Skip navigation

Log in to create and rate content, and to follow, bookmark, and share content with other members.

AnsweredAssumed Answered

Does anybody use SolidWorks Electrical for point-to-point schematics? As in automotive style DC circuits rather than motor controls ladder diagram style? I'm searching for users opinions on the set up, functionality, learning curve & general pros/cons.

Question asked by James Harvey on Apr 6, 2015
Latest reply on Oct 25, 2015 by Allan Bowers

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 35

1. In all of my searching through tutorials and examples I find many ladder diagrams. Why are there little to no examples of point-to-point schematics? Am I using the wrong search terms?

2. Can somebody please direct me to good examples of point-to-point style circuitry that illustrate the full functionality of SolidWorks 2D/3D?

3. Are there any experienced SolidWorks 2D/3D users out there that can offer opinions regarding SW2D/3D efficiency in point-to-point applications?

Any input is appreciated.

Regards,

James

2 people also have this question

Outcomes

35 Replies

1 2FirstPrevious

Scott Morris Apr 7, 2015 9:51 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I'm no expert but I use SWE 2D for point to point schematics almost exclusively. I haven't really gotten into the 3D.
We are an R&D lab and build numerous prototypes. I am responsible for designing the electrical systems of the prototypes. We build almost always using point to point wiring because when working on prototypes you often have to move things around. Point-to-point makes that easier because the wire is not in a big cable bundle or harness. We use a lot of cable trays through out the systems to help keep things neat.
The way we lay out schematics is different as well. We try to work them left to right, with power on the left, instrument/sensor/device in the center and control/readout on the right. We try to show the complete logical line between power, instrument and control/readout on the same page.
Working with SWE 2D is sometime a frustrating experience. My biggest gripe so far is the terminal blocks. We generally use terminal blocks for power distribution. A particular voltage comes in on one terminal and a line of terminals are tied together using jumper bars. Then each device pulls it's power from one of the jumpered terminals. Practically, this works great but SWE doesn't cooperate very well when I want to put a single terminal point on the left hand side of a schematic and run it to the device. I've found a workaround but it is kinda ugly. Likewise, I don't use the auto-generated PLC drawings as I want to have my PLC points on the same page as the device. I just use a symbol that only includes the point I want. That works fairly well but you have to be careful as when the symbols are placed they are number sequentially, there is no way to select a specific point to place a symbol for.
I never use the single line drawings or the hybrid drawings as it is just extra work for no extra benefit.
Like I said I haven't really used the 3D much. Since I'm not make multiple copies of the wiring I don't really need to know lengths or build harnesses. The one thing 3D would be useful for is determining clearances and cable tray fill. I've had a few systems where the cable trays were over flowing with wires.
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
James Harvey @ Scott Morris on Apr 9, 2015 12:20 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Scott,
Thanks very much for taking the time to respond. I am trying to justify/refute the potential benefits & ROI for us.

If you would be so kind, I have several many questions...

Perspective:
We are a small manufacturer of road going equipment, most of it being custom per client spec. Currently our lead electrical designer uses AutoCAD to design a controls system with a mixture of schematics & termination lists, all done manually. This info is then used to create the BOM's in MS Excel, again manually. My primary task is to take this ACAD info & BOM's and create a physical layout and draft the shop assembly instructions in SolidWorks. A good portion of it is redundant work. Finally another team member uses all of the above (plus the as-built unit) to create the end user schematic after the build. Yes, it sounds backward but our system works surprisingly well. This, I believe, is due to the lead designers encyclopedic knowledge of our systems and his ability to manage the detail. I believe our process could be much more efficient, accurate, easier to revise & track, and generally more designer friendly if we begin with the schematic and use it to drive the rest of the information. If it hasn't occurred to you yet, I am pushing this workflow change idea uphill. If we commit to the investment and it fails, I too fail. We already use SolidWorks extensively and by all my research I'm fairly convinced SWE2D/3D is the tool for the job. Outside of the substantial licensing cost, the real obstacle is the difficulty of initial setup, new learning curve & the whopper, getting the team on board with the idea. And finally, if we endure the pain of implementing & getting up to speed, will this improve our process enough to justify the investment? In essence I am asking these guys to change nearly every aspect of "how we do things now" (What? Am I nuts?). Point is, the benefits better show themselves pretty quickly...our lead designer will be the most affected by this, I don't want to be the guy that threw him under the bus.

Questions:
1. How long have you been a SW2D user?
2. Did you take a class, self-taught via tutorial, or other? How did you get your skills up?
3. Were you involved in the initial implementation of the software? Any tips or pitfalls you can share?
4. Can you offer input regarding any additional demands it has placed on your IT department?
5. Regarding BOM's, termination lists, or reports in general, are they fairly cooperative and intuitive to use and customize?
6. Is it reasonably easy to create a good BOM in the early design stages?
7. Could you possibly please share a snapshot example of your work without disclosing anything proprietary?
More:
1. Your quote, "because...you often have to move things" - Are you referring to a symbol on your schematic or the physical layout (or both)?
2. We also use cable trays and a bit of conduit here & there. Our trays are loaded with a large bundle of multi-conductor cables. I'm trying to visualize how great an effect that would have on schematic layout, not really seeing it unless you're trying to convey some physical aspect outside the fact that it's a multi-conductor. A harness perhaps because each leg would need to be identified as part of the harness plus a sub-I.D. to identify which leg. Still not seeing it. (?)
3. Sounds like your schematic layouts are fairly similar to ours. One of my eventual goals is to condense our fairly huge & spread out schematic into a smaller easier to read document. In the past I have flipped many pages to hand sketch a controls sub-system in order to see what all it consisted of on one page. Error prone, not fun...
4. "...SW...frustrating experience." - Literally LOL. All in a days work around here. Quest for most efficient work-around never seems to go away. All due respect to developers/designers that create amazingly powerful CAD tools.
5. Can you elaborate on the terminal block glitch & your work-around? I've pretty much come to accept that work-arounds are a part of CAD life. They are aggravating but somewhat acceptable as long as they are not clock eaters or introduce great opportunity for human error when sequencing or tag-name type revisions are made.
6. I am not familiar with Automated PLC Drawings. In my experience, anything "Auto-generated" by SW is hit & miss. Some fly, some flop.
7. I also don't see the use of single line drawings in our application. I'm not sure what you are referring to with 'hybrid drawing'.
8. 3D is great for helping to manage tolerances & clearance issues. If routing also proves useful it could potentially save us a great deal in scrapped wire/cable.
Our largest product is a trailer in the ~50ft range, controls potentially spanning the entire distance. Pretty much all multi-conductor cables will have Deutsch connectors (or similar) on both ends to facilitate easy field service. We do use harnesses, some as supplied by vendors, some custom made, another place where SWE may prove beneficial. And we have the 3D CAD skills going pretty good here.

Scott, I know I'm asking a lot of you with my barrage of questions, requests & details. Time is a commodity that once spent is gone forever, please know I don't take yours for granted. Any info you can offer is greatly appreciated!

Anybody else care to chime in? Please do!

Best regards,
James Harvey
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Daen Hendrickson Apr 9, 2015 2:56 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
James,

Your product and process has many parallels to the previous company I was at. I'll try to give you some of the pros / cons.

We did NOT use SWE - we had invested in E3 Electrical before SWE even existed. Later reviewing SWE, the two products were so similar I honestly thought SW had just embedded E3 to create SWE. The workflows and methodologies are so similar I believe my experience still applies. Much of this took place in the mid-2000s time frame.

We built flight simulators. The wiring consists of multitudes of automotive style point-to-point dc circuits. The "old way" was to create a circuit list in Excel, wire up the simulator with "skilled / experienced" personnel, then create the schematics afterwards. The physical build of the harnesses was never captured. Materials for the builds was estimated / fudged / approximated with "some spares" for good measure. The "how to" knowledge was entirely tribal and dependent on key individuals. If any one of them "went away" there were difficulties. Most of the simulators were built one at a time so this process was adequate but suffered from many areas of inefficiency.

The need to build multiple identical simulators in a compressed schedule brought the open-mindedness to explore alternative methods. I recognized that a true electrical CAD package would be far superior to the "Excel" method for a number of reasons - graphical, error checking, reuse of data, etc. I also recognized we could outsource the harness construction if we had adequate data for the vendor. This would allow for parallel processes and compression of schedule.

My search for electrical design software showed most was geared toward industrial ladder diagram type work (i.e. AutoCAD Electrical). At first, the price of E3 put off management. We purchased another product marketed by the Pro E folks. I can't recall the name but the stuff was UNUSABLE. Next we purchased a product called VeSys Electrical from Mentor Graphics. We worked with it for about a year and found it just did not have the functionality we needed. We finally purchased E3. Besides its core functionality, we could import the From-To data into SW Routing and build the 3D harnesses. SWE operates the same but has automated the 2D to 3D interface.

To answer some of your questions:

We taught ourselves the software. Training classes were not available in our area and MUCH of what we were doing was pushing the software (lots of bug fixes with our name on it...). Training seems to usually be boiled down to the most common denominator.

We set the software up from scratch. Most pitfalls would be specific to E3 and not applicable here. However, I would add these:
- Spend time early on developing your component library
  Tedious work and suffers a bit from chicken vs. egg syndrome
  (how do you know what makes a good library unless you use the software and how do you use the software without a good library)
  Start with a fresh empty library and copy ONLY the components you use from the sample library
  (Much like SW Toolbox - only show the standards you use)
IT Demands - We initially purchased a stand alone version with data on a network drive. Performance became a huge bottleneck. We later upgraded to the enterprise version. I believe SWE only comes this way so this is a non-issue for you. However, we did purchase a dedicated server to run the software. That is driven more by the specifics of our IT infrastructure. Once the system was up and running the IT support was typically only needed when we had updates or new versions to install.

Regarding ease of usability, I can't respond to SWE specifics. In general however, when you place a connector, it brings along with it the other items needed (if set up properly in the library) such as pins/sockets, backshell, strain relief, etc. These types of components are typically managed in the BOMs. This is a huge benefit versus manually tracking in a spreadsheet. The individual harness drawings would typically show the From-To data, the component information, the physical lengths, the wire list, additional non-electrical components (heat shrink, loom sleeving, labels, lacing tape,ect.). I do not have a screen shot available right now, but I will try to dig one out from my archives.

Typical circuits for us fell into only a handful of types.
- IO circuits originated at a PC Board connector, traversed to a few instruments or panels with branches in the harness. A particular harness would be limited to around 80 discrete conductors.
- DC Power circuits were much like Scott described - Power supply to terminal block with jumpers, multiple conductors from terminal block to load.
- AC Power circuits - facility power into our system
- Data Circuits - Network, Audio, Video. Many of these were treated as single-line diagrams representing standard purchased cable.
  The single line drawings were hybrids in that the multi-core cable was not modeled but the software was used to capture length (quantity), connectors to order, labels, and used for 3D routing.
A list of benefits:
- Design Automation
- Reuse of Data
- Error checking (hey, you can't connect that ground circuit to this 24VDC circuit)
- BOMs with the ancillary items included (pins, back shells, strain reliefs)
- Documented harness routing for your product (machine assembly drawing)
- Documented harness build drawing (to supply to internal or external vendor for build)
  Eliminates task of creating this AFTER its built - just a nice bi-product of the design process
- Capturing of institutional knowledge (When Joe retires, his knowledge doesn't retire as well)
- Schedule compression - you could be building harnesses as soon as the design is done. You don't need to wait for the machine to be built.
- Customer Service - if an existing machine requires a replacement, you have the harness fully documented and you could build it without the machine being present.
- Minimal scrap! We built quantity 4 each of approximately 20 unique harnesses with ZERO scrap. Each of those contained the 80 conductors noted above. Rework was extremely minimal - less than 10 pins in incorrect cavities out of the 1600 and that was due to our QC process, not the software.
- Easy Changes - Once created, a change is on par with any CAD model change process.
- Multiple "What If" ability - like mechanical CAD, very easy to try other things virtually before anything is physically built. New routing, relocate a module, reduce the conduit size, etc.
- Different drawings of the same things - The software makes is relatively straight forward to present your data in different ways.
  Physical harness drawing
  Harness schematic
  Single circuit through multiple harnesses
  Entire Bus drawing
  Component connectivity
  All circuits for a motor
  All circuits for a PC board
  Signal schematics
  If you have data / network / audio / video you can create a schematic based on purpose
  All of these will be specific to your company's need. The point is once the design is completed, the creation of the drawing with your specific needs is at at your fingertips. Just like making multiple drawings in SW base of a single part file.
The big question is the ROI. I can't imagine building what we did WITHOUT the tools we had. The initial work is always daunting - setting up the software, learning, library population. You should probably look at it as a long-term project such as implementing a PDM system. I would approach it in segments also. Perhaps set up your library to create one specific harness you make regularly. Run this well understood harness through the entire software process. Adjust the process until it works for you. Than add in another harness of a completely different type (one using terminal blocks instead of connectors). Once you have the process for each general type of harness working, then start adding big chunks of library data. Concentrate on a type of components - all wires, then all MIL round connectors, then all AC plugs/receptacles. That way you are working on things that only change a little but have similar characteristics.

You might approach this by buying a single license for assessment and once you can show management the results you can add licenses and deploy. Expect some glitches. Expect to have to develop some work-arounds. I am not saying you should smile about them, but know up front there will be some.

My bottom line is that this will be a big help even with its warts and smells.

I hope this gives you some beneficial things to consider.

Daen
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
Andrew Kronquist Apr 9, 2015 4:30 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
This is just a blue sky idea because I really don't know what you're doing, but are you familiar with Fritzing?
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Max Kante @ Scott Morris on Apr 10, 2015 5:34 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Greetings,

SWE is a fully integrated database design package that works really well. It automates items that I have long wished for.
- Automatic report generation of; wire / cable tags, labels, lengths, etc. <-- this was HUGE for me.
- Automatic generation of terminal block diagrams. Customisable terminal block size layout. <-- another HUGE!.
- Automated design logic to ensure wires don’t get crossed.
- Automatic BOM creation <-- another HUGE!
Summary of your questions:
1. Point to point vs ladder diagrams. Both are feasible. Depends on how you set up your library.
a. Ex:
- SWE Manufacture parts manager - we have a relay. Part is defined with coil and contacts. Coil, contact group #1, contact group #n, are grouped. Manufacturer part number, etc.
- SWE Symbol manager – we draw how we want the relay to look schematically. We can include the coil and contacts on the same symbol and associate this with the part in one go, or keep each symbol discrete – coil, no/nc - and associate each discrete symbol with the part. Both types of symbols can exist in the library and you choose.
- b. Issues:
  A schematic part cannot be used elsewhere. IE: If relay components are used on a; PLC, power rail, etc. one cannot make a relay I/O summary drawing. If a PLC drawing uses the dry contact from the VFD I/O, you cannot use the dry contact on the VFD drawing. (To/From connections solve this but gets messy).
  To / From wire linking across drawings works well. However the manner of referencing is a bit poor (in design mode it’s a link, on paper however…. lots of page shuffling). I can get page-row-column that references my way to the to/from wire link, but I want a text description telling me what part its going to. On 3 rack PLC packages I need to flip to the page to find out what the link represents. Not ideal.
2. Good examples are difficult to come by. The ones I have found are so simple, they always work. As an example I could send you a PLC design I used for my experimenting. Its ladder topology with a 3D layout including routing.
a. To date I think I may wave watched all the SWE youtube videos posted by HRS and Javelin.
b. I’ve been working our vendor support (VS) quite heavily on SWE. I’ve worked hard on this for about two months evaluating how everything can work on the premise of creating a project template for our group (which is complete). I think I’ve pretty well figured everything out. (knock on wood).
3. Point to point should not be an issue. In the end it’s a database. It’s the connections that matter.

Other:
Based on comments from other posters…. I personally have a slew of issues with SWE, but they’re based on my expectations of final presentation. I’m accustomed to creating tender packages.
Note – my point of view. Apologies if it sounds like ranting.

1. The single line feature is useless. It has great features to associate cable cores with end devices – but that’s it. Industry expectations of a single line do not match what SWE calls a single line. Too bad. Its almost there. It is the only place you can use the same part as a high level diagram.
2. Wire shield connections are not handled well. Shield has to connect to a terminal, but cannot be associated with a cable unless it terminates on both ends. This messes up the generated terminal block diagram. Workarounds abound.
3. We use PDM. SWE does not use PDM. It uses SQL Express. The supported features for PDM don’t amount to much. However, SWE can pull parts from PDM (just make sure everybody’s local cache is in the same spot).
     a. I’ve configured PDM parts to have route connections for both tube/pipe routing and electrical routing. This all works beautifully.
4. The reports took a bit of work to customise. You end up working with formulas, which once understood work out fine.
5. Training courses – I did not take the course. I borrowed the course notes from a colleague and started immediately on working on a project template. Everything that stumped me was not in the course notes. And I routinely stumped the vender support.
6. The automated PLC drawings do not meet my requirement for presentation. I use custom schematic symbols for PLC cards. Works just as well.
     a. The entire PLC management functionality is terrible. Card positions are not managed well, modules inserted onto backplanes don’t showup, etc. This module needs to be fixed.
7. SWE 3D performs automatic terminal block insertion. Each part in the SWE library can be associated with; 3D model, 2D layout, schematic symbol, etc.
     a. Select the terminal block to insert, indicate the start point (works best with smart mates), layout direction (left or right), and let it go. Its about 3 to 8 seconds per component (on my machine – SSD, 3.6GHz, 12 cores) and gets progressively slower as more parts accumulate. … but at least I’m not doing it.
     b. The terminal block layout will not automatically update if 2D layout changes are made - Understandable. Terminal reallocations will update.
8. 3D routing works ok. Define the route path for the project and insert route. I’ve added the route path to 3D parts like tray and wire duct (Panduit), to speed designing.
     a. Sketch routes can be generated. These work ok and provide wire lengths for the 2D reports.
     b. Wire routes do not work. This portion is fundamentally broken. The defined wire size and bend radius, in 2D, does not show up in 3D. Wire routes use the connection point, assigned in the 3D part, to size the wire. Wire can vary from #20 to #12 on terminal blocks. So this potentially cancels my tray fill evaluation.
c. Electrical connection points can only be added to parts, not assemblies. Unlike tube route connection points.
9. For the above reasons we have only one SWE-3D license as the 3D feature do not meet our expectations. We create the SWE-3D model, sketch route for wire lengths, then use SW native going forward.
10. Agreement with Daen – create your own library.

However – I still believe this program leads the pack for engineering automation. Overall it is easier to use than others I have worked with. Just understand that it’s a database. The better its filled, the better the use.

Max
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
Scott Morris @ James Harvey on Apr 10, 2015 2:49 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Let me first expand on the environment here:
Like I said we are an R&D lab, however, it is a government R&D lab and we have enormous charge out rates (compared to private commercial/industrial) so we can spend a lot on a tool if it will cut our hours down. Keep that in mind when reading my answers.
Prior to SWE I used Excel and made large pin to pin spreadsheets that would then be converted over to AutoCAD by a drafter. It worked but was immensely difficult to maintain and change. The AutoCAD schematics would be reviewed by myself and then once good sent to the electricians to wire the instrument. The electricians would wire the instrument and make changes/corrections as needed and after consulting me. They would redline the drawings for as built changes (this was always a source of contention because they like to mark the drawings as they went but would redline the same drawing, made a mess). The AutoCAD drawings may or may not get updated with the as built changes. If it was a small system normally we wouldn't bother. A large system we would make the effort to update the AutoCAD drawings. If we ever had to transfer the instrument to a manufacturer or operator we had to undertake a large effort to make sure all the documentation was correct and complete.

All this is to say that it was a very labor intensive process and our labor is very expensive (even the electricians).

We started looking for some CAD solutions to handle the electrical documentation. We first bought AutoCAD Electrical. We had someone go through all the training and he actually still uses it. The problem I saw was that the way he is using it is the same as regular AutoCAD with a few things like BOM and smart lines added in. He didn't seem to be using the smarts behind it. When I asked him about that he said it was way to difficult to get all that setup. I started looking around for something that would be easier and smarter. I found E3 Wireworks and SWE. We use SW exclusively on the mechanical side so it seemed like a no brainier to go with SWE, although I think E3 has greater functionality and is a more mature product.
1. How long have you been a SW2D user? Since late 2013.
2. Did you take a class, self-taught via tutorial, or other? How did you get your skills up? I first started by going through the tutorials. Then started using on test projects. I eventually went to the classes in 2014 but didn't find them overly useful.
3. Were you involved in the initial implementation of the software? Any tips or pitfalls you can share? Yes, I was. For me it took a lot of trial and error determining how I wanted to set things up and what kind of standards I wanted to implement. Then going through the software and figuring out how to implement those standards. SWE does have a lot of configurability it just a matter of finding where they put it. I will say one thing that caused me a lot of grief was working with the symbols and the conversion between metric and imperial. I'm still not sure how it all works but getting all the connection points for symbols to land on snap points can be difficult.
4. Can you offer input regarding any additional demands it has placed on your IT department? We got a network license for SWE. We already had a network license server setup for a seat of SW so adding SWE wasn't too bad except the documentation on the ports that SWE uses was lacking. I felt like I was telling my VAR what ports had to be opened instead of the other way around. Our IT locks down the firewall on computers so it took quite some time to comb through firewall reports to figure out which ports needed to be opened.
5. Regarding BOM's, termination lists, or reports in general, are they fairly cooperative and intuitive to use and customize? Yes, there are pre-made reports that satisfied most of our needs (except one, BOM per page, still haven't figured out how to do that). You can customize the reports using provided tools and if you are really adventurous you can delve into the SQL for the report and make some custom changes. I did that to make a PLC report that could be passed off to the software people for configuration.
6. Is it reasonably easy to create a good BOM in the early design stages? Yes, although it does require that you have all the parts in the library.
7. Could you possibly please share a snapshot example of your work without disclosing anything proprietary?
This is a simple drawing with 10 electric valves, power from terminal blocks and the PLC points that control those valves. This is an example of how we like to represent the terminal block points.
This shows the auto-generated terminal block drawing and the funkiness that results from how we use the terminal blocks. It puts in extra space because it expects a pass through connection from one side to the other and for that connection to be made all on one symbol.
Below is the page 1/3 of the BOM. BOM can be sorted in all sorts of different ways, I chose to sort by manufacturer.
PLC I/O points listed out in the I/O manager.
More:
1. Your quote, "because...you often have to move things" - Are you referring to a symbol on your schematic or the physical layout (or both)? Primarily the physical but both as well.
2. We also use cable trays and a bit of conduit here & there. Our trays are loaded with a large bundle of multi-conductor cables. I'm trying to visualize how great an effect that would have on schematic layout, not really seeing it unless you're trying to convey some physical aspect outside the fact that it's a multi-conductor. A harness perhaps because each leg would need to be identified as part of the harness plus a sub-I.D. to identify which leg. Still not seeing it. (?) Not sure what the question is here. The role of the cable trays wouldn't really have any affect on the schematics but definitely has a physical effect that could be predicted using SWE 3D.
3. Sounds like your schematic layouts are fairly similar to ours. One of my eventual goals is to condense our fairly huge & spread out schematic into a smaller easier to read document. In the past I have flipped many pages to hand sketch a controls sub-system in order to see what all it consisted of on one page. Error prone, not fun... I would like to see electrical schematic CAD be able to handle multiple views of the same thing. The mechanical CAD certainly has this with the model and drawing concept. There are multiple users of electrical schematics (designer, electricians, scientists, operators, manufacturers, etc.). They all would like to see the schematics in slightly different ways depending on their interaction with the instrument.
4. "...SW...frustrating experience." - Literally LOL. All in a days work around here. Quest for most efficient work-around never seems to go away. All due respect to developers/designers that create amazingly powerful CAD tools.
5. Can you elaborate on the terminal block glitch & your work-around? I've pretty much come to accept that work-arounds are a part of CAD life. They are aggravating but somewhat acceptable as long as they are not clock eaters or introduce great opportunity for human error when sequencing or tag-name type revisions are made. See the examples above.
6. I am not familiar with Automated PLC Drawings. In my experience, anything "Auto-generated" by SW is hit & miss. Some fly, some flop. The default automated PLC drawing puts all (or some large subset) of points on the same drawing. I like to put the points next to the device that interacts with those points.
7. I also don't see the use of single line drawings in our application. I'm not sure what you are referring to with 'hybrid drawing'. Hybrid is something that they introduced in 2014 I believe (It's actually called 'Mixed'). You can mix single line and multi-line on the same page.
8. 3D is great for helping to manage tolerances & clearance issues. If routing also proves useful it could potentially save us a great deal in scrapped wire/cable.
The one thing that jumps out at me in your case is the re-usability of design. I just recently started a new project that was a variant of an old instrument. I just duplicated the old project made the few adjustments and had great documentation in very little time. If your designs are just variants of one another it seems to me that you will be able to reuse a tremendous amount of your design. All the reports (BOMS, lists of cables etc.) will come right along with the new design and will adjust to any changes you make.

As far as convincing your management and the rest of the company to switch over I have no advice. It sounds like a tough road but I think if you take it one step at a time you can do it. You may want to look for videos done by some of the VARs. Some of them go over different aspects of what you are asking for.
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
James Harvey @ Daen Hendrickson on Apr 13, 2015 9:49 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Thank you for the input Daen,
You provide useful & encouraging information.
Apologies for the response lag, I'm juggling a bit on my end.

You're not kidding about the parallels. And ditto on key individuals. Sounds like a worn sales cliché, but as we grow I believe a tool like this will become increasingly necessary to maintain our competitive edge. Max efficiency/Min waste is everybody's goal. Your chicken/egg comment rings so true for so many aspects of managing CAD, it reminds me of another anecdote-
Young Man: Sir, you make good decisions, how did you become so wise?
Old Man: Through experience.
Young Man: And how sir did you gain this experience?
Old Man: Through bad decisions.

It sounds like you guys went through a few trials to get there with E3 but the end result was a strong positive. Approaching it in segments with a single user license is very good advice. And using specific controls sub-systems as a test mule & drafting several iterations as a means to tweak the software will be a good way to help keep frustration at bay. With some patience, I could probably manage that while keeping up with my day to day status quo. Developing the well connected (smart) 2D library data will be a chore. I am not SQL literate, so I have that to conquer as well. Also, forum posts indicate there are unresolved issues with the symbol vs the grid units of measure (and many others..). Our 3D component library is already well established, though it will require tweaking as well for connection points & so on...

Your input is very much appreciated, thank you again for taking the time to give such a detailed response. I do have just a couple more questions for you-

As subscriber to this forum you are apparently a SolidWorks user...So when you were designing flight simulator circuitry with E3, were you also using SolidWorks at that time to design, assemble & communicate the physical layouts? If so, did using both software result in redundant work (or other issues) as I experience now? In your opinion- we being capable SolidWorks users, would we be silly to even consider something like E3 rather than SWE2D/3D? It would obviously deny us some of the connected functionality but I try not to rule anything out.

Thanks again for your time!

Regards,
James Harvey
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
James Harvey @ Max Kante on Apr 13, 2015 9:54 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Max,
Thanks for your response! This is good information for helping us to make an informed decision. I will certainly pass the good deed forward. Thanks very much for taking the time!!

Best,
James Harvey
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
James Harvey @ Andrew Kronquist on Apr 13, 2015 10:03 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Doesn't apply, but very interesting, I saved the link. I love to tinker with things like that, just finding the time for it is a never ending challenge. Thanks for replying.

Best,
James
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
James Harvey @ Scott Morris on Apr 13, 2015 12:35 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Wow, Scott! Homerun!
This is the info & examples I'm looking for. You're golden, thank you so much!!
- Team members here (including myself) also use AutoCAD Electrical without using the full intended functionality. I was a fairly capable ACAD user (not Electrical) in my past work experience. After using SW (+ a bit of Inventor) for the past ~6 years, my ACAD skills have diminished considerably. I still use it daily, but barely scratch the surface of what AutoCAD can do. ~1 year ago I endured the tedium of the ACAD Electrical tutorials with the intent of using it as a surrogate SWE2D, my main intent being to create robust, connected BOM's & eliminate some of our other redundant work. For me the tutorials created more questions than were answered. It was trial & error for me to estimate the functional returns of catalog/database entry fields, and the 'lines as wires' interface was glitchy & uncooperative in the point-to-point environment. Getting even to the point of creating a simple example to prove functionality was a trying task. The effort exerted to build worthy ACADE skills was far eclipsing the extra work we do now using our current system. It became very hard to see any chance of sufficient payback. I hate it, but in the end I failed. I have to agree with your man, way too difficult (not intuitive at all) to get things properly set up. A big part of what I'm fishing for with this inquiry is the confidence that implementing SWE is not equally painful to get up and running. Edit- You're VAR would have you believe it's almost magical! Ha! They seem to like to not talk about the rigors of implementation at their sales spiels..
- I have read similar complaints about terminal block glitches on this forum, thanks for the graphic example. Other forum posts describe SWE has problems in having multiple symbols represent the same specific component (i.e. a single TB with more than one wire landing on it & the terminations being shown graphically on separate pages). That seems a very common characteristic of a schematic for such a sophisticated program to have trouble with. Ditto for shield connections (or lack of) as mentioned in Max Kante's response within this thread. Being a non-user of SWE it's hard to imagine the work-around or if maybe something else is amiss. Bothersome to read about regardless.
- One thing that concerns me in your graphic examples is the 2D space they are taking up. It would seem that the same info could be represented in a lesser space without sacrificing too much necessary white space. Especially true of a list such as the BOM example. Currently, our BOM's are in tables that are dense with info but still easy to read, this true of the shop instructions I produce & our end-user schematic documents. I would suspect (hope) this to be just a matter of formatting & maybe initial setup..? Considering the other potential benefits, this is not really a deal killer either way...
I can't thank you enough for the great info you put together in your response. Thus far the general consensus regarding SWE seems to be, "painful to implement, yes, but worth it in the end". Good enough for me. If you have any other input to share I am all ears, thanks again for taking time out to respond, it means a lot.

Best Regards,
James Harvey
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Daen Hendrickson @ James Harvey on Apr 13, 2015 12:37 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
James,

One comment before addressing your questions: Although E3 and SWE are SQL based you really don't need specific SQL knowledge to work with them. It would probably be a benefit later on once you have conquered the general software. But you should be able to get along without that particular skill set.

Initially E3 did not have an integrated link with SW. They eventually created one but the price for the module was substantial - around $5k per seat - and something we could not justify. Justification was even harder knowing how relatively straight forward it was to manually transfer between the two software packages. This integration is part of SWE.

Our electrical design process was very linear. We had some early "white board" design reviews that roughly laid out the physical approach to the wiring (these modules go here, that panel over there, cable bundles routed through here, etc). The 2D schematic work drives the lion's share of the circuitry / connectivity design. This was done while the cockpit structure was being concurrently designed. The 2D work was mostly completed by the time we were ready to import into SW.

SW Routing has an import capability and E3 had a from-to report format that would satisfy Routing. We ran reports for each harness and imported to SW to build the 3D routing of each harness. The 3D portion of the design involved only the physical layout. All of the connectivity design was already set.

If there were minor changes, we typically updated E3 and then communicated the change and manually updated in SW Routing. If there was a major change a new report would cycle through the export / import process and the harness model recreated.

The 2D schematic drawing was created in E3. Internal use 3D layout drawings were created in SW. Physical length information from the 3D drawings was manually added back into E3 to complete the harness build drawings. There was not a significant amount of redundant work.

Issues:
- The obvious issue was that the two software packages were not integrated so there was some manual updating. This was considered a "necessary evil" to gain all the other benefits. Over time this probably would have been addressed.
- The export / import process was VERY finicky / temperamental. The names of items in the E3 library had to EXACTLY match the names of corresponding items in the SW routing library - right down to the same capitalization. Otherwise SW wouldn't recognize them on import. SW did not offer an option to pick something if an import was not recognized. You had to manually open the import text file and modify. This was with SW2008 so significant changes have been made.
- You had to maintain two parallel libraries - E3 and SW. This is probably no different with SWE other than the management of the libraries is probably better integrated. However, for us keeping the two libraries synchronized was painful. The electrical guy would make a change and not tell us. Then next export /import would have a text mismatch because of it. The electrical guy also would not be as consistent in naming protocol.
- We could have developed a process for exporting the SW length data back to E3. However, the effort to develop the process seemed far more extensive than the manual process we were using.
- Software package synchronization. This was primarily and issue with E3 updates. They would issue an update that fixed things we really wanted. After installation we would find it would break other things that affected out export / import process.
- Communications (nothing to do with either software package). The electrical guy would use some "unorthodox" methods as work-arounds for software limitations. When the reports were published for the export / import process this often caused significant disconnects. This usually involved a lot of manual editing to restore the usability of the data set.
Other than the CAD management issues, I do not recall a lot of redundancy. The electrical guy focused on his connectivity and the SW guy focused on his routing. It might have been better if we had one engineer skilled in both E3 and SW that would manage all the electrical, but that just wasn't how our staff ended up.

I can't address the current capabilities of E3 versus SWE. The once perceived benefit of SWE is that of using a single software provider. When it comes to support you eliminate the finger pointing.

When we adopted E3 SWE was not an option. E3 was owned by a German company called Simteam. Sometime after our adoption the software was purchased by Zuken (Japanese firm). We saw the cost structure significantly change after that. In particular any of the add-on modules seems to all have a nice round price of $5K per seat. If we had added the SW bridge module, the Mil-Spec circular connector module, the wire board module (initially included and later spun off), along with a few others we could have driven out seat price upwards of $20K. That was big money for our small firm. Customizing E3 was done entirely through scripting language. Once learned it was probably as usable as any method but it would have been nicer to have a SW-style VB programming environment.

At the time, E3 was successful in being adopted by some big players. It was in use by companies like Lockheed and NASA. The downside of that was those guys had enough leverage to drive some changes in the software functionality. Some for the better, and some not so much. We had some updates where certain functionality completely changed behavior - for the worse in our case. When contacting support to report the "bug" you got told that the big boys want it that way so... sucks to be you.

We also saw the same issues with the schematic grid alignment issues. With the software's origins being European, it was based on metric spacing. 25mm sure looks a lot like 1 inch on the screen. Like all software, if you only knew the issues before you started.... We ended up with numerous library parts that had bits and pieces copied from existing sample library components. Eventually you understand the root cause but by that time if you correct your library you run the risk of breaking all your previous work.

My suggestion is to contact BOTH providers and see if you can get a trial of each software. In the past you could download E3 for free with the save function disabled. You can download the E3 viewer and if I recall this was just a limited function version of the full software. The Zuken website also has several webinars you could view. I would hope your SW Reseller would have a similar exploratory package.

There also seems to be a library protocol that many vendors have adopted. When we adopted E3, you had to build all of your own library components. You now may be able to download many of them. I did a little Google browsing but was not able to quickly find a connector example with this information available.

Daen
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
James Harvey @ Daen Hendrickson on Apr 13, 2015 5:40 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Thanks Daen once again.

My thoughts on database knowledge revolve around the idea of exporting our existing MS Access tables into the SWE required SQL server in order to maybe not start completely from scratch in building our database. This may be a pipedream, a feasible possibility, or a cluster-bomb...my current ignorance prevents me from even speculating. If feasible, our business systems management & IT guys can help in that area...

The integration you refer to is not exactly "part of" SWE. SWE is 2 products... SWE2D is a standalone license (~$5k per). SWE3D provides the integration and is an add-in to your existing SW license (another ~$5k per, not to mention the existing SW native licensing, subscription fees, etc.) (The similarities make me think back again to your comment about SW imbedding E3 to create SWE). Regardless, it is no small commitment. In your words, "Big money for our small firm", yes.
The option exists to purchase SW2D and continue to manually transfer as you describe (no integrated linking feature). The option also exists to buy both licenses & split them between 2 users. Which in our case would result in our senior designer using 2D to design the circuit/schematic (which drives the BOM's, pin lists, etc.), and myself using the 3D to create layouts, routing, etc. and finally communicating all of the above to the shop floor via shop assy drawings.

Another consideration is that should some of the circuit design have a black box quality that is to be described in the shop assy instruction but not the end-user schematic then a separate schematic would be necessary. From what I can tell, SWE2D has no provisions for multiple configurations of a single project.

Your comment, "how relatively straight forward it was to manually transfer between the two software packages", leads me to believe maybe we lack API macro, scripting, or other specific computer skills that perhaps your team possessed. I have only very recently begun to dabble in VB script & API routines. We use ACAD tables (termination lists, manually created), export these to MS Excel, and finally copy/paste into SW drawing tables. Essentially this is an elaborate copy/paste procedure with some formatting involved. Revisions to said tables creates double work. It is one of the redundant tasks I would like to see eliminated.

Our electrical design process is also very linear. Essentially it is done by our senior designer alone as described in a previous post. The physical part is another matter. We in Electrical have a restricted amount of control of the overall layout of the vehicle. The OA mechanical design from our perspective, is sometimes in flux all the way to the finish. I believe this is due to time pressures and the often custom nature of our builds that we all contend with. We maintain a relative "standard" throughout due to the combo of key personnel and very skilled craftsmen on the shop floor. Routing is determined by shop floor personnel on prototypes & then repeated and revised as necessary on repeat units. It is documented by photograph. This has a negative effect on Ele Controls ability to estimate cable routing & lengths. Our communications regarding this have improved dramatically in recent times but I believe we can further reduce scrap cable waste. Also, your term "harness" could be readily applied to our cable bundle within the context you're using. But as for actual custom molded (or otherwise assembled) harnesses, we do design them but they are more the occasionally required exception than the daily norm.

Ditto on 2 parallel libraries. We have a good 3D library established (but without routing connector points). Our schematic symbol library is all AutoCAD. No connectivity currently involved. The import/export syntax problems you describe (unfamiliar to me) would hopefully be avoided with the SWE2D/3D integration. Effectively connecting a generic 2D symbol to a specific 3D model (as selected from list), and automatically (or at least semi-automatically) including the ancillary bits is a very appealing aspect of the software.
The apparent issue of grid units seems odd to me unless a lot of the schematics symbols are imported from manufacturers web sites with varying units. Either way it is hard to imagine why it should be an ongoing issue...

As a final side note, regarding the screen shots provided by Scott in this thread, the format generally does not appeal to me. Too spread out in my opinion. Makes it harder to read & analyze. Maybe this can be tweaked to my liking. I visualize a good automotive or motorcycle service publication electrical schematic. I estimate our systems are fairly similar in size to a full touring motorcycle, electrically speaking. Perhaps I'm fantasizing here...

Thanks again Daen!
You have given me much food for thought.
Sorry for the very long-winded responses. I suppose a lot it is me talking to myself as much as to anyone but I sincerely hope someone else might benefit from the dialogue.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Robert Degiorgio Apr 16, 2015 5:07 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
These were questions we required answers for when we where looking for a better way to create electrical drawings. We used to use 2d acad to create drawings that did not give us any data to help use in boms & harness lengths. All the drawings were dead lines & polylines. Using SWE helped us in creating schematics with intelligent symbols & lines (wires). We are still in the learning curve. The training we had was just the basics, not much literature can be found on the subject in more depth. The software does tend to go toward persons who use PLC's. We use relays from various respected manufactures, but we have to create our own so called PLC. There are a few good video around on the internet that help you from loosing hope. I will attach a few screen shots for you including SWE 3d incorporating the 3d cabinet along with the data from the electrical schematic producing point to point wiring with actual lengths. Most of our products per panel (we usually have a tandem of 7 to 15 panels) have an average of 200-300 wires. We are gearing in producing new products which will have from 1000 to 1300 wires each.

screenshot of a schematic

screenshot of a schematic

screenshot of a component data ( referred to as a connection labels)

screenshot of a 2d panel derived from 3d assembly

screenshot of terminal layout

screenshot of point to point wiring with lenghts

screenshot of a bom

screenshot of a 2d representation of a 3d wired panel using swe 3d

Hope this gives you a hands on idea of what can be produced with the software
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
Max Kante @ Robert Degiorgio on Apr 16, 2015 11:57 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Nice presentation.
For your connection labels drawings. How did you make them? Is there a method to generate them, or are the symbols inserted and associated to the component?
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Earl Hasz @ Max Kante on Apr 16, 2015 1:12 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
As they are connection labels, I would venture that Robert created the symbol with the desired attributes. Then they are placed and associated to a given component. I particularly like the cross references on the symbol.

Well done Robert.
-Earl
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Daen Hendrickson Apr 16, 2015 2:07 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
James

I was unable to find a screen shot of the 3D cockpit cable routing. It really was impressive!

I was able to find a few old PDFs so I can show you the general approach we followed.

Below is a SW screen shot of a terminal block distribution panel. The connectivity was created in E3 and the From/To data exported to SW Routing (2008).

And this is the 2D schematic showing a portion of the same distribution panel. You will notice that most of our schematics are organized by function or system. As discussed previously, we had to create some work-arounds to replicate the connectivity of a jumpered terminal block.

This is a schematic of a particular system's signal path. It is read from right to left. The RH side shows the PLC controlling signals, then interconnect cabling, intermediate circuit boards, more cabling, the system component. This would be analogous to all wiring associated with a car's radio system (power, speakers, antenna, steering wheel controls, etc.). If I recall, we created our own PLC symbology (the flag symbols) because the build in functionality at the time did not meet our needs. Note that the system on the LH side is shown complete, but the remaining components only show the portion associated with this system. The portions not shown are associated with other systems. If you have a problem with this system, this schematic captures all you need for diagnostics.

This is a single line schematic of a cable/harness. This is from the point of view of the "cable/harness" system. Only one of the connectors on the left might be associated with the car's "radio" system. The others might be associated with Air conditioning and power windows. But this defines the whole cable. This and the following drawings capture all you need to build or diagnose this cable.

This shows the cable from/to connectivity.
A point to be made here is that the design of this data was only created ONCE. The different views (by system, by cable single line, by cable multi line) are all from the same data. Just like multiple SW drawing views of the same part or assembly.

Granted, it didn't work like this out of the box. As discussed previously learning what works, setting up the library, etc. takes time. But you only have to do it once... or twice maybe.

I hope this gives you some additional ideas.

Daen
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
James Harvey @ Robert Degiorgio on Apr 16, 2015 2:31 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Robert,

Your screenshots certainly do give me the idea of what SWE can produce. Very nice! Thanks so much for sharing!

If I think of any specific questions regarding your presentation I will respond to the post again, thanks.

I am getting some great feedback, thanks all! Keep 'em coming. Pieces & parts of these examples are showing more & more of where I want to go with this. It's a great help.

Best,
James
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Robert Degiorgio @ Max Kante on Apr 17, 2015 2:08 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Max,

As Earl Hasz stated, yes I created the connection labels from scratch. The idea behind it is to give detail regarding the component as well as the position of each pin output. this makes it easy to search individual circuits in the schematics.

Regards
Robert
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
James Harvey @ Daen Hendrickson on Apr 17, 2015 2:02 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Daen,

What I see in your schematics resembles the information density I have in mind for a schematic. Organizing neatly & coherently for our product line will be a bit of a chore but certainly doable.

I have just a few more questions & I'll try to leave you alone, you have shared so much as it is...
1. Your schematics above are on B size sheets (11 x 17), yes?
Re: Panel sldasm model pictured:
1. The sub-assy component harness (which appears to incorporate potentiometers?/lamp?/wires/ring terminals/heat shrink), Termination points, & Spline path ...all this is populated & created 'automagically' using "SW Routing"?
2. And "SW Routing" is dependent on: a) well defined schem symbols, b) the schem itself (for components/BOM info), c) well defined c-points on sldprt models, d) 'hard' component placement in sldasm, & e) a simple rectangle/line background sketch to indicate 'wire duct' path?
  In your original response you mention, "BOM's with the ancillary items included" (properly set up, of course). Can SW automatically select the correct terminal end based on the wire gauge and screw size etc.? And update if the component, wire size, or both, change? To clarify, can it see both pieces of info to select terminal ends that require both pieces of info, i.e. ring terminals? (I'm taking into account your E3 import/export situation might make this process less than automagic Daen, but if any other knowing forum user can answer regarding SWE2D/3D specific...)
I ask because in the context of SW, "Routing" is still kind of a vague term for me. The concept is simple but I have yet to study any specific tutorials etc. In a recent 'Lunch-n-learn' seminar, the rep showed a similar layout in a control box (wires only I believe, no assembled harness) where the creation of the spline-path/wires was automated. He said this function was NOT of the "SW Routing" Add-in, but a built in function of SW2D/3D (further adding to my knowledge deficit, should have pressed for example of Routing to clarify difference...hindsight...). Apparently the only pe-req's for said automation were the well defined libraries (2D & 3D) and the simple 'wire duct' path sketch as described above. Again, I realize my question may not apply to your E3/SW software combo...

Thanks so much again, I'm blown away by the generosity of forum users.

Best,
James

PS. I spied your profile pics, flight simulators are way cool, bummer you didn't have the full cockpit harness screen shot! Not instigating you to bother though, the info you have given is more than sufficient!! Just saying a very cool & interesting product & work experience!
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Daen Hendrickson @ James Harvey on Apr 17, 2015 4:08 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
James,

Yes, our drawings are on B-Size sheets. This was driven entirely by printer capabilities and management's decision not to purchase larger format hardware. The upside of this is it forced us to learn to use space well!

The Assembly model was created using SW Routing and it was "automatic" to some degree.
- The sheet metal panel and connector mounting bracket were design with standard SW tools before hand
- The electrical components were designed in SW and added to the Routing Electrical Library before hand
  Connectors, Ring Terminals, Terminal Blocks, etc
  Part of adding to Electrical library included proper location of C-Point
  As discussed previously, the text of the properties of these components had to match the imported data from E3 EXACTLY for it to be recognized.
- The wiring cross section was defined in SW Routing
  As with the components, the descriptive properties of the wiring had to match E3 exactly
- The import routine matches the E3 data to SW Routing components and automatically creates the path splines between the component C-Points.
  The spline routing must be manually positioned
  SW Routing creates the wire sweeps along the splines and determines proper cross section size.
- What appears to be heat shrink or sleeving on the wires is just SW Routing's representation of the wire bundle. When more than one wire is on the same route path SWR creates a sweep with a diameter that will contain the individual wire diameters. It does not model each wire independently.
SW Routing never touches the schematic side of things. It basically automates the creation of a subassmbly that consists of the end components, the in-between stuff (wires or pipes), and the underlying 3D sketch driving the sweep paths. It is dependent on well defined C-Points and property data. We did not use wire duct. SW Routing does use intermediate path constraints. You can create a model of a cable clip with a Route Point (R-Point) that acts just like a C-Point. Part of the manual positioning of your route splines is to relate them to these R-Points which results in the spline passing through that clip.

The BOM with ancillary items is all in the E3 side of things. In the schematic, when you select a particular connector, the additional items are brought along with it per your definition and there is functionality to pick properly sized terminals base on wire size. SW Routing has some capability for diameters and design tables but we did not use that.

Our Electrical BOM was driven by E3. SW was used to generate the physical lengths for manufacturing. We needed to do this because we wanted the cable build scheduled BEFORE the cockpit was built.

As an example, E3 picked which ring terminal to use based on wire size. The export to SW Routing would include the specifics of that ring terminal. Upon importing to SW, that ring terminal would be grabbed from the library. In the case of a MIL-SPEC round connector, we modeled these in SW as a single body part with the strain relief built in. It was mostly there to look like the connector, provide a C-Point, created a good representation on a drawing. We treated these models as "notional" - meaning they were a good representation but by no means a model sufficient to manufacture the connector. This was also driven by system performance necessity. Super-detailed connectors would add system overhead requirements. In conjunction with running the Routing add-on that would bring many systems to their knees. So it was a trade-off.

If those same ring terminals needed changed in SW Routing, it was usually an educated guess choosing the approach - manually replace or delete and re-import from E3. It was decided on a case-by-case basis which method would be less effort.

SW Help has a section on the Routing add-in. Not the most helpful but...

Here is a link to another forum post with a Routing help file from 2008. This was posted by my co-worker Tim that actually took on the whole ROUTING monkey when there was very little out there. The material is dated but may be helpful.

Route Help

We built a flight sim for NASA - a T-38N. The flight sim in my profile picture is NOT one we built. That is the Shuttle Landing Simulator at Johnson Space Center (was, I think it got moved after the end of the shuttle program). A fringe benefit of that job was that I got to land the space shuttle. Good thing it was only a simulation... I sort of bent it.

Keep asking away. The more information you have the better your sales pitch will go.

Daen
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
James Harvey @ Daen Hendrickson on Apr 17, 2015 5:37 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Careful Daen,
I may badger you to death!!

Really I think maybe I have gathered enough superficial info & potential help sources to not walk into a test drive with utter & complete ignorance. I am awaiting word from our VAR for getting that set up. I will grind through the tutorials and see if I can apply it to our situation relatively quickly, at the very least for a functional example using our own components. I will be doing so on my own time or whenever I can earn up spare time in my daily tasks. As for the upsell, I'm not counting on anything, I'll just see what I can learn and where it leads. I like my job & the people I work for, if it gets shot down so be it, on with the show...

We too (in Ele Controls Dept.) use our models mostly as dummy visual representations. We will put some detail into making it look like the part and for accurate OA dims for clearance/interference. We occasionally get asked to make pretty stuff for some sales presentations.

I saved the Routing best practices pdf too, thanks for the connect. I am on SW2015 standard here at the office, no Routing Add-in available to me. I have 2013 Premium at home so I can tinker with it there...

********

I too have bent the Shuttle up a couple times but at Space Center Houston rather than Johnson Space Center. The simulator I flew used realistic physics (presumably) but looked nothing like the simulator you were sitting in. Probably have to put dollars in a slot to experience that now. The difference being Space Center Houston is more touristy theme park while JSC is where they actually shoot rockets into outer space. I'm thinking that JSC is no longer open to the general public, I haven't visited the place since mmhmmm...very long ago... I live about an hour and a half from there.

If you ever visit the area again, an absolute must see for any aviation enthusiast (or gearhead) is the Lone Star Flight Museum on Galveston Island. If you show up on a fly-day & have the do-re-mi you can take a spin in some vintage war birds, including a P51(!). Really, really cool stuff! Enough chatter...I put a link below...
LSFM.org
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
Phil Johnston Apr 27, 2015 11:52 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I used SWE exclusively for point-to-point schematics and BOM creation. I was the electrical designer for a company that does airborne ISR integration. So my prints were used by the technicians to do the install. I didn't take any classes on SWE and the company had bought the software right before I started, so there wasn't anybody there with experience who could mentor me. Needless to say, I watched every youtube video I could find, read the rather generic, nearly useless (in our aerospace application) books and training manuals provided by our VAR, and experimented like crazy. I put in many late nights, both at work and on my own time at home, using my laptop, to get familiar with SWE as quickly as I could.

I was able to create schematics very quickly, but they weren't very "intelligent" until later, as I learned how to correct the BOM and enter information and associate components and so on. The first major project I was on was the biggest, most complex airplane and install our company had yet done, and I was completely green (to manned aviation standards and acronyms and SWE, anyway...). I was able to generate the schematics on time for the install and the customer was happy enough with our work that we were awarded multiple follow-on contracts, although it wasn't without its teething issues.

Anyway, don't be scared to dive in and pick up the skills to use this tool! It's actually relatively easy to use and quite powerful, once you have been immersed in it for some months. I do feel that there is a definite lack of good tutorials and classes and documentation for the tool, but that is a natural consequence of how young it is, and is steadily being addressed (by users like us, here on the forums, and YouTube!).
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
James Harvey @ Phil Johnston on Apr 28, 2015 11:04 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Thank you Phil,

Way to go for jumping in & making it happen! Sounds like you were facing considerable challenge. Again the end result sounds like a strong positive. Thanks for sharing the story. I'm still fishing to see more varieties of schematics (graphically) that are produced if you happen to have a screenshot sample (or 2..) you could share? All good either way, I appreciate your input.

Picking up the skills can be a hair-pulling challenge, but it is a welcome one, especially when there's a payback coming down the line. No fear there...
It seems the real challenge for me now is building a case for proof of ROI potential. Ok, actually my REAL challenge (firstly) is people oriented, as in getting consent to build my case for proof of ROI potential. I have been getting zero response to e-mails to my VAR regarding the test drive we had previously discussed. I can only speculate as to why...

Thanks again for your input. Onward & Upward!

Best Regards,
James
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Phil Johnston @ James Harvey on Apr 28, 2015 12:21 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Here is a screenshot of an early schematic I created (it is a bit messy, later examples are laid out much better). But you can see the "point-to-point" style that is commonly used in aviation. Hope this helps!
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
James Harvey @ Phil Johnston on Apr 28, 2015 12:25 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Very nice Phil Thank you!
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions

Recommended Content

Incoming Links

Re: What are your thoughts on Solidworks Electrical?