Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
My suggestion is set up connectorclass by connector not by asset.
I believe this can allow a grater exchange between assets.
Example: An equipment that have many optional components could exchange some information during assembly and enables location this components through API for example.
In my case this is very important to read the structure of the layout and understand what the equipment is and its configuration.
Let me understand your point. You want to the components exchange the information via connector class but the components are not factory asset just the normal parts or assembly, is it true?
About your question: No, the connections are between assets only. My suggestion is basically the same thing that have now, but the class are set by connector and not to all connectors in the asset. I believe that this can facilitate the informations change when equipment have many optionals equipments (my case) and can be easier to create the file .connectorclasses because the paramenters you have manage are especific to connector and not all of the equipment. Maybe allow the two methods...
Are you saying that? 1) the parameters can exchange the value when a specific connector is connected to another connector in the asset. 2) all parameters can exchange the value if any connector is connected to another in the asset
I suggested this because our equipment have many options and configs and manage this in the current way is a little bit complex for us. If we could separate this would be easier. We use the FDS to make layouts to clients and generate costs, BOM, installations drawing, etc... So we are putting a lot informations inside the drawing and if we can manage control best this, we are happier...
PS: about connectors I created this post in another topic, please, take a look: Post
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")