Intelligent projects

[mbrown2N7T5]

When we create a project, we should be able to create subfolders for each panel, With all of the intelligence tied together, but each panel being independent.  If I have 5 panels in a project, each panel should be able to have identical wire numbers and component numbers. The Project should be able to differentiate the panels apart. I should be able to have a "24vdc" wire number in each panel without Autocad thinking they are the same wire. The same goes for components.  I should be able to have a "CR1" In each panel, without autocad thinking they are the same. I should also be able to put a contact from panel 1 CR1 into panel 2 and autocad links them properly.

 I know I can use subsections and location to label things, but it is just a work around and does not really tie everything together. Each subpanel in the project should have a "Panel" designation so Autocad knows that they are separate panels, and act accordingly.

 The way things are now, If I need to wire for one panel to another panels PLC, I have to do it manually, and they are not linked. 

[dougmcalexander]

The use of Installation and Location Codes allows you to use the same component tag across multiple panels within the same project. A component can be designated as Installation (city, factory, etc.), Location (which panel), and which component. This system originated with the DIN standard. The Installation is preceded by an equal sign (=).  The Location is preceded by a plus sign (+).  The component tag is preceded by a dash (-).  So, a control relay inside of panel A, located at a factory in New York might be identified as: =NY+PNL-A-CR1

Note that you must enable Combined Installation/Location Tag Mode in project properties in order to use Installation and Location Codes as part of the complete component ID.

You can create subfolders for your project.  These can be used to differentiate sections of a project (PWR, PLC, MTR), document categories (Schematic, Panel, Reports), or panels within a project, (Main, Remote, Junction Box 1, Junction Box 2). You decide the meaning of the folders according to how you name them. 

[mbrown2N7T5]

If I add a wire in a NY panel and call it X1, i cannot add a wire in a SE panel and call it X1 because CAD will see it as the same wire. The same goes for components. I know what you are saying, but a lot of our customers do not want to deal with wire numbers like NY+PNL+A+X1. It makes labelling impossible, on both the wire and on components. Try putting NY+PNL+A+CR1 on a tag and sticking it on a SPDT control relay.

 CAD should be smart enough to know that different panels in the same project, should be able to have the same exact labels and cad can differentiate them from each other.  I could probably write a LISP that can do this, but I do not have the time, and to be quite honest, the thousands I pay a year should cover some improvements like this. It is not very hard to achieve.

[dougmcalexander]

The components don’t need to physically have the =NY+PNL on the label. That label can appear on the outside of the panel somewhere. DIN/IEC manufacturers don’t put the long label on the component. Even on the drawing they don't have to. The page can be set to =NY+PNL. The software can be set to only show CR1 on the component symbol and on the one in the panel, though it processes it as =NY+PNL-CR1. This is normal DIN/IEC style.  I use this method for both the IEC classes I teach and the NFPA classes I teach.  I find the Installation/Location Code approach useful for North American projects as well - not just international projects.

Wire numbers within the same project should normally not be duplicated. It defeats the point of wire numbering. A technician should know that wire number 715 anywhere in the same system is the same potential or signal. But, if your customer insists upon having duplicated wire numbers, you can ignore the wire number duplication error messages each time they pop up or you can permanently set your design environment to ignore duplication of specific wire numbers.  You can edit your WD.env file and add any wire numbers you wish to be ignored from automatic error checking.  Remove the asterisk from the beginning of the following line in the WD.env file and add any wire numbers you wish to be ignored from error checking.  The example in the WD.env file is already set to ignore GND, 24VDC, and COM.  If you simply remove the asterisk at the beginning of the line, AutoCAD Electrical will start ignoring those wire numbers when it checks for duplication errors.

*SETQ:GBL_wd_wnum_noduplicate_chk,'("GND" "24VDC" "COM")

[artem.jkl]

Introductory part:
Of course, I understand that the wires in the project should not be duplicated. But you understand that the drawings are created not only for estimates and you have to use them in paper form, for example, adjusters or installers.

Situations are very different, projects are complex, and there are so many of the same type of circuits and devices that it is easy to get confused in them if they do not have intuitive markings. I saw a lot of drawings made in AutoCAD-electrical, which were impossible to read and you just had to redraw the drawing in such a way that it became at least a little clear. And in particular, this is due to automatic or non-intuitive labeling.

Intuitive labeling of circuits and devices is carried out using contractual numbers and letters and their sequence, for each individual electrical industry (or one project). And this makes sense - when you look at the circuit and you can immediately determine its purpose by the wire number.

However, it is not always possible to endlessly expand the numbers and letters on the marking - confusion begins in the head. Sometimes we are dealing with already installed equipment and so on. When we have a need for duplication in the design of devices and circuits, we can simplify the marking, the intuitive value of which 100% eliminates collision.

Example 1:
For example, we have 100 lighting panels, all separated from the rest of the project by cables that have 100% independent core markings (usually just phase names + group). Why do I need to create 100 different markings?
The length and cost increases, the frequency of errors when printing markings increases, the number of redundant spare markings increases.

Ways to solve 1:
Why look for sophisticated ways to cheat the program to achieve your goals? Why can't the program detect duplicate markings by referring to the hidden location index. And just issue a warning if the duplication happened in the same location with two different hidden indexes?

Example 2:
I have 10 similar control circuits for a low-power pump in one control panel. Logically, I can give all 10 groups the same labels + group number (suffix, prefix).
But I have a neutral wire and it can have only one marking for all groups, according to the rules. But it would be nice to apply a group index (suffix, prefix) to the neutral wire. This makes it easier to maintain and troubleshoot, or to change the schema on site if something goes wrong. However, I have to come up with a terminal block that allows breaking the markings number in order to fool the program.

Ways to solve 2:
It would be nice to be able to tag a source as a power copper or aluminum bus and automatically treat it as a terminal strip allowing the marking to break, regardless of the fact that there could be any number of tap points without an explicit terminal number.

[dougmcalexander]

I think AutoCAD Electrical is overkill for you. Vanilla AutoCAD doesn’t care what you do. If you only want AutoCAD Electrical for a BOM, try disabling the error checking.

[artem.jkl]

No, I just focused on this. It just seems to me that AutoCAD-Electrical is the only way to use it, judging by its inflexible functionality. You constantly need to refuse some functions in order to use those that are needed. And everyone thinks it's the norm.

It's the same as saying, "Ah, there's a feature missing in Photoshop? - do it in Paint!"

Do I have a bad explanation for the problem?

[testsubject]

Maybe you can do this in a hybrid way:

Create a project for the panel that will be replicated. This will have its own BOM and wiring.

Next create a new project that will use this panel multiple times. In this project, create a symbol that will accept the unique wiring from the source. Also on the symbol, state "See Project X for wiring." This way the panel can have its wiring that is the same across panels but you get the uniqueness for the overall project.

Depending how you have your ERP set up, you can give the panel its own part number (which would contain all the parts for this assembly) and then use that for the part number in the overall project for each panel. This would then give you an accurate BOM for the whole project.

Does this make sense?

[artem.jkl]

Need to try. It's just that I have already moved away from these matters and started drawing projects by hand, as advised by dougmcalexander.

If you know at least a little Russian, please watch the next topic, and the video in it. And if possible, help in fixing the problem. I left bug reports - but nothing has changed for several years.

You can always use automatic translation. What I actually do.

[ccad2509]

you do know the main issue here is ACADE doesnt comply wiht the IEC numbering format when it comes to Wires

as wires should inherite the ==zone=panel+section  but its to hard for the cosers to do properlely its a as we say a bodge

and yes iEC 81346 has anither level above "=" which again ACADE havent implemented

verb: bodge;

3rd person present: bodges;

past tense: bodged;

past participle: bodged;

bodge make or repair (something) badly or clumsily.

"the door was bodged together from old planks"

[Icemanau]

Looking through your first post, there is already functionality for the components to be differentiated by panels.

You need to set your projects up to use the IEC functionality which adds INST and LOC data to the dwg settings.

Then you set the project & dwg settings to format the block attributes for INST and LOC into the tag.

The INST and LOC can be suppressed from showing in the dwg but is still part of the tag.

This means that two contactors could be C1 but with one in Panel 1 (P1) and Tier 1 (T1) and the other in Panel 2 (P2) and Tier 3 (T3), the full name for the two contactors would be  =P1+T1-C1 and =P2+T3-C1 but the dwgs may only show C1 for both contactors. 

You are right that Autodesk really needs to fully implement the IEC standard and include the wire numbers, but that hasn't happened and I made a similar suggestion close to 14 years ago.

Regards Brad

[ccad2509]

Brad

you have summed up Autodesk in one sentence

You are right that Autodesk really needs to fully implement the IEC standard and include the wire numbers, but that hasn't happened and I made a similar suggestion close to 14 years ago.

14 years and still not addressing a fundamental on how ACADE is regarded as a crippled defective half-brother of the leading Ecad packages out their