Why does the customer want to show it on the wiring diagram?, if it is for diagramatic purposes it is probably best to show two receptacles back to back.
If they would like the bulkhead connector included in one of the harness BOM's I would suggest that it is added in as an "Other" component to either of the two VeSys Harness drawings.
Hope this helps
I would imagine that the customer wants to show the connectivity in a way that is representative of their vehicle/product/etc. I know I do as it saves a lot of misunderstanding as WYSIWYG schematic . I would be doubt that they would want to show the actual Thru Bulkhead Connector on either of the harnesses, these are typically fitted to the vehicle/product independantly.
In VeSys Classic I would have proposed that 2 connectors be placed with a representative graphic to indicate the 'Thru Bulkhead Connector' and join the two connectors up with virtual wires, PCB Tracks, etc. so my recommendation would be to do an equivalent thing in VeSys 2.0?
Just re-read your post and I guess you were suggesting the same thing as me with your 'back to back' receptacle idea, the additional thing may be to include some connectivity between these so as not to affect simulation.
That was my point if it is to make the data more representative what we are suggesting is ok, it just wont be interpreted by the tool as anything meaningful.
I added the comment about adding to the BOM just in-case they have a situation where the bulkhead connector is supplied with one of the harnesses, I suspect like you that it will already be fitted and be kitted elsewhere.
Thanks for the great responses. I have sent this link to the customer so hopefully, he can join in on the conversation.
Hey guys, thanks for the responses.
We've tried the back to back receptacles, and it works for visual. However you cannot connect a wire to the back end of a plug or receptacle, you need to use an inline. So when using back to back plugs or receptacles, you can no longer simulate.
I've attached snapshots of what we will probably use for a system.
Two back to back inline connectos(not a multiple instance). J200 we took off of the BOM and deleted the name. We then added a wire to connect the two inlines together so we could simulate. Now, when we place the two connectors back to back the wire is invisible and it looks more like the bulkhead.
What do you guys think?
I thought there would be connectivity/simulation problems with the back to back receptacles.
Your solution looks similar to what I was hinting at, the only question I have is will having the extra wires between those 2 inlines cause any warnings/errors further down the line in the project? (May seem like a strange question but I'm a VeSys Classic expert and only done a little bit on VeSys 2.0). Is it possible to add conductors that aren't wires?
Sorry I forgot to ask if you needed the Bulkhead Passthrough to appear on any kind of Harness BOM? Or is it supplied/fitted as a seperate part independant of the harnesses?
We do not need the bulkhead passthrough to show up on our BOM. We will have it as part of our 'schematic' BOM where our controllers and switches show up, or chassis BOM as part of an assembly. As far as future issues that the wire might bring up, I beleive that by unchecking the 'show on BOM' and 'show on cutlist' the wire will be invisible to the reporting.
Great that means your solution will work well!