EAGLE Central Forums
Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

Home » CadSoft Support Forums » eagle.betatest » Assembly variants: which word to use?
Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141471] Tue, 27 September 2011 05:04 Go to next message
Klaus Schmidinger
Messages: 1454
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
I am currently implementing "assembly variants", which, amoung
other things, allow the user to define whether a particular
part is actually present on a certain variant of a board.
What I'm looking for is the proper English word to use for this.
Since I want to avoid using a word hat just seems right from
a German speaker's point of view, I'd like to ask the EAGLE
community for a hint here.

So if a part is physically present on a board, it is "..." (please
fill in the gap).

Klaus Schmidinger
--
_______________________________________________________________

Klaus Schmidinger Phone: +49-8635-6989-10
CadSoft Computer GmbH Fax: +49-8635-6989-40
Pleidolfweg 15 Email: <private_email>
D-84568 Pleiskirchen, Germany URL: www.cadsoft.de
_______________________________________________________________
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141473 is a reply to message #141471] Tue, 27 September 2011 07:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Leikvoll
Messages: 888
Registered: November 2007
Senior Member
"Klaus Schmidinger" <<private_email>> wrote in message
news:j5s3ic$7ng$<private_email>...
>I am currently implementing "assembly variants", which, amoung
> other things, allow the user to define whether a particular
> part is actually present on a certain variant of a board.
> What I'm looking for is the proper English word to use for this.
> Since I want to avoid using a word hat just seems right from
> a German speaker's point of view, I'd like to ask the EAGLE
> community for a hint here.
>
> So if a part is physically present on a board, it is "..." (please
> fill in the gap).

Im do not speak english as 1st language, but I've seen the word
"instanciated" used in other tools for a similar action.
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141474 is a reply to message #141473] Tue, 27 September 2011 07:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Leikvoll
Messages: 888
Registered: November 2007
Senior Member
"Morten Leikvoll" <<private_email>pam> wrote in message
news:j5sam0$5aj$<private_email>...

> Im do not speak english as 1st language, but I've seen the word
> "instanciated" used in other tools for a similar action.

There you go.. I cant even spell it right. Here it is:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instantiate?show=0&t=13171215 53
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141477 is a reply to message #141471] Tue, 27 September 2011 08:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
James Morrison
Messages: 1060
Registered: November 2004
Senior Member

Klaus Schmidinger wrote on Tue, 27 September 2011 05:04
I am currently implementing "assembly variants", which, amoung
other things, allow the user to define whether a particular
part is actually present on a certain variant of a board.
What I'm looking for is the proper English word to use for this.
Since I want to avoid using a word hat just seems right from
a German speaker's point of view, I'd like to ask the EAGLE
community for a hint here.

So if a part is physically present on a board, it is "..." (please
fill in the gap).



"populated" is the word you are looking for. You could also use "installed" or a few other words depending on context. If you want to send me the english help file then I can make sure it makes sense in english.

A common methodology for this is to use the short form "DNP" (Do Not Populate) as the value of parts that should not be placed and soldered during assembly.

In fact, my current EAGLE ULP parses for that string in the value field and pulls those items into a line item with quantity zero. It still has all the ref des's but the quantity is zero to tell the assembly house to not populate those items.

James.




James Morrison ~~~ Stratford Digital

Specializing in CadSoft EAGLE
* Online Sales to North America
* Electronic Design Services

Take advantage of v7 License Promotion right now at http://www.eaglecentral.ca
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141481 is a reply to message #141477] Tue, 27 September 2011 10:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andrew Sterian
Messages: 124
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
On 9/27/11 8:49 AM, James Morrison wrote:
> Klaus Schmidinger wrote on Tue, 27 September 2011 05:04
>> So if a part is physically present on a board, it is "..." (please
>> fill in the gap).
>
> "populated" is the word you are looking for. You could also use
> "installed" or a few other words depending on context. If you want to send
> me the english help file then I can make sure it makes sense in english.

I second the use of "populated". I've also seen "fitted", especially in
the UK.

> A common methodology for this is to use the short form "DNP" (Do Not
> Populate) as the value of parts that should not be placed and soldered
> during assembly.

I second (and third) the use of "DNP"...in fact it makes more sense to
note which parts are NOT to be on the board rather than the ones that
are. Simply marking parts with "DNP" in the assembly variants works for me.

Andrew.
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141483 is a reply to message #141477] Tue, 27 September 2011 11:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andreas Weidner
Messages: 540
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
Am 27.09.2011 14:49, schrieb James Morrison:
> Klaus Schmidinger wrote on Tue, 27 September 2011 05:04
>> I am currently implementing "assembly variants" [...]

As far as I know, 'assembly' is normally used for the whole electrified
device, and NOT for the pure circuit board (gleiches Spiel im Deutschen:
eine Platine wird nicht zusammengebaut, sondern eher das Komplettgeraet).

> "populated" is the word you are looking for.

Yes, please. A component that appears on board is 'populated'. If it
doesn't appear, it is either 'not populated' or 'unpopulated' (I prefer
the former). Different possibilities of board population could therefore
be 'population variants' (aehnlich im Deutschen: 'bestueckt',
'unbestueckt', 'Bestueckungsvarianten').

I asked some English and American colleagues about this some years ago,
and they all agreed on the above terms.

> A common methodology for this is to use the short form "DNP" (Do Not
> Populate) as the value of parts that should not be placed and soldered
> during assembly.

Other possible abbreviations that I've seen are
NP = not populated (I prefer this one)
NC = not connected
DNC = do not connect

I've already written a 'variants' ULP that works together with our
documentation system to automatically generate documentation PDF files.
If anybody from CadSoft is interested in the resulting PDF output to
check what types of CAM processor output would be desirable concerning
variants, please tell me (the PDF files with graphics are too large for
this newsgroup).

Andreas Weidner
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141486 is a reply to message #141481] Tue, 27 September 2011 11:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
James Morrison
Messages: 1060
Registered: November 2004
Senior Member

Andrew Sterian wrote on Tue, 27 September 2011 10:08
On 9/27/11 8:49 AM, James Morrison wrote:
> Klaus Schmidinger wrote on Tue, 27 September 2011 05:04
>> So if a part is physically present on a board, it is "..." (please
>> fill in the gap).
>
> "populated" is the word you are looking for. You could also use
> "installed" or a few other words depending on context. If you want to send
> me the english help file then I can make sure it makes sense in english.

I second the use of "populated". I've also seen "fitted", especially in
the UK.

> A common methodology for this is to use the short form "DNP" (Do Not
> Populate) as the value of parts that should not be placed and soldered
> during assembly.

I second (and third) the use of "DNP"...in fact it makes more sense to
note which parts are NOT to be on the board rather than the ones that
are. Simply marking parts with "DNP" in the assembly variants works for me.


Hi Andrew,

From what has been made public so far, it looks like the variants methodology will allow for multiple variants. If so, that can be useful. If it's just a binary approach, i.e. a part is populated or not, then that really isn't a big step forward, many of us have that implemented in ULP's in similar, but different ways.

Cheers,

James.


James Morrison ~~~ Stratford Digital

Specializing in CadSoft EAGLE
* Online Sales to North America
* Electronic Design Services

Take advantage of v7 License Promotion right now at http://www.eaglecentral.ca
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141496 is a reply to message #141471] Tue, 27 September 2011 17:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
warrenbrayshaw
Messages: 1312
Registered: January 2010
Location: New Zealand
Senior Member
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> I am currently implementing "assembly variants", which, amoung
> other things, allow the user to define whether a particular
> part is actually present on a certain variant of a board.
> What I'm looking for is the proper English word to use for this.
> Since I want to avoid using a word hat just seems right from
> a German speaker's point of view, I'd like to ask the EAGLE
> community for a hint here.
>
> So if a part is physically present on a board, it is "..." (please
> fill in the gap).


James has proposed 'populated'. For the use you propose this is not
grammatically correct when you refer to the part. The part is not populated
but a position is.

A bare board is said to be populated when it has its components fitted.
A componenet position is said to be populated when it has a component
fitted.
When the placement of a single part varies between assembly variants the
part exists in both variants but the position that is populated changes.

Your question implies that the only option is the presence, or not, of a
part. Not an alternate position for the same part. The word 'populated'
could have been used to describe the existance of a part in one of the
alternate positions.

Future or present tense makes a difference.

Present tense:
> So if a part is physically present on a board, it is "PRESENT " (please
> fill in the gap).
> So if a part is physically present on a board, it is "INCLUDED " (please
> fill in the gap).
> So if a part is physically present on a board, it ...."EXISTS " (please
> fill in the gap).

I believe the design process is all future tense.

So back in the Schem/Board.
I imagine the intent is to draw the schem with all possible parts shown .
Then the parts are optionally flagged/linked to a particular build variant.

Imagine I'm looking at the dialog for the part I need to link to an assembly
variant. I start by saying to myself 'This part will be installed in
variant 'B' (say)". Now that I'm 'Part Centric' I can easily relate to a
field, used to link to the variant, which is labelled 'Populate' because for
this part I'm saying "populate board "B" with this part". So in this
context 'Populate' can be used as it is an instruction (a future happening).
Also correct as the item you are populating is the board.

If the above is the use intended then enough said..
If the view given in Eagle to match parts to assembly variants is "assembly
variant centric" then other words need to be considered.

HTH
Warren






--
Viewed / responded via the newsgroup at
news.cadsoft.de
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141497 is a reply to message #141486] Tue, 27 September 2011 17:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Klaus Schmidinger
Messages: 1454
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
On 27.09.2011 17:50, James Morrison wrote:
> ...
> From what has been made public so far, it looks like the variants
> methodology will allow for multiple variants. If so, that can be useful.
> If it's just a binary approach, i.e. a part is populated or not, then that
> really isn't a big step forward, many of us have that implemented in ULP's
> in similar, but different ways.

You will be able to define any number of "assembly variants", with
arbitrary names like

"High speed"
"Low power version"
"Budget revision"

and for each part you can then define whether or not it is
"populated" in a particular variant, and which value and technology
it shall have.

So if a part has no variant specific data, it is populated in all
variants and has the default value and technology. Certain parts
can be marked to be "not populated" in selected variants, and some
can be given different values and/or technologies in particular
variants.

Klaus Schmidinger
--
_______________________________________________________________

Klaus Schmidinger Phone: +49-8635-6989-10
CadSoft Computer GmbH Fax: +49-8635-6989-40
Pleidolfweg 15 Email: <private_email>
D-84568 Pleiskirchen, Germany URL: www.cadsoft.de
_______________________________________________________________
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141498 is a reply to message #141483] Tue, 27 September 2011 17:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Klaus Schmidinger
Messages: 1454
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
On 27.09.2011 17:14, Andreas Weidner wrote:
> Am 27.09.2011 14:49, schrieb James Morrison:
>> Klaus Schmidinger wrote on Tue, 27 September 2011 05:04
>>> I am currently implementing "assembly variants" [...]
>
> As far as I know, 'assembly' is normally used for the whole electrified device, and NOT for the pure circuit board (gleiches Spiel im Deutschen: eine Platine wird nicht zusammengebaut, sondern eher das Komplettgeraet).
>
>> "populated" is the word you are looking for.
>
> Yes, please. A component that appears on board is 'populated'. If it doesn't appear, it is either 'not populated' or 'unpopulated' (I prefer the former). Different possibilities of board population could therefore be 'population variants' (aehnlich im Deutschen: 'bestueckt', 'unbestueckt',
> 'Bestueckungsvarianten').

I thought that, strictly speaking, a *board* would be populated, just
like a country or a city. When people move to a city, they populate
the city, but they aren't "populated".

But if this is the word that's commonly used for this purpose, I'll
gladly use in in EAGLE. Just wanted to avoid using a "strange" word...

> I asked some English and American colleagues about this some years ago, and they all agreed on the above terms.
>
>> A common methodology for this is to use the short form "DNP" (Do Not
>> Populate) as the value of parts that should not be placed and soldered
>> during assembly.
>
> Other possible abbreviations that I've seen are
> NP = not populated (I prefer this one)
> NC = not connected
> DNC = do not connect
>
> I've already written a 'variants' ULP that works together with our documentation system to automatically generate documentation PDF files. If anybody from CadSoft is interested in the resulting PDF output to check what types of CAM processor output would be desirable concerning variants, please tell
> me (the PDF files with graphics are too large for this newsgroup).

Yes, please email me such a file.

Klaus Schmidinger
--
_______________________________________________________________

Klaus Schmidinger Phone: +49-8635-6989-10
CadSoft Computer GmbH Fax: +49-8635-6989-40
Pleidolfweg 15 Email: <private_email>
D-84568 Pleiskirchen, Germany URL: www.cadsoft.de
_______________________________________________________________
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141499 is a reply to message #141497] Tue, 27 September 2011 22:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
warrenbrayshaw
Messages: 1312
Registered: January 2010
Location: New Zealand
Senior Member
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
>
> You will be able to define any number of "assembly variants", with
> arbitrary names like
>
> "High speed"
> "Low power version"
> "Budget revision"
>
> and for each part you can then define whether or not it is
> "populated" in a particular variant, and which value and technology
> it shall have.
>
> So if a part has no variant specific data, it is populated in all
> variants and has the default value and technology. Certain parts
> can be marked to be "not populated" in selected variants, and some
> can be given different values and/or technologies in particular
> variants.
>

I fear you may use 'populated' wrongly in the GUI
Here I have corrected your phrases.

So if a part has no variant specific data, it POPULATES ALL
variants and has the default value and technology.
..... Certain parts can be marked to be "NOT USED" in selected variants,
..... Certain parts can be marked to "NOT POPULATE" selected variants,
and some can be given different values and/or technologies in particular
variants.

These phrases cover HELP style explanations. I feel the words I would use
to label the dialog with would depend on the layout and controls chosen for
the dialog.

An approach may be to post an image for comment when you have prototype
built.

Warren










--
Viewed / responded via the newsgroup at
news.cadsoft.de
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141506 is a reply to message #141496] Wed, 28 September 2011 08:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
James Morrison
Messages: 1060
Registered: November 2004
Senior Member

warrenbrayshaw wrote on Tue, 27 September 2011 17:08



<snip>

> So if a part is physically present on a board, it is "..." (please
> fill in the gap).

James has proposed 'populated'. For the use you propose this is not
grammatically correct when you refer to the part. The part is not populated
but a position is.

A bare board is said to be populated when it has its components fitted.
A componenet position is said to be populated when it has a component
fitted.
When the placement of a single part varies between assembly variants the
part exists in both variants but the position that is populated changes.

Your question implies that the only option is the presence, or not, of a
part. Not an alternate position for the same part. The word 'populated'
could have been used to describe the existance of a part in one of the
alternate positions.


I'll add to this. I agree with Warren and others that it may be a bit more complicated than just a one word answer.

"Populated" tends to be a binary choice--either a part is populated or not. Hence the DNP (Do Not Populate). But that may not scale accurately to a multi-variant paradigm. And it is part-centric--i.e. from the point of view of the part.

But for variant-centric language I think "Included" would be the better word, as in

"R1 is included in the 3.3V variant"
"R3 is included in the 5V variant"

So then the verb/flag would be called "include". I can imagine a matrix with a row for every component and a column for every variant. And you specify which parts are included in each variant.

Next question, can we specify different values of passives for different variants? For instance, an power supply circuit that has an adjustable output voltage. One variant for 3.3V would have a certain value for a feedback resistor. A 5V variant would have a different value.

But it's not just variants, it needs to all for different technologies too. For one, I define my different resistor values as technologies so I can associate part number attributes and other part specific information. But I may also want a variant like "high temperature" and "low temperature", where different technologies are used to specify the different part numbers required for parts with different operating temperature ranges.

If you're going to add this variant ability then it's useless without a BOM tool to support it. But now you're getting into a BOM tool that needs to be generic for everyone to use--remember CadSoft just has to do it once. We've already discussed in this thread how we've all had to extend the BOM tool independently to get the functionality we need.

So to really make this useful I suggest you start a thread to find out what people need in a BOM so that you can hit the most people out there.

Cheers,

James.



James Morrison ~~~ Stratford Digital

Specializing in CadSoft EAGLE
* Online Sales to North America
* Electronic Design Services

Take advantage of v7 License Promotion right now at http://www.eaglecentral.ca
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141515 is a reply to message #141506] Wed, 28 September 2011 23:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
warrenbrayshaw
Messages: 1312
Registered: January 2010
Location: New Zealand
Senior Member
James Morrison wrote:
> Next question, can we specify different values of passives for
> different variants? For instance, an power supply circuit that has
> an adjustable output voltage. One variant for 3.3V would have a
> certain value for a feedback resistor. A 5V variant would have a
> different value.
>

Earlier in this thread Klaus did say this was a feature.

I awoke this morning thinking that we may not have looked at this from the
correct point of view.

Eagle actually designs bare PCBs. We use device footprints to affect the
final bare PCB. A BOM or even considering that any component will ever be
mounted is additional to getting the shapes correct on the PCB. With this
in mind I believe that this should be approached from the viewpoint of
positions/locations on the PCB and not devices. This will not change what
Klaus is doing. It may change the HELP explanations.

Take a diode (D3). In the board editor we see the diode depicted but this is
simply an aid to help us visualize the board as it develops. To the board it
is only two pads. The position of that area is referred to as D3 and its
geometry is provided by the chosen device.

So a bare PCB has locations identified with a name (D3), 'location centric'.
D3 is not a 1N4001device. D3 is not any diode. D3 is a reference to a board
location. Assembly, which is what we are talking about here matches
components to those locations and is thus a subsequent step.

'Populate' is the correct word to use when the D3 location is to have a
component fitted
I imagine the practical implimentation of this will be to select 'Do Not
Populate (DNP)'.

Warren
--
Viewed / responded via the newsgroup at
news.cadsoft.de
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141605 is a reply to message #141481] Tue, 04 October 2011 15:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Robert Pearce
Messages: 144
Registered: January 2008
Senior Member
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Andrew Sterian wrote to us saying :
>
>I second the use of "populated". I've also seen "fitted", especially in
>the UK.
>
<snip>
>
>I second (and third) the use of "DNP"...in fact it makes more sense to
>note which parts are NOT to be on the board rather than the ones that
>are. Simply marking parts with "DNP" in the assembly variants works for
>me.
>
As a UK resident, I'd second "fitted", and the principle of marking the
missing parts (which I would normally reckon to be "DNF" for "Do not
fit").
--
Rob Pearce http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk

The contents of | All power corrupts, but we need electricity.
this message are |
purely my opinion. |
Don't believe a |
word. |
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141606 is a reply to message #141483] Tue, 04 October 2011 15:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Robert Pearce
Messages: 144
Registered: January 2008
Senior Member
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Andreas Weidner wrote to us saying :
>As far as I know, 'assembly' is normally used for the whole electrified
>device
That depends who you're dealing with. The board house I use provide
"fabrication" and "assembly" facilities, where the latter is putting
components on the PCB. Of course, being a board house, they don't tend
to deal with whole devices...
--
Rob Pearce http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk

The contents of | All power corrupts, but we need electricity.
this message are |
purely my opinion. |
Don't believe a |
word. |
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141666 is a reply to message #141477] Fri, 07 October 2011 11:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bob Starr
Messages: 91
Registered: April 2008
Member
On 9/27/2011 8:49 AM, James Morrison wrote:
> Klaus Schmidinger wrote on Tue, 27 September 2011 05:04
>> I am currently implementing "assembly variants", which, amoung
>> other things, allow the user to define whether a particular
>> part is actually present on a certain variant of a board.
>> What I'm looking for is the proper English word to use for this.
>> Since I want to avoid using a word hat just seems right from
>> a German speaker's point of view, I'd like to ask the EAGLE
>> community for a hint here.
>>
>> So if a part is physically present on a board, it is "..." (please
>> fill in the gap).
>
>
> "populated" is the word you are looking for. You could also use
> "installed" or a few other words depending on context. If you want to send
> me the english help file then I can make sure it makes sense in english.
>
> A common methodology for this is to use the short form "DNP" (Do Not
> Populate) as the value of parts that should not be placed and soldered
> during assembly.
>
> In fact, my current EAGLE ULP parses for that string in the value field and
> pulls those items into a line item with quantity zero. It still has all
> the ref des's but the quantity is zero to tell the assembly house to not
> populate those items.
>

In bom-ex I've implemented a DNP part attribute which indicates which
parts should not be populated during assembly. Like James' version, it
also takes this into account when calculating the BOM part qty's. I've
also modified the pick & place ULP's I use to look for the DNP attribute
as well and skip calling out placement for these.

Bob
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141667 is a reply to message #141506] Fri, 07 October 2011 11:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bob Starr
Messages: 91
Registered: April 2008
Member
> If you're going to add this variant ability then it's useless without a BOM
> tool to support it. But now you're getting into a BOM tool that needs to
> be generic for everyone to use--remember CadSoft just has to do it once.
> We've already discussed in this thread how we've all had to extend the BOM
> tool independently to get the functionality we need.
>
> So to really make this useful I suggest you start a thread to find out what
> people need in a BOM so that you can hit the most people out there.
>

Agreed, we need a real BOM system. Personally, I'd rather have a native
mode BOM system built into Eagle rather than an external ULP - like
another BOM view window or pane.

I spent a lot of time developing BOM-EX as workaround to have a
partially usable BOM system that meets most of my needs for production
type work. The problem with a BOM system is having a part database. Lots
of companies have their own internal part numbering systems. I thought
of developing my own web service to make a local cloud type interface
into BOM-EX, but this is a big undertaking and has baggage issues as well.

The problem with design link is that it only works with Farnell part
databases over the web. It's very RARE that all parts come from a single
supplier on any given project in my experience and we use a variety of
suppliers here in the US. So, we are unable to use designlink as
currently implemented.

What is needed is a global or local intranet part database of some sort
that cross references all parts suppliers for a project maybe. Better
yet, a set of ODBC/SQL interface functions in the ULP language and I'll
upgrade bom-ex to use SQL to my own part database.

Bob
Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141671 is a reply to message #141667] Fri, 07 October 2011 18:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
davem
Messages: 173
Registered: May 2009
Senior Member
Hi,

I too am working on a BOM System, its coming along nicely, and I too have a system for populating board assemblies for different revisions as well.

For the term "variants", I would use the word "VERSION" or "REVISION". these are the terms used in MRP Systems, which most manufacturers are use to.

My preference for the term "POPULATE" is "LOAD" or "DO NOT LOAD", which internally ( and via ULP) would be kept as a boolean value 0, for do not load, and 1 for Load.

This could be abbreviated as "LOAD", and "DNL", or simply in a spreadsheet column which has the heading "LOAD PART", would be "NO" or "YES".

My suggestions is the have a small user interface window ( part of user preferences) , that allows the USER to create their alternative names to use for various parameters, eg

NAME, I would prefer to call it DESIGNATOR, and so on.

In all your tools and windows that display these parameters, if the user has defined an alternate name, then that is used, otherwise a default term is used, which is what should be used in all the documentation that Cadsoft provides.

My last suggestion stops all the augments,

Thanks

Dave M
Re: Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141678 is a reply to message #141671] Sun, 09 October 2011 14:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Robert Pearce
Messages: 144
Registered: January 2008
Senior Member
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011, davem wrote to us saying :
>
>For the term "variants", I would use the word "VERSION" or "REVISION".
>these are the terms used in MRP Systems, which most manufacturers are use
>to.

No, absolutely not.

A variant is a build-time option for which flavour is being built.

A revision tracks design changes over time.

The word version is ambiguous as it could mean either of those.

So what we are discussing here MUST be referred to as "variants".
--
Rob Pearce http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk

The contents of | All power corrupts, but we need electricity.
this message are |
purely my opinion. |
Don't believe a |
word. |
Re: Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141679 is a reply to message #141678] Sun, 09 October 2011 17:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
davem
Messages: 173
Registered: May 2009
Senior Member
Hi Rob,

In all my years working with MRP systems and Production, both PCB Assembly and other industries, REVISION is the correct term for ANY build.

There is no advantage to using a different work, in fact may cause more confusion on the factory floor, its best to say..

What part number are we building? eg "ABC123", and what version will that be? i.e REV-2"

This means that only one consistent parameter in production system is maintained.

It does not matter if you have one simple part left off the board or many, its still a different assembly, and the business's MRP systems will need to manage that, revision will work, so why introduce another term?

If you use another term, then for every job issued to the shop floor, would need 2 parameters defined, both the revision and the variant.

What you can have ( and I think this is what you mean by "variants", is the BARE PCB will be a particular Revision, and the Assembly BOM can have a different revision.


Dave M
Re: Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141698 is a reply to message #141679] Mon, 10 October 2011 11:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
James Morrison
Messages: 1060
Registered: November 2004
Senior Member

davem wrote on Sun, 09 October 2011 17:15
Hi Rob,

In all my years working with MRP systems and Production, both PCB Assembly and other industries, REVISION is the correct term for ANY build.

There is no advantage to using a different work, in fact may cause more confusion on the factory floor, its best to say..

What part number are we building? eg "ABC123", and what version will that be? i.e REV-2"

This means that only one consistent parameter in production system is maintained.

It does not matter if you have one simple part left off the board or many, its still a different assembly, and the business's MRP systems will need to manage that, revision will work, so why introduce another term?

If you use another term, then for every job issued to the shop floor, would need 2 parameters defined, both the revision and the variant.

What you can have ( and I think this is what you mean by "variants", is the BARE PCB will be a particular Revision, and the Assembly BOM can have a different revision.
Dave M


I disagree Dave.

Revision is a functionally equivalent (at least in theory) version of a design. These are typically form, fit, and function equivalent. These would have the same part number with a different revision.

The "variant" CadSoft is suggesting is not this.

The "variant" is a functionally different version of the same design. Think of a wireless that could either be bluetooth or wifi controlled, but not both. These would be variants that have different chips and components for each. These variants would have a different part number altogether (though the may have the same base number, depending on the system).

As described above, "version" can be used for both and is ambiguous. As such, it should not be used.

James.


James Morrison ~~~ Stratford Digital

Specializing in CadSoft EAGLE
* Online Sales to North America
* Electronic Design Services

Take advantage of v7 License Promotion right now at http://www.eaglecentral.ca
Re: Re: Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141710 is a reply to message #141679] Mon, 10 October 2011 17:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Robert Pearce
Messages: 144
Registered: January 2008
Senior Member
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, davem wrote to us saying :
>
>In all my years working with MRP systems and Production, both PCB Assembly
>and other industries, REVISION is the correct term for ANY build.
>
I'm not questioning your years of experience, I simply think you've got
entirely the wrong end of the stick in this case.

Every factory I've ever dealt with has known perfectly well the
difference between "revisions" (which may be referred to as "model year"
or "running change" or some such) and "variants" (think GTi model vs.
1.4L). The two things are not the same, and they need to be controlled
differently.

As James said, you may be building a wireless with bluetooth as an
option. The factory needs to handle these two variants, both in
production at the same time, quite differently from how it handles a
revision that fixes a problem or replaces an obsolete component. So
obviously the designers need to be careful not to confuse the factory by
using the same term for both.
--
Rob Pearce http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk

The contents of | All power corrupts, but we need electricity.
this message are |
purely my opinion. |
Don't believe a |
word. |
Re: Re: Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141711 is a reply to message #141710] Mon, 10 October 2011 18:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
davem
Messages: 173
Registered: May 2009
Senior Member
HI Guys,

I think we need to understand what CADSOFT want to do with "VARIANT" as they call it at the moment

The key issue is,

What is the FUNCTIONALITY of VARIANT that cadsoft propose?

My guess is that we have a single board design along with its schematic and lets say that called ABC123 REV-A

ABC123 is the PARTNO, and REV-A is the first revision, ( as far as I am concerned every part no ( board design) has a revision.

When the assy house makes the "Loaded board" that will have an assembly BOM, this will have the PCB included as part of that bom, this Assembly bom can have different builds, the part number for this BOM could be the same as the board or completely different.

So as far as I see, i think that variant would be used as different assy boms, for the purpose of different uses, i.e one version(variant) loaded for say bluetooth version, the other loaded for wifi version, in this case I would have 2 different part numbers, as these are deliberate options, and not so much as engineering changes.

But you could use VARIANTS for other purposes, You could have say different prototype builds of the same board, one board could be loaded with particular components, and other could be loaded with slightly different components, as for the sake of testing, in this case the "VARIANTS" feature would be terrific, because my assy house would want 2 different assy boms, and this fits in with MRP methods.

So again, maybe cadsoft need to explain what "VARIANT" will do, and then we can call it the appropriate term.

and as I pointed out before, why don't we have a user preference option of renaming terms in eaglecad, then we can call it anything we like.

some other questions,

Q1) will variants create a new version of a board layout and/or schematic?
Q2) Will variants just refer to ONE board/Schematic layout, but somehow create different ASSY BOM'S?

we need cadsoft to explain!

Thanks

Dave M

Re: Re: Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141712 is a reply to message #141711] Mon, 10 October 2011 19:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
warrenbrayshaw
Messages: 1312
Registered: January 2010
Location: New Zealand
Senior Member
davem wrote:

> So again, maybe cadsoft need to explain what "VARIANT" will do, and
> then we can call it the appropriate term.

"Assembly variant" examples were provided earlier in the thread.
See Klaus's second post. I feel it also answers your later two questions.

The initial question was not asking for a term for an 'Assembly Variant'
which represent various final builds. It was prompting for the term to use
to indicate that a particular part is to be assembled onto a particular
assembly variant or, as I suggested, to indicate a board position was to
have the part installed.
The focus was the part used in a design and was thus part centric.

So please reset your minds such that the discussion is in the same context
as the question.


Regards
Warren

--
Viewed / responded via the newsgroup at
news.cadsoft.de
Re: Re: Re: Assembly variants: which word to use? [message #141713 is a reply to message #141712] Mon, 10 October 2011 19:53 Go to previous message
davem
Messages: 173
Registered: May 2009
Senior Member
Hi Warren,

yes you are correct, I only started to reply to this thread near the end of discussion, and I only had the emails from the last few posts, but after i posted my last comment, I though I should read through all the posts, and so I can now see what this is all about,

Anyhow, whatever is proposed should be quite useful, and hopefully make writing ULP's for boms with more functionality,

I am in the middle of writing a large complicated ulp for bom and purchasing management, so I am very keen on this feature. I have already included the following features..

Where Used, load/do not load, silk labels, version control, bom export ( without using a spreadsheet) assembly versions ( variants) , sub circuit references, direct library editing , purchasing master database, inventory database , quote request reports and many more.

regards

Dave M
Previous Topic: Via Flood Paint Order
Next Topic: Dimensioning does not support inches
Goto Forum: