Allow the same schematic terminal symbol to be shown multiple times

[dougmcalexander]

Some customers like to show the same terminal 2, 3, or 4 times throughout their schematic for clarity.  For example, you have terminal TB1:5 on sheet 5 and you connect one wire to it, for a branch circuit.  The other side of the terminal is still available, and you could even connect a second wire to the same side.  But the circuit that you wat to connect to the other side is on sheet 7.  If you insert a terminal on sheet 7 it will automatically index up to number 6.  This is normally great, but in this case you want to connect to the other side of TB1:5.  If you override the software and change the 6 to a 5 the drawing will look the way you wish.  However, when you open Terminal Strip Editor, you will see two terminals labeled TB1:5, and your BOM will have an increased quantity reflecting the additional terminal number 5.  This of course is not what the customer was expecting.

I normally connect a second wire to TB1:5 and use a source/destination arrow combination to connect to the circuit on sheet 7.  This is what I call "Design Reality", because it accuraely reflects what I really want the panel shop to do. However, some customers think that this approach makes the drawing appear too busy, plus they don't want to flip back from sheet 7 to sheet 5 to see what terminal the wire came from.

So my idea is to allow a terminal to be shown multiple times, perhaps up to 4 times, since we can connect two wires to each side legally.  Do this by allowing the user to repeat the same terminal number and check a box labeled "Duplicate", next to the terminal number field (see attached image).  You might even think of it as designating this repeated terminal as a "child" of the first TB1:5.  The software interprets this to mean that this isn't a physical repeat of TB1:5 but a logical repeat of TB1:5.  Also allow the user to make Internal and External wiring assignments to these duplicates, so Terminal Strip Editor will display the wire annotations in the order desired.  But be sure that Terminal Strip Editor understands that these "duplicates" are still part of one physical block, so only show terminal 5 once in the graphical strip, but with up to two wire annotations per side.

[ccad2509]

why reinvent the wheel when the solutions been out there for years

yes in differnt ecad packages they have already thought through the problem and implemented the solution a number of years ago

as mentionioning other peoples ecad systems gets people up in the air all i can say is

late again to the party see whats out there and just do it  

[dougmcalexander]

Not helpful Colin!  I am not referring to other CAD programs.  This forum is about AutoCAD Electrical.  Your negativity is not helpful at all.

[jamorrison]

This is an intersting thought.  I use alot of Wago pluggable terminals, and I struggle to show what is wired to the plug portion of the terminals and what is wired to the base (receptacle) of the terminal.  The plug circuit could be on one sheet and the receptacle circuit on another, but it's really the same terminal in the TSE.  I could use the duplicate terminal for this scenario.  I'm sure I can come up with other uses if this were an option.

[dougmcalexander]

Thanks for your support and constructive input jamorrison!

[ccad2509]

your trying to invent a solution for a problem that has been already adressed

if you honestly dont belive that you can learn from what other people are doing in the ecad world

then that is a very short sighted view of things and your are domed to make the same mistakes that they made to get where they are now

im a great beliver in seeing what other people do and learn from it

your wasting precious time and effort becasue  you refuse to belive other people have come up with good ideas

at some point somebody important will actually look at the rest of the ecad world and start asking questions

like why acade is not taking up ideas that lots of other ecad solutions have adopted ?

[dougmcalexander]

Colin, no one is on here arguing that other programs do or don't do wonderful things.  I use other programs.  And they are quite good at certain things.  I am quite familiar with what they can and cannot do.  

The fact is, a weakness in one program might be a strength in its competitor.  If I were introducing a new program to the market, I would absolutely try to make my program strong where the existing programs have weaknesses.  And I would focus on those weaknesses when I demo it.  When I demo AutoCAD Electrical against another brand, or if I demo another brand against AutoCAD Electrical, I point out the weaknesses in both.  Why?  Because I want the customer tpmake an informed decision about which program might meet their need best.  I They should choose the software that CAN do what they need, even if it is weak in areas that are less important to them.  

No software has everything!  And beware not to assume that when one software does one or two things incredibly well, that it is incredible at everything.  It might be amazing at something you do twice a week, and weak in something that you need twice every hour.  For example, AutoCAD Electrical allows me to actually connect two wires to the same wire connection.  They can both be different wire types, perhaps one is BK 4mm and the other is BK 0.75.  Other programs require the use of the angled tee symbol to illustrate two wires connecting to the same wire connection.  But both wires must be the same wire type.  Only one wire type will appear on the connection plan, even if you forced the wire type assignment on the schematic to be different for both wires.  And then you have to make sure that the orientation of the symbol matches the actual destination of the wire.  

When I started using intelligent electrical CAD programs, they were all from Europe.  At that time most Europeans had trained technicians who wired the panel by reading the schematic.  They didn't wire from a connection plan (a.k.a. wire list).  I remember when promis-e added the connection plan, but it was only by chance if the wire sequence in the connection plan reflected the orientation of the angled tee symbol (called a ZVD symbol) in the schematic.  The connection plan went by the order that the wire connections were created when the ZVD symbol was created, in order to determine the wire sequence on the connection plan.  So the orientation in the schematic might look the way I want, but the connection plan might show the wire sequence completely opposite.  The software only came with two different ZVD symbols.  I had to create 9 more ZVD symbols, inserting the wire connections is 9 different orders, so I could accomodate all wiring scenarios and make the connection plan match the schematic.  It would be nearly 15 years before this issue was addressed in promis-e.

Along came Wiring Diagram and this isue was solved. I could do what I wanted to do in the first place,  I could connect two wires to the same wire connection.  Problem solved.  No wire sequence to define.  No ZVD symbols to create.  Autodesk kept this functionality after they acquired Wiring Diagram, and they even expanded it.  Since release 2008, the orientation of the angled tee symbol determines the wire sequencing in the wire list, with no other effort invloved.

Many of the strengths in AutoCAD Electrical are related to mundane tasks, that we are likely to do during the bulk of our workday.  I can accept a weakness, or wait until Autodesk has a chance to improve it, when the weakness relates to a command or utility that I use less often.  Many of the posts I make here could be classified as "icing on the cake" or "wouldn't it be nice if...".  I respect that Autodesk must process these in order of priority.  They must weigh the importance/popularity of the request against the number of programmers they have available at the time.

[jamorrison]

Sorry, Doug, but I feel a need to comment here also-

I have looked into EPlan, and the price is prohibitive for my company to consider.  There is also the factor of training, since AutoCAD is already known.  It is good to see what they are doing, but their approach is not from a CAD standpoint, but a database standpoint, so the two products cannot be compared Apples-to-Apples.

Colin,

I find your venoumous posts to not be helpful at all, I do not see how you hope to obtain your objective by bashing everyone. Unless getting a better product form AutoDesk is not really your objective?

[ccad2509]

Jamorrision

Yes I do have an agenda I want a better product!!!!!!!

from my unique prospective I use the latest versions of 4 ECAD programmes and can clearly see what most of the people who frequent this forum don’t see which is the other three programmes have quite successfully worked out standard features which don’t exist in ACADE

2 are cad based and 1 is database based so you can’t make the database vs. cad claim

This brings us to the very pointed question

Why do you have to do Ecad designs in a DWG format and the answer is there is no reason (only tradition)

A new generation of electrical engineers are coming through here in Europe who have never used a dwg based product and that is the future rightly or wrongly

And Doug

You using your old tried and tested method of disagreement

Which is when xxxx years ago when you used promis e

Let’s be fair if you’re trying to compare functionality it has to be the same versions otherwise it’s an unfair and distorted comparison

Now if I was to start comparing what Acade did in version 2006 with the latest version of competing programmes then you would quite rightly cry foul

I wont dissect you reply because there is some blaring inaccuracies

So back to the original question

Would you rather waste time and energy reinventing the wheel?

Or would you be smart and take advantage of other peoples hard earned solutions and go down the same road

And again I may point out its not one company that’s come up with this solution but multiple

[dougmcalexander]

Well said jamorrison.  It takes up valuable time to sort through his posts.  Some of his ideas are good ones, but I tend not to notice his good ideas because I tend to ignore his posts altogether.  Too many negative vibes.

[Icemanau]

I posted something very similar back in July last year...

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/autocad-electrical-ideastation/parent-child-terminals/idi-p/5159815

There didn't seem to be much interest for when I posted as it only got 3 kudo's.

I agree that it would be useful especially when I use ACADE for multiple panels and the interconnection diagrams between those panels.

Individual sets of dwgs for each panel with another seperate set of dwgs for the interconnections, all within the one project.

Getting the Panel dwgs done is ok, but when it comes to the interconnection dwgs, if I use the same INST/LOC, I end up with double the required terminals.

Regards Brad

[dougmcalexander]

Thanks for your support Brad! I added your idea of an option to delete the scratch database without closing the software to my request for having the Rebuild/Freshen button added to the ribbon. I think a right-click from project properties should offer the option to delete and recreate the database. I know that isn't what this thread is about but I just wanted you to know that I respectfully hijacked your idea. I also Kudo'd your posting.

[jjstr8]

Doug,

I like the idea.  Brad's parent/child idea sounds like a possible way to implement it.  What I like to do is have a group of terminals jumpered together but all have the same terminal number, but there's no way to have it show up more than one place and have connections to the same physical terminal block.  You would have to end up doing what you described, making all wire connections in one location on a drawing.  What I'm trying to wrap my head around is distinguishing between the child component simply being additional connections on the parent and the child component being an additional physical component logically grouped with the parent.

Jeremy

[dougmcalexander]

Yes Jeremy, child devices are usually considered additional references of the same parent. They can sometimes have their own part number, as with aux contacts. When it comes to a footprint, you can add the aux contact block separately, or setup a footprint with it and another without, using the Assembly Code to trigger which. But terminals are handled differently in AutoCAD Electrical, and the solution must be compatible with the TSE. I'm sure the developers at Autodesk can handle this though.

[RickFrance]

Add your second terminal block to your project and after placement use Add Attribute on to the second terminal block. Make the attribute tag WDTYPE and give it a value of TRM or TERM. Then renumber the Terminal to match the original.

This worked as far as not showing two in the terminal editor but I noticed two issues that with a little testing may or may not be able to be resolved so this may be a dead end.

1. A pass thru terminal did not have the same line number on both sides of the two terminal blocks.

2. The Terminal Editor had no information on the devices or wire connected to the second terminal block that has the WDTYPE attribute.

I have my doubts that this can be resolved to your satisfaction but maybe this will trigger an idea with someone that might actually resolve the issue.

[Icemanau]

@jjstr8, I have no problems inserting multiple linked physical terminals using the same number in a dwg. I just add it in, set the number and select the catalogue info. Then I use the Jumper tool to connect it to the first terminal.

The TSE see's it as a separate physical terminal with no problem.

What this idea is about is showing multiple instance of the one physical terminal in multiple Dwg locations.

For example, Dwg 1 & Dwg 3 shows the terminals in the schematic as a connection point to a wiring harness, while Dwg two shows the wiring harness including the terminals it connects to.

This means that each terminal is shown TWICE and the TSE counts double the number of required terminals which is not correct.

Having the terminals shown in Dwg 2 as children of the terminals shown in Dwgs 1 & 3 means the TSE only counts the 1 set of terminals which is correct.

Regards Brad

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone, is there still no solution for this?

Thanks in advance.

[richardb15]

I think Doug's idea is a very useful one.   We are using 4 way Wago terminals as wiring marshalling points and it is much clearer if my from to wiring list could show connections to say 1 for one wire going to one terminal point, 2 for the next etc, but the terminal group be still be X1 - 1, much in the way relay contacts are handled now.  If this also had the rules of x wires per terminal it would be great. It may be that this can be done now but I can't see how.  Cheers, Richard

[janssen_l]

Also from me a thumbs up, this option would be much appreciated!

Like Brad described, I got a drawing with a couple of interface sheets, where the customer wants to see (with location boxes) the terminals - each time - plus in the schematics, so I get the same terminal 3 times...

[engineer2LF7NM]

Did you try to create a child component for the terminal that has to be duplicated many times?

This might be good solution as it will always show you where (sheet) the main terminal is located through references.

Also this way you will not have to use a dumb terminal or Special Explode existing one keeping drawings intelligent.

[Anonymous]

I think that there is multi-level terminal consist of multiple terminal levels and it allows us to insert them one by one.