Difference between revisions of "Modular Equipment"
Wirecadadmin (Talk | contribs) |
Wirecadadmin (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
In this approach we create an equipment definition for the frame and one for each of the Input card types and Output card types. | 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. | 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 | + | Consider that the requirement is that cable records show that they connect directly to the router and not the card. As such: |
RTR-01>PORT-01 TO SOMESYSNAME>SOMEPORTNAME | RTR-01>PORT-01 TO SOMESYSNAME>SOMEPORTNAME | ||
Latest revision as of 16:28, 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 VDA-01 is to reside in FRM-01. In order to make the association we assign both of them to the same location, say RK-01.34. So FRM-01@RK-01.34 and VDA-01@RK-01.34-01 would locate the VDA in slot 1 of elevation 34. Moving VDA-01 to a different frame or location is a matter of simply changing the location.
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 the requirement is that cable records 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. If the requirement allows the cable record to contain the I/O card slot or number info then the problem is alleviated. As such: RTRCARD-01>PORT-01 TO SOMESYSNAME>SOMEPORTNAME
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". As shown above this can get tricky.
- We must provide an additional name and location for the "frame".
Unified Approach
In this approach we create an equipment definition for the router as a whole showing all available ports. We add the unit to the drawing and name and number it. 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. In this case all ports will come from the same SysName so this is not an issue.
If the requirement is such that the the cable record to contain the I/O card slot or number info then use the modular approach above.
PROS
- Easy and fast.
CONS
- The Bill of Materials will not accurately reflect all of the pieces and parts necessary to purchase the item.
