| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
dankr
8 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Mar 2014 : 14:15:18
|
Hi
I was wondering if there is some option that can force Pulsonix to use unique names (that were not used before) for new components.
Ie. at the moment when we have in schematic resistor named R10, then it got deleted and some new resistors are added, it can happen that this name "R10" is used again. This makes any history tracking quite complicated :-(
May thanks
Daniel |
|
|
steve
United Kingdom
316 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2014 : 15:37:43
|
Hi..
If you add a component in schematic or PCB using Insert Component it will offer the first unused reference, which you can change to something else if required before adding.
If you Copy or Duplicate in schematic or PCB then it will give the next available reference higher than the one used to copy/duplicate from.
They can be changed in properties once added.
Pulsonix Assistance |
 |
|
|
bkamen
USA
49 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2014 : 16:18:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve
If you add a component in schematic or PCB using Insert Component it will offer the first unused reference, which you can change to something else if required before adding.
And this is a good thing... PCB's shouldn't have a "history" of changes in terms of a Resistor that was deleted (R10 let's say) and then another one added @ R11 leaving R10 missing from the PCB.
It's problematic all around to be looking at a PCB and the numbers aren't sequential.
It's problematic looking at a BOM and asking, "where's R10?"
I always make sure to renumber the PCB (if appropriate like a first revision).
I also have a "revisions:" section that tracks what changes have occurred to the PCB since it's creation.
-Ben
-------------------------------------------
ben@benkamen.net
http://www.benjammin.net |
|
|
|
dankr
8 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 08:47:35
|
So to sum up....there is no such a option for unique components names, right? Pity, systems I was using till now had this option :-(
to Ben: I come from different industry when consistent documentation and changes tracking is essential. Something like "renumbering" components in whole project any time you roll-out new version, would get you instant court-martial with death penalty (probably from several stakeholders simultaneously) :-) |
|
|
|
steve
United Kingdom
316 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 09:04:45
|
You can have any unique component reference, use Auto rename, manual rename or properties to define them.
Pulsonix Assistance |
|
|
|
dankr
8 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 10:49:06
|
Hi Steve
This auto rename is nice, quite handy when you making first version of schematic in new project.
But we probably misunderstand each other what I wanted to ask. I make an example. Project is already in 3rd design iteration => you have already 2 versions of schematic and PCB layout done. Now the team works on 3rd version of the schematic. One designer removes some components in block for which he is responsible and documents this change (ie. "R128 removed because...."). Another designer also updates his block, he needs to add few more resistors, he adds them and program finds the first free reference and names the new resistor R128, he also document his change (ie. "R128 added because ...."). Now you synchronize to PCB, you get the new R128 on the PCB in place of old R128, but this new R128 belongs to some very different functional block so the best place for it would be in component bin . That will be quite confusing for PCB layouter, possibly can cause sub-optimal routing, but in any case is not that critical as it gets "somehow" routed.
Bigger problem is with your documentation, when in one place you have "R128 removed" and in other "R128 added" ....getting oriented in such a documentation is quite tricky and makes many people unhappy.
=> the function I was looking for that I had in other CADs, was that you can set any newly added components are getting new refdes that has not been yet used in the project previously. Effectively always incrementing the refdes number and not filling the holes.
Thx
Daniel |
|
|
|
bpb
9 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 12:20:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by dankr
One designer removes some components in block for which he is responsible and documents this change (ie. "R128 removed because....").
I think, that you have quite dangerous development cycle. If engineer decides that this component should not be placed in the next version of board then he should mark it as "DNF" (do not fit) or "NF" (never fit) and document the change, but don't delete it. In the case of NF component, PCB designer can select special footprint which will effectively remove component from PCB in the one or other way.
That way you'll get consistent numbering, and together with usage of Variants feature BOMs are also will reflect actual state of things. |
|
|
|
dankr
8 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 13:07:08
|
Hi
Well, it seems we're getting miles away from my original question :-). I don't know if we shall get so deep in philosophical question of development process. I can imagine that different companies uses different procedures. My last 3 employers used the process similar to what I'm describing and it reasonably worked. I can imagine that there are other approaches, ie. the one you're describing (even though, I would be wondering what you make with all the nets that should get deleted with the deleted components... you keep them in schematic? then you have to "somehow" route them as well or set some complicated exceptions in DRC checks). Anyway your business :-).
My question was really simple one. If the Pulsonix can support me in my design process and continue incrementing the refdes and not filling the holes. So far, my understanding is, that it is not possible unless you name your components manually. Right?
Cheers
Daniel |
|
|
|
bkamen
USA
49 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 13:42:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by dankr
So to sum up....there is no such a option for unique components names, right? Pity, systems I was using till now had this option :-(
to Ben: I come from different industry when consistent documentation and changes tracking is essential. Something like "renumbering" components in whole project any time you roll-out new version, would get you instant court-martial with death penalty (probably from several stakeholders simultaneously) :-)
If it's REQUIRED on the document, then use Variants to solve this and make a variant, "version 1" and "version 2".
Personally, I would contend with your stakeholders that they should repair a few products with documentation so cluttered and having "missing components" -- and then get back to me. It wastes a lot of valuable tech time.. and I'm sure PCB assemblers aren't happy about all the extra clutter either.
Schematics should be as clean and clutter free as possible.
Clutter is BAD.
A revision D schematic, should reflect exactly what's on a revision D PCB.
If you want to know the differences, go look at the revisions document. Otherwise, most techs know not to troubleshoot a revision E PCB with a revision D SCH.
But I can tell you that parts missing between PCB and SCH cause pause for concern. It's like a "goof" in itself.
But what do I know? I'm just an EE that also designs the SCH and the PCBs, then assembles them and tests them.... (and then fixes them sometimes if needed)
-Ben
-------------------------------------------
ben@benkamen.net
http://www.benjammin.net |
|
|
|
steve
United Kingdom
316 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 14:03:59
|
I am going to work offline with Daniel on his initial question as I may be able to offer some suggestions, but need more detail. I will post back here when this has been done.
Pulsonix Assistance |
|
|
|
dankr
8 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 14:04:56
|
Ben,
I'm not trying to win here the fight what is the best design philosophy. You have for sure your experience and work procedures that works fine for you, we have simply others that are ok for us (and the company will not change it, even if I would agree with you...that I don't :-)).
I'm simply describing the reality of our design environment and trying to find how to get the best of the CAD tool to help me do my job.
Daniel |
|
|
|
jameshead
United Kingdom
125 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 14:14:41
|
Dan is not the only one to have seen this design philosoply of never trying to re-use a component reference in a design between different revisions. I had to endure this at Toshiba - using a (supposidly) high-end ECAD system from Mentor Graphics that was not able to track previously used component references neither.
The process was that we were able to name and rename components to what we wanted for first prototype boards up to the point the design was "Drawing Released" and from then on if a component was removed from the PCB then that component reference should be avoided for re-use. I say should because there was no way of rigidly enforcing this.
On component naming I generally name different "funcitonal blocks" of the circuit in different decades or hundreds. For example everything power supply based may be C3xx, R3xx, IC3xx and everying thing around a micro controller may be IC5xx, C5xx, R5xx etc. It makes it easier to determine what components to drag out of the component bin when laying the board out, and means you can filter the FIND box for component references by function. |
|
|
|
dankr
8 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 14:18:56
|
James, you're my man :-). We've done it in Mentor exactly the same.
Dan |
|
|
|
bpb
9 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 17:03:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by dankr
My question was really simple one. If the Pulsonix can support me in my design process and continue incrementing the refdes and not filling the holes. So far, my understanding is, that it is not possible unless you name your components manually.
There is no direct provision for this (AFAIK of course), but the simplest solution is to make a fake "Schematic Only" part with required stem ("R' for example) and put it onto different page with the same component name as removed one (eg, R10 in your case). That way Pulsonix will not try to reuse it again and PCB will be free from unused components. |
|
|
|
steve
United Kingdom
316 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2014 : 11:25:40
|
We have worked with Daniel off line and logged some enhancements to help with the management of design flow with their customers, around schematic block updating and management of component references.
One point of note: If you create the schematic block's 'away' from the master design, so New - Schematic Block and keep the references within number ranges (100, 200) then so long as there is no resolution of component reference names (duplicate or multi-instanced) needed, these will be retained when the SB is inserted into a master schematic.
Pulsonix Assistance |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
