A creative space…

Wake

Greek island ferry trips in the winter. Four and a half hours of un-distracted time on the deck in economy class. Low rumbling engines, wind lashing the after-deck and rolling rolling on the swell. The buzz of a political discussion in Greek from a neighbouring group of islanders – a language I understand well but as a foreigner doesn’t penetrate my psyche. So I tune out leaving only the friendly sound of humanity.

office

Time without the pressure to accomplish anything. A parenthesis in the modern world. If I do nothing that’s fine. Mildly bored, relaxed the mind wanders open to any thought that might break the monotony.

Idly playing with software and ideas, inspiration strikes! A old dead-end opens into a wide avenue. Away from this wild and rolling seascape how dull the mind becomes in the constant din of everyday life. But in the sweet boredom of life at sea, like Ishmael in Moby Dick the mind rambling the landscape of consciousness peers over into the unconscious making out strange shapes in the mist.

Schematic design revisited

Back in September as I began thinking about connectCAD 2015  I was fairly sure that we had schematic design wrapped up and it was time to move on. So I began a quick review of user comments to tie up any loose ends.

Well it’s amazing where following a loose end can take you!

The new connectCAD is all about schematic design. From seemingly simple changes to the look of connector panel devices all the way through to new cable numbering systems, it’s a major lift of the entire application.

Let’s see what’s inside.

Ho hum! Even more smart objects – all the fundamental components like devices, sockets and circuits. That makes them even easier to use and edit – just select it and edit the properties that appear in the Object Info Palette. Select several and you can edit them all at once. Quite a move…

And you can still configure connectCAD to way you want it to look and work, add your own parameter fields and make your own socket and device graphics.  Smart objects for everything let’s show you use graphics for inputs, outputs and bi-directional ports giving you an instant visual picture of signal flow. Cool !!!

No more searching for tool setting. Central settings management gives you a clear picture of your drawing setup and let you make your adjustments in one place. Much better !

A whole new concept in cable numbering and panel labeling! A new framework that let’s you set things up the way you want them, simply and effectively. That’s the stuff !!!

But my favourite is Connect Next… it’s almost like it reads your mind and does the next connection you were about to think of. And we’re not done yet – there’s even more intelligent guesswork that will go into this command.

Well all that was fun. It took up most of the winter so far but its out now.

 

Emails that don’t let you ever stop working

I got an unexpected Christmas present from a customer. One of those emails that makes impossible for you to ever stop.

“First I want to thank your for creating ConnectCAD.  I originally used Visio for all of my A/V drawings, but it was never meant for this use and was slow and cumbersome.  I built a TV station from the ground up last year and did the drawings in Visio.  After that experience I decided to look at other software to aid me in my A/V drawings

I then tried X but it crashed too often and I didn’t care for how regimented it was in making you put your devices and cables in a database.  I also looked at Y, but it seemed like I would have the same issues of X.

Then I tried ConnectCAD and haven’t looked back since.  I just got done rebuilding a TV station (they went from analog to complete HD) and had the drawings done in record time.

On ethical grounds I’ve deleted his specific references to certain products. The disadvantages of other companies software is irrelevant. What matters to me is knowing that what I’m do is making a difference to peoples lives the world over.

Emails that make you think

Every now and then I get a mail that overturns my assumptions. In the many years I’ve spent designing broadcast systems the task was to understand the need, create a concept design, write tender specifications (formal or otherwise), send out a call for bids, select the final gear and complete detailed design.

But yesterday a designer told me the kind of brief he often hears from his bosses.

“We’ve bought a station group in <major US city>. We  need to move them from SD to HD by the end of the year. They are an Evertz house, with a Sony switcher. We just signed a huge deal with Grass Valley/Miranda/a Belden Brand. Get it built using the Miranda version of whatever you need. In fact, use all Miranda audio processing gear. Maybe leave the Sony switcher. We’ll see.”

“On occasion stuff just lands on a loading dock, and we need to make it work.”

So the big manufacturers are setting the rules. One day I’ll have no more assumptions left and I’ll be a free man…

CAD for the mad, mad world

Ever been involved in one of those projects where the client doesn’t know what they want? the budget and the goals keep changing and the deadline is yesterday?

Of course you have. That pretty much describes every project in the world of show business. The situation can get under your skin when you have work to get finished and there are consequences if you don’t. But that’s how the world is – the question is can we live in it?

Broadcast System Design
Photo by Jan Starzak

Back in the day when I was a broadcast systems designer it was terribly hard to progress under these conditions. Each change of wishes and resources meant painstaking re-drawing and re-calculating everything. Computers came along, but the software we had was little more than a glorified piece of paper. The big bonus was that you didn’t have to cover the screen in Tippex every time you needed to change something.

With CAD we got pristine beautiful drawings of the state of play about a week ago. But producing  drawings and keeping them up to date was almost as slow as doing them in pencil. Remember the old joke? ” What does IBM stand for? It’s Better Manually !!! ”

I have the advantage that I’m not that young and the first personal computer emerged just as I was finishing college. So as a true geek (to the consternation of my parents) instead of putting down a deposit on a house, I spend my entire savings and bought one. It was just as exciting as I’d expected. I switched it on, it beeped and a glowing green > prompt flashed at me on the screen. That was all. But you could program it in BASIC. And happy months passed as I taught this dumb box more and more tricks.
Hidden deep inside MiniCAD was a script editor and while I was spending another late night at the office drawing yet another distribution amplifier I began to think, ” what if I taught the computer to do this for me”. I stopped working on the project and dusting off my dormant programming skills I began to build some macros to make my life a bit easier.

The whole thing spiraled wildly out of control. The macros became longer and more complicated and then they started talking to each other. In the process I had bent MiniCAD (by then called Vectorworks) away from being merely tool for a visual  representation into an actual functional model of the systems I was designing.

example of schematic design in connectCAD

Suddenly deadlines held no terror for me. Change requests – welcome. Updates processed in seconds. Reports – no problem. It was way to good to keep to myself.

Finally CAD for the mad, mad world. A program that lets you get started on a “normal” project with no clear goals, unknown resources and budget. Where changing your mind is not a crime to be punished by hours of hard labour, but just a natural way of evolving your thoughts.

It’s called connectCAD.

Hungry bears don’t dance

A fun expression from Greece, the country I live in. Means what it says – you need to feed people if they’re going to work for you. So obvious and yet how often do you find yourself working on a site where no thought has been given to peoples needs?

After a painful job back in 1999 I began to make a personal checklist:

  • parking and access
  • permits if needed
  • food
  • water !!!
  • toilets
  • building work finished
  • stable power
  • air conditioning

Then we’ll talk about deadlines…

That particular job was a turn-key TV station mid-summer in an industrial district of mid-Athens. Temperatures around 40 celsius, hardly a tree in sight to shade the concrete. It was mid-August and most of the shops were closed – everyone who could had left for the beaches. Except for us poor mutts who were tasked with get the channel on-air by the beginning of September.

The wiring team were working around the builders. Power came and went, air-con was a still just a dream. It was the last of the heroic installations – we gave it all and yes we made it. But from then on I made a personal vow:

Plan the job as though you are going work on the Moon

Cable Numbering systems – who is right?

Cable numbering is very much on my mind these days as I re-design the way this is done in connectCAD. Seems like a good point to share some thoughts.

How to label cables is one those subjects where everyone has a different opinion. It’s arbitrary so that’s why people argue. But I think everyone would agree on one universal principle:

cable labels must be unique

Why? Because without unique cable labels you needs hours of time-consuming tests to distinguish cables that look identical.

How about using GUID’s this?

56DDEC82-8D92-44AA-93CE-EE3C5EF26ADA

we’d be safe in the knowledge that no other such id exists in the universe. But practically that would be hard to use. Imagine the size of the labels, or the task of trying to find such an id on the drawings of a large installation project.

So what  might one look for in a cable label?

Perhaps some information. How about the role of the cable in the system? or where it’s ends can be found? That would be helpful to an engineer on site and far easier to relate to the system drawings. So cable labeling falls into these two basic paradigms: location-based and function-based labeling or some mix of the two. Both have their merits so let’s take a look those.

Location-based labelling

This would be something like:    {building}{level}{rm}{bay}-{building}{level}{rm}{bay}-{serial}

{serial} is an incrementing number to distinguish the cases where more than one cable goes between two locations.

Location-based labeling is most useful for cabling infrastructure. i.e. cables that have cost a lot to install and would be re-used in the event of any changes. It makes it easy on site to see what cabling resources are available to meet the needs of system changes.

But labels of this form can get very long, and in the close confines of an equipment rack they can be very hard to read. Shorter cable runs within an apparatus room are not so much infrastructure as consumables. Little investment is needed to install them and most often it’s easier to make a new cable than to track down an old one for re-use. So in this case location-based labeling is less important, and we come to our next labeling paradigm.

Function-based labeling

Here labels tell you what the cable is doing in the system. What type of signal it is carrying. Which sockets on which devices it interconnects. Functional labeling is really useful during installation and commissioning as it let’s installers connect up hardware without the need to constantly refer back to plans. It gets you faster to a working result.

Making changes afterwards however can be more challenging. For consistency re-purposed cables must have new id’s applied in line with their new functions. This often does not happen and over time the installation diverges from it’s documentation.

Bearing in mind that there’s a case for both approaches engineers have often mixed the two: using shorter functional-based labels with apparatus rooms and cabinets, and longer location-based labels for cabling between rooms and buildings.

The perfect system

Is the one YOU use 🙂 right? It’s safe to say there will never be a perfect cable labeling system to fit all applications. The specifications are impossible to meet. The ideal labeling system would be:

a) universally unique
b) have codes no longer than 6 characters
c) human-readable, preferably using digits 0-9 for colour coding
d) convey location and function information

Well it can’t be done, so we end up with the debate that will flow on and on.

Here are some random thoughts before signing off.

If we sacrifice colour codes and let’s face it most people use a label printer these days, then we could use the whole of the range [0-9 A-Z] for numbering. Just like the airlines used three-letter airport designators. By encoding numbers into base 32 or base 36 you can get a lot more information into one digit. Don’t really know where I’m going with that one…

In connectCAD I’m thinking of a rule-based method of applying numbers. Each numbering system will comprise a set of match rules to be applied in order until one of them succeeds. When a rules conditions are met a number will be generated according to a format string so you can include and mix location, and function data to create the dream cable label.

Before you get goosebumps I’ll sign off.

Can you untangle the mess?

Have you ever been lying on the floor of an equipment room trying to read the number on a cable in the bottom of a rack with fans buzzing in your ears and freezing air-con? The system’s an undocumented heap of garbage and you can’t move anything for fear of something falling over and leaving thousands of viewers staring at blank screens. Been there?

Even if you can guarantee that all cables have labels and better still unique labels (unheard-of luxury) it’s still a massive struggle to find where they’ve been moved to by those who call themselves engineers.

The cost of fixing these spaghetti systems is complete re-installation. That simple.

Spaghetti and where it comes from

Sometimes you wonder what’s the point? At risk of sounding a bit like Marvin the Paranoid Android here… You create beautiful systems, everything in prefect correspondence with the plans. A year later you go back and find spaghetti. Hundreds of undocumented changes that render the plans useless making life difficult for everyone.

Everyone except one guy. There’s a place in the TV eco-system for a certain kind of technician. He burrows his way into the organisation by making changes that only he knows about. When challenged he’ll come up with a million excuses for why he didn’t have time to tell anyone even painting himself as the hero who saved the day. Often ingenious, his solutions create a spiders web of dependencies that make change impossible without his direct involvement. And that’s how he survives.

By the time his managers realise the risk of only one person knowing how their plant works, he’s already well dug in and they’re too scared to move him. He’s the last person they can fire and he may even end up as your boss.

Check every time…

Audio is a pain.

Getting an analog signal down a pair of wires from one gadget to another ought to be simple. How many different ways can you do that? Audio engineers have risen to the challenge… back to the anecdote.

We have a production intercom system where the panels are connected with 3 pairs, audio in, audio out and serial control. All of these on D9 connectors according to the manufacturers data sheet. So we plan our system and the clients wiring team sit there dutifully soldering D9s. Days and days of work. The intercom arrives and we find RJ45s !!! A wonderful idea if only they’d told us.

Post-mortem begins. Client is upset and looking for compensation. He’s already paid for one lot of wiring, now he has to re-do it. The crafty manufacturer has already deleted the old data sheet from his site. By a huge stroke of luck I kept the original pdf on file and we escape.

Another lesson learned. Keep your evidence in case others destroy it.