View Full Version : Twisted-Shielded Pair in RSD vs Pro/CABLE

08-24-2009, 05:40 AM
In RSD, when I route wires (Fibers) from pins (Ports) on a connector (Variable Group) to pins (Ports) on a different connector (Variable Group) then export an .xml file to Pro/CABLE,my wires route nicely.

But when I take two of the wires (Fibers) in RSD and create a Cable and add a Decoration (thus creating a twisted-shielded pair), the wires do not get created in Pro/CABLE.

I am new to RSD and I suspect I am missing a fundamental step here like failing to define something either in RSD or in Pro/CABLE. Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong to make Cabled Fibers inRSD N-O-T get created in Pro/CABLE?

Thanks for any help!

09-01-2009, 06:46 PM
Did you apply a cable dataset and associated membermap to the cable? If not, that's probably why Cabling design didn't pick it up.

There is a Validate button you can press in the Export to XML dialog to check the data you're exporting is valid for Cabling or Piping design.

There is a section in the RSD help that covers datatables/datasets for cables.



09-01-2009, 07:24 PM

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, the problem here was my failure to define the Cable datatable and associated membermap. After many hours of reading, I have figured that out. Being a newbie, I was unaware of that cumbersome support file structure. (Why RSD lets me create a Cable in 2-D that doesn't export properly into 3-D is a whole 'nother question!)

My next hurdle is the Mult-level Cables: wrapping a varying number of 2-wire Cables (my twisted shielded pairs) along with some individual wires (fibers). I've discovered the Multi-level cable datatable heirarchy (a 4-file beast!) and am working my way through setting that up now.

Here's a question for which you may have an answer:


I routinely work with harnesses which have as many as 20 connectors, many of which can be 100-pin connectors. My workflow involves laying down the wires (fibers) pin-to-pin across the connectors then grouping the twisted shielded pair wires (fibers)into 2-wire Cables (plus a shield wire). Then, I group a varying number of 2-wire Cables into larger (Multi-level) Cables. Sometimes my Multi-level Cables might have 5 twisted shielded pairs in them. Sometimes there might be 40. The exact number of twisted shielded pairsvaries all the time. There is no constant number of twisted shielded pairs which get grouped into a Multi-level Cable. And individual wires (fibers) are usually included alongside with the twisted shielded pair Cables.


From what I see of Multi-level Cable definitions (datatables, membermaps, shapes, etc.), the user must establish a fixed number of Conductors that can reside inside a given Multi-level Cable definition. The Multi-level Cable definition can handle UP TO that designated number of Conductors. Also, the "thickness"of the Multi-level Cable will remain constant -- as defined in the Cable's datatable. This will result in a Multi-level Cable which is, for example, 1/2" thick regardless of it the Multi-level Cable contains 2 twisted shield pairs or 25 twisted shielded pairs. (I refer, of course, to the 3-D model created from the RSD info imported into Pro/CABLE.) DOES THIS MEAN THAT I NEED TO CREATE SEVERAL MULTI-LEVEL CABLE DEFINITIONS? A DIFFERENT MULTI-LEVEL DEFINITION FOR EACH SITUATION OF VARYING NUMBER OF TWISTED SHIELDED PAIRS WHICH MAY RESIDE IN EACH MULTI-LEVEL I CREATE ALONG THE WAY?


Do most users have to create a large library of Cable definitions and Multi-level Cable definitions in order to accommodate varying numbers of inner conductors without being locked into an inappropriately large "thickness" of the resulting Cable/Multi-level Cable? Do I have create a definition that can encase 3 conductors and have an appropriate thickness, and a definition that can encase4 conductors and have an appropriate thickness, and a definition that can encase5 conductors and have an appropriate thickness, etc., etc., ad naseum? Worse, sometimes the mix of conductors will vary: sometimes it's 10 Cables and 2 fibers, sometimes it's 5 Cables and 40 fibers. And this seems to make a difference to the Cable / Multi-level Cable definition. Ugh!

Thanks for the input.
Edited by: SpaceRouter9