Difference between revisions of "Modular Equipment"
Wirecadadmin (Talk | contribs) |
Wirecadadmin (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
We might wish to show all VDAs that live in a frame as a single functional block. We would do this by creating an equipment definition that contains all the I/O for all VDAs in the frame as well as frame-specific ports. | We might wish to show all VDAs that live in a frame as a single functional block. We would do this by creating an equipment definition that contains all the I/O for all VDAs in the frame as well as frame-specific ports. | ||
| − | ==Example== | + | ==Example (VDA)== |
Let's assume for purposes of this discussion that we want to display individual VDA functional blocks each with their own SysName and a SysName for the frame that houses all of the VDAs. | Let's assume for purposes of this discussion that we want to display individual VDA functional blocks each with their own SysName and a SysName for the frame that houses all of the VDAs. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
'''CONS''' | '''CONS''' | ||
| − | #We must maintain an | + | #We must maintain an equipment definition for each "module". |
| + | #We must provide a name and location for each "module". | ||
| + | #We must provide an additional name and location for the "frame". | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Example (Router/Matrix)== | ||
| + | Let's assume for purposes of this discussion that we want to document a router or matrix of some sort that has separate input and output cards. We will discuss two approaches and the corresponding PROS and CONS. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Modular Approach=== | ||
| + | In this approach we create an equipment definition for the frame and one for each of the Input card types and Output card types. | ||
| + | We add the appropriate quantity of each to the drawing and name and number them. On the surface this might seem similar to the VDA example above but let's review the particulars. | ||
| + | Consider that I want my cable records to all show that they connect directly to the router and not the card. As such: | ||
| + | RTR-01>PORT-01 TO SOMESYSNAME>SOMEPORTNAME | ||
| + | |||
| + | If this is the case then all I/O cards must have the same SysName (RTR-01). WireCAD does not do well in this circumstance because the location will be the same for all SysNames. I mention this not as a PRO or CON but rather something that must be considered. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''PROS''' | ||
| + | #The Bill of Materials will accurately reflect items to be purchased (assuming that the unit(s) are sold in modular form). | ||
| + | #We get individual control of the name and position of each "module". | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''CONS''' | ||
| + | #We must maintain an equipment definition for each "module". | ||
#We must provide a name and location for each "module". | #We must provide a name and location for each "module". | ||
#We must provide an additional name and location for the "frame". | #We must provide an additional name and location for the "frame". | ||
Revision as of 17:07, 4 January 2016
One of the questions that we get routinely is how to deal with modular equipment.
WireCAD tries to remain as loosely coupled as possible. We feel that this allows the most flexibility. Modular equipment is not created as a child of some parent equipment but rather the reference is held by location. In this manner equipment can easily be re-assigned location without the need for reparenting.
Consider a video distribution amplifier. We might wish to display in any number of ways. Let’s say for example that we want to have a functional block that shows the ports of the VDA. We can do this be creating an equipment definition for the individual VDA.
We might wish to show all VDAs that live in a frame as a single functional block. We would do this by creating an equipment definition that contains all the I/O for all VDAs in the frame as well as frame-specific ports.
Example (VDA)
Let's assume for purposes of this discussion that we want to display individual VDA functional blocks each with their own SysName and a SysName for the frame that houses all of the VDAs.
PROS
- The Bill of Materials will accurately reflect items to be purchased (assuming that the unit(s) are sold in modular form).
- We get individual control of the name and position of each "module".
CONS
- We must maintain an equipment definition for each "module".
- We must provide a name and location for each "module".
- We must provide an additional name and location for the "frame".
Example (Router/Matrix)
Let's assume for purposes of this discussion that we want to document a router or matrix of some sort that has separate input and output cards. We will discuss two approaches and the corresponding PROS and CONS.
Modular Approach
In this approach we create an equipment definition for the frame and one for each of the Input card types and Output card types. We add the appropriate quantity of each to the drawing and name and number them. On the surface this might seem similar to the VDA example above but let's review the particulars. Consider that I want my cable records to all show that they connect directly to the router and not the card. As such: RTR-01>PORT-01 TO SOMESYSNAME>SOMEPORTNAME
If this is the case then all I/O cards must have the same SysName (RTR-01). WireCAD does not do well in this circumstance because the location will be the same for all SysNames. I mention this not as a PRO or CON but rather something that must be considered.
PROS
- The Bill of Materials will accurately reflect items to be purchased (assuming that the unit(s) are sold in modular form).
- We get individual control of the name and position of each "module".
CONS
- We must maintain an equipment definition for each "module".
- We must provide a name and location for each "module".
- We must provide an additional name and location for the "frame".
