HI again (for the second time)...
There's some nuances to the cable routing. First... "breakouts" are going to cause problems. Second.. the network will keep your cable conductors bundled... but they will tend to split out into discrete conductors in areas where there is no network.
It's all a bit wonky and it's not nearly as clean as individual wires.
I think I see some issues with your NWF, though. I believe you need an extra line to make it work- plus I also believe you might have a logic error. Let's take the logic error first...
- If you're using a cable, those conductors will be bundled together as a single entity. The way your NWF reads though... each of the three conductors goes to a different connector. I've created a logical diagram of what's occuring in your NWF. See below (click for a larger image). My point here is that you wouldn't use a cable for this type of connection. You'd only want to use a cable for instances where it makes sense to have multiple conductors bundled together. In this case, it doesn't appear to (unless I am misunderstanding your application).
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
The second issue is more of a formatting issue with the NWF file itself. The link you provided to the PTC.com article is correct. You can autoroute from a cable definition. But I think you're missing a bit of data that's required. I think you are missing the data in the light orange box (with the red text - in the image below). Also, you do not need the Parameter Name data, but you may add it if you wish. Click the image below for a larger version.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
I think if you correct the logic error and change the NWF file to incorporate that "Main Attach Statement", your cable will autoroute. Note in the example above, the only common connection that could be specified in my Main Attach Statement was the From connector "P3". On the From side, the cable attached to multiple pins so none could be specified. An empty "" was included to denote that none could be specified on the From side. On the To side, neither a common connector nor pin could be specified. This is why there are two more empty "" sets.
Still, for a cable to make sense... there has to be one common denominator. In this case, the connector P3 was a common starting point. Without this, I don't think you can get the cable to route the way you wish. I could be wrong though.
I'd start by adding a Main Attach Statement to your NWF as shown above and per the example in the PTC.com article. For your current NWF, I guess you'd use four "" empty statements because there's no connector common to all conductor attachments. I don't think this will work, but it's worth a try. Next, I'd try making all of the cables originate from one connector and have it branch to the other two. I believe this will get your cable routing properly.
There's a whole other lesson on how to use the network to keep the conductors together in a bundle or have them break out into individual, discrete conductors. That part is tricky and there aren't a lot of options. Still, I think this will get you going in the right direction.
I'm really sorry it took so long to get this to you... but I hope this gets you moving again!
Thanks,
-Brian