Comparison of Automation Framework
with Vector CANape vs. Without
CANape in HIL Testing
Objective:
To compare the use of Vector CANape with automation framework against an approach
without CANape, and provide alternative strategies using dSPACE AutomationDesk to
support migration and implementation planning.
Section 1: Using Vector CANape with Automation Framework
Pros:
- Real-time Signal Monitoring: Provides a graphical window for real-time monitoring and
manipulation of ECU signals.
- Integrated Calibration Support: CANape allows easy calibration of ECU parameters with
A2L file support.
- Mature Toolchain: Well-documented and supported tool from Vector, widely used in the
industry.
- Scripting Support: Automation using Python or CAPL for customized signal operations and
test scenarios.
- Synchronisation with CANoe: Seamless integration with CANoe for communication
analysis and network simulation.
Cons:
- Cost: High licensing cost for both CANoe and CANape.
- Toolchain Dependency: Heavy dependency on Vector ecosystem.
- Limited Compatibility: Not directly compatible with dSPACE tools like AutomationDesk or
ControlDesk.
- Scalability Issues: Not ideal for distributed test setups or expanding automation platforms.
Section 2: Without CANape (towards dSPACE AutomationDesk-based
framework)
Pros:
- Unified Toolchain: Complete integration within dSPACE environment (AutomationDesk,
ControlDesk, ConfigurationDesk).
- Cost Efficiency (long-term): Eliminates dependence on Vector licenses and simplifies
training.
- Real-time HIL Control: Tight coupling with dSPACE hardware and models allows more
deterministic signal control.
- Model-Based Testing: Easy integration with MATLAB/Simulink for model-in-the-loop to
hardware-in-the-loop transition.
Cons:
- Migration Complexity: Requires reimplementation of test scripts and signal handling logic.
- Learning Curve: New skill sets required for dSPACE scripting and environment
configuration.
- Limited Visualization: Graphical capabilities may be less intuitive than CANape.
Section 3: Alternative Approaches in dSPACE AutomationDesk
1. Use of ControlDesk for Signal Monitoring:
- Replace CANape graphical view with ControlDesk layouts.
- Custom layouts can visualize ECU variables, model signals, and stimuli.
2. AutomationDesk Test Sequences:
- Convert existing CAPL or Python test logic to XML-based test sequences.
- Leverage built-in modules to interact with IO, buses, and models.
3. Python Scripting via AutomationDesk Extensions:
- Use Python extension APIs to replicate existing automation capabilities.
- Integrate test result handling and report generation.
4. Simulink Integration for Stimulus and Response Handling:
- Use Simulink blocks for stimulus generation and signal validation.
- Enable real-time execution and evaluation.
5. XIL API and FMI Standards:
- For long-term flexibility, adopt XIL APIs or FMI-based signal access.
- Enables tool-agnostic automation frameworks.
Conclusion:
Migrating from Vector CANape/CANoe to dSPACE AutomationDesk requires careful
planning and phased execution. While the initial development effort may increase, the longterm benefits of toolchain unification, reduced licensing costs, and deeper integration with
real-time HIL platforms make it a sustainable approach.