Export option for Instance dependent fields to BOM

[gvan]

Is there any instance dependent field that can be exported to the BOM?

For example, I don't seem to be able to do something extremely simple like add a NO_STUFF attribute to a part in the schematic and have that attribute be reflected in the BOM.

As I see it there is a fundamental missing piece to the database structure.  I should be able to create symbols, footprints, and parts independently.  Currently it seems that symbols are attached to parts as is every other exportable field. Why allow me to add multiple footprints to the same part if I can't select/export the part number that reflex the footprint option used?   As it is, I am relying on the purchaser to know too much about the schematic or I have to build a large portion of the BOM by hand.  Or, I create a new schematic part for every part number.  While that is possible, it is extremely time consuming given that the UI is the only database entry point available?  A spreadsheet/software/scriptable entry point would make that option more realistic.

Short of building a complete per part number corporate database, I could create a workable BOM if I was able to export all or any instance dependent field such as the part's attributes fields, label, etc. Is there any way to do this? Can it be added?  Some other BOM export customization would be nice, but this would at least make the exported BOM usable.

Greg

[lacy]

I don't know if this will help or if it is what you need, but you can export individual columns from the speadsheet to a text file or to other software like Excel or print it. You can also use the spreadsheet to change component properties within the design and export that to a text file. This way you could actually bypass the BOM and just export the spreadsheet as the BOM. Also using this technique you can selct only the colums you want exported and leave the ones you don't alone.

I hope this helps. I agree with you that the BOM needs to be more like the spreadsheet view and totally editable by the user.

Message Edited by lacy on 04-01-2008 08:46 PM

[gvan]

Lacy,

I am familiar with the BOM features that are available and I would be okay with what's there if I could add some of the instances dependent component attributes.

The only attributes that I seem to be able to add to the BOM (add therefore export from the schematic) are from the parts database.  I can't export attributes for a particular instance of the part in the schematic. (?)

To illustrate my problem, consider adding a resistor to the schematic that is actually linked to a real partnumber.  I would have to create each resistor in the database in order to have them use real partnumbers.  Repeat the process for 0603, 0805, 1/4W, 1/8W , 1%, 0.1% etc... that is extremely time consuming. Capacitors have the same problem. I have to make database parts for different types, tolerances, voltages, packages, etc. in order to add a partnumber to the schematic part that can be seen in the BOM.

If I could export the part attributes to the BOM, then I could just add a partnumber attribute to the part when needed or if I could export the part's label, I could label it with a real partnumber.

Alternatively, I would like an easier way to add parts to the database.  If I had an open format database, I could write a script to generate partnumbers for any given manufacture's resistors and capacitors of a given family/spec. I can live with having to create new database parts for larger components by hand.

Greg

[gvan]

More info....

It appears to be very dangerous to change any of the USER FIELDS for a part.  The changes I make to schematic parts from the user database get written to the database and applied to all parts of that type.  I don't think you should be able to change the database by making changes to a instance of part.  That is asking for danger.

If the part is from the master database, the changes to the USER FIELDS are applied to all parts that have the same information (value, type, etc), but not to the database (because you can't edit the master database). 

I can add export a partnumber to the BOM for resistors and capacitors by adding the partnumber to the type field, but this seems like a hack and it doesn't work for all parts.  

Another easy fix would be to NOT update the database or any other parts when changes are made to the User fields in the schematic. Then I could make the user field information valid for each part without having to create a new database entry for every small variation.

Greg

[lacy]

O.K. I see your problem. The user fields are not present in the spreadsheet therefore my technique wouldn't help and you are correct about the way it add does the components in the BOM. Unfortunately, I do not know if there is anything that can be done about it. The NI Support Team will have to address this further  as this is outside of my area of knowledge as this may be an internal software issue and from what I see not something you can adjust with any settings.

[lacy]

"or if I could export the part's label, I could label it with a real partnumber."

If you print/export the spreadsheet instead of the BOM  then you can print the labels as wll as other aspects of the part like tolerances. I know this isn't like printing the BOM and in large design that could be a lot of printing.  This is all I can come up with. The spreadsheet contain a lot of information about the component but there are thing not in the spreadsheet that are in the BOM that could be useful to print/export like pricing information.

This is the best that I can do. I will let NI address further as they may have a better option that I don't see or can't find

[gvan]

Lacy,

Thanks for the suggestion.  I was confusing your reference to "spreadsheet view" for the spreadsheet view of the BOM report and not the spreadsheet of the design.  Unfortunately, though the spreadsheet view does show some instance specific information, it does not combine parts or show some of the database information.

I guess my comment is more for NI Developers.  The BOM generator does look at instance specific information because it doesn't combine instances of parts (resistors, caps, etc) that have difference types set in the schematic.  I therefore don't think it would be that difficult to let me add instance specific fields, (label, attributes, etc) to the BOM.  My examples are ment to illustrate the importance of that.

Changing the USER FIELDS in the database when they are edited on the schematic is a dangerous option at has burnt us before.  I wouldn't call that expected behavior.  When I change the symbol for a part I am prompted to save it to the database.  If I change the symbol for a part in the database, I have to run "Update Components" to write those change to my schematic. (as I would expect)  Yet if I change the user fields in the schematic, the changes automatically propagate to every thing and get saved to the user database.  This behavior is not constant.  A changes made to a part in the schematic should stay in the schematic and affect only the instance changed. Changes made to the database should have to be pushed into a schematic.

I have submitted a feedback forum to NI as well.

I am used to posting to the CVI forums where the developer are very responsive.  Perhaps where Electronic Workbench was a NI acquisition, the developers are further removed from user feedback.

Greg

[lacy]

Well my idea was a long shot at best. I was just hoping to maybe come up with some type of work around solution that would help in the short term. You did the right thing by sending your situation to NI. The NI Support Team (as well as Sales and the Software Engineers) monitor this forum and are real good at coming up with solutions and also fielding complaints/suggestions. It may take a little time but they usually respond to most posts. There are also a huge number of experienced users, like myself that will offer help and suggestions to the best of their knowledge. My expertise is usually with circuit simulation problems and I usually defer software issues like this to NI or another member, but I thought what I suggested might work in your case. I am sorry that it didn't and I hope you can get an answer from NI about this. I totally agree with what you say and have witnessed the same behaviour and I think that needs a little tweaking in the software itself.

I hope you the best in your qwest for a solution.