclusive other schema pages where it might be shown) as well. Any connection(s) between a wire and a given device, anywhere in the project, should be consistent across all pages.

Just my 2c.

J.

09-09-2008, 09:12 PM

I whole-heartedly agree that connections made in the plan view should be maintained in schematic view, as in SI4. However, I would greatly appreciate knowing how the posters on this thread are dealing with siamese wire. In SI4, I would create a new instance of the wire shape via 'D-tools - Shape - New' and differentiate the instances with color while maintaining the same ID. This allows me to, say, connect the cat5 portion of the siamese wire to a keypad and input of a dist audio device, and also connect the 4c speaker wire portion to the output of the device and a generic "local control" box that the 2c from each speaker is brought to as well. This has worked quite well for us for some time in SI4, but all these are now broken when brought into SI5. As I have said elsewhere, getting a warning is fine, but let me opt out with an 'ignore' button or something if I feel I have valid reasons for what I'm doing. Flagging this in a report without tying my hands also seems a viable option. How do you guys deal with siamese or bundled wire if this is not a problem for you? Thanks...

**Kevin Mikelonis** · 09-09-2008, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by surface nuisance

However, I would greatly appreciate knowing how the posters on this thread are dealing with siamese wire. Thanks...

We recently completed another large engineering project and had to deal first hand with bundled wire and the like which brought this issue to the fore-front for us again.

We dealt with it by creating a circle shape with connection points at 3 and 9 o'clock.

For all bundled wires, or wires that had breakouts, we placed the circle against the connection point on the schematic block, then landed the wire to the opposing connection point on the circle.

This proved to be very effective in dealing with the issue.

Caveat-

Wire connection reports will not recognize these connections!

Although we believe that wire checklist reports are useful with plan views, we do not believe that wire connection reports are useful.

With off page references, junctions, splices, and breakouts, wiring connection reports are typically missing connections unless one expends a great deal of effort to create 'dummy' data with I/O's to deal with real world applications like splices, junctions, and the like.

Those instances are best called out on the schematic, and do not pursue the wire connection report.

What good is a report that is missing information?

Therefore we found this solution workable, but neccesarily acceptable.

Attached is a set of schematics illustrating our workaround.

09-10-2008, 07:59 PM

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Kevin. This is a great solution going forward until they hopefully rethink this. Unfortunately, it does not help with the fact that any projects completed or started in SI4 are now getting hosed when brought into SI5 (we are late updaters for various reasons). I was told by tech support just the other day that 5.5 would be coming out right after CEDIA, which we could have waited for before converting further projects (given that they addressed the issue). I am now hearing that they are waiting until DTU in November, which is not good news for us.

Thanks again for the good advice. I have met you at DTU before and you are the sharpest guy I have met in the D-tools world. I hope they are compensating you accordingly

On a side note...I hope all is well in Paso Robles. I lived there for a couple years 20 odd years ago while working at the SATCOM station for the Army on the National Guard base. It was a beautiful place that I'm sure has grown quite a bit since. Vineyards, ranches, sigh...I imagine you do a fair amount of your work in San Luis Obispo, as well. Cal Poly Tech gave the place a nice vibe. Anyway...thanks again

**Kevin Mikelonis** · 09-10-2008, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by surface nuisance

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Kevin. This is a great solution going forward until they hopefully rethink this. Unfortunately, it does not help with the fact that any projects completed or started in SI4 are now getting hosed when brought into SI5 (we are late updaters for various reasons). I was told by tech support just the other day that 5.5 would be coming out right after CEDIA, which we could have waited for before converting further projects (given that they addressed the issue). I am now hearing that they are waiting until DTU in November, which is not good news for us.

Thanks again for the good advice. I have met you at DTU before and you are the sharpest guy I have met in the D-tools world. I hope they are compensating you accordingly

On a side note...I hope all is well in Paso Robles. I lived there for a couple years 20 odd years ago while working at the SATCOM station for the Army on the National Guard base. It was a beautiful place that I'm sure has grown quite a bit since. Vineyards, ranches, sigh...I imagine you do a fair amount of your work in San Luis Obispo, as well. Cal Poly Tech gave the place a nice vibe. Anyway...thanks again

I am glad this will help you in the future, and I am guted that your SI4 projects are getting 'dis-co'd.'

We have held the line with our clients to finish all projects in SI4 that were started in SI4, this has been yet antoher reason to do so.

Thanks too for the kind words!

As a Certified Partner, D-Tools gives support on their software and an official 'nod' that we are competent by having us listed as a Certified Partner.

100% of our business in the D-Tools realm comes those in from the user community that seek us out after reading things like you have written here today, so to from me to you goes a sincere THANK YOU...THANKS LOADS for taking a moment to post a thumbs up!

And as for Paso Robles, well this is the best place in the world to live for many reasons, We are blessed to be here, most of our work is with integrators we never meet from all over the world, We have technology to thank for that, as well as the work we do for the D-Tools user community.

We do some support work for a few clients to the south, San Luis Obispo, Ventura, and Malibu mainly in the area of lighting control, my favorite part of this whole industry.

'Lights On - We're Open'