Module:Refdes ... Allow change of separator character ":" to "_"

Module:Refdes ... Allow change of separator character ":" to "_"

gwagnerJXG2J
Enthusiast Enthusiast
149 Views
2 Replies
Message 1 of 3

Module:Refdes ... Allow change of separator character ":" to "_"

gwagnerJXG2J
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Request: For designs using Modules, allow change of Refdes separator character ":" to "_"  (or almost anything else).

 

Reason:  Some PLM Software take the ":" separator as indicating a range of reference designators ... ex. C3:C6 would mean C3, C4, C5, C6 and it would expect a QTY of 4.

 

With the current separator the PLM checking is flagging every row of the BOM with a module REFDES as having issues.   ie. REFDES does not match QTY, or the lower prefix doesn't match the higher prefix.

Image below has 3 examples:

1) C3:C6 with qty 4 and no errors

2) a module named MYMODULE with instance 1 and a single resistor "R4" in that instance.  Unfortunately the checking thinks that either the lower or upper prefixes are incorrect and the Qty of REFDES items doesn't match the actual quantity.

3) same MYMODULE example but with an "_" instead of ":"

gwagnerJXG2J_0-1728314146787.png

 

Best Regards,

-- Glenn

 

 

 

 

0 Likes
Accepted solutions (1)
150 Views
2 Replies
Replies (2)
Message 2 of 3

jorge_garcia
Autodesk
Autodesk
Accepted solution

Hi @gwagnerJXG2J,

 

I hope you're doing well. I have added your comments to the existing ticket on improving the module reference designators. In the interim you could bring the BOM into Excel and replace the colons with the underscore.

 

Thank you for your posts, they are always insightful.

 

Best Regards,



Jorge Garcia
​Product Support Specialist for Fusion 360 and EAGLE

Kudos are much appreciated if the information I have shared is helpful to you and/or others.

Did this resolve your issue? Please accept it "As a Solution" so others may benefit from it.
0 Likes
Message 3 of 3

gwagnerJXG2J
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Hi Jorge,

 

Thanks for that.

For the existing designs that have PCB/PCBAs already I'm pulling them in as is.  I'd rather have the warnings than have a mismatch between PLM and design file sources.  For anything new that would use a module, I'd consider the manual edit of RefDes on the BOM ... but then Pick&Place would need to be massaged as well ... and then neither would match the RefDes on the silkscreen or the netlist information in an ODB++ file (which will make some contract manufacturer somewhere uneasy).   

 

TBH the existing designs should probably never have gone the module route (no repetition, and small design).  The only benefit turns out to be pointing out a chance to improve things for the future 😉

 

BR,

-- Glenn