PSpice SCHEMATICS Users Take Note!

[Kevin Aylward]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:35:01 GMT, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:30:32 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:21:01 GMT, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:

[snip]
I take it you mean they're
thinking of dropping Schematics and keeping Capture, right?

support@ema-eda.com

or go to...

http://support.ema-eda.com/


Correct. If they carry thru with their plan, only Capture will
"talk" to PSpice.

That's nice. If they go that way, it's only a matter of time before
someone discovers the ActiveX interface and writes a new capture
program. But if they "talk" through the interface using encryption
or encoding, it won't be so trivial.

Maybe some sharp programmer could crack the interface so that our
copies of Schematics can talk to PSpice updates.

I'd gladly pay for the convenience.

How much?


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Paul Taylor]

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:kqu1k0ls1kfl6b46es2j6sqqhjcj51dhle@4ax.com...

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:23:47 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Hi Jim,

What is so bad about Capture?

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Terribly unfriendly user interface.

On the other hand PSpice Schematics is the easiest schematic front-end
that I've ever used.

I agree. I only use the 9.1 student 'demo' version, but find Schematics
extremely easy to place components and connect them to do a quick sim.
Also I find it very nice to be able to simply create for example a
C:\Projects\PSpice\Job2 folder and copy the .sch from another job, double
click the .sch, make the changes and it's done.

I've used Capture for at least 4 years in the past for PCB circuit designs,
but would rather use a different Spice program if the only PSpice option is
Capture!
I thought I saw the standard library parts have very different settings
whether using PSpice Schematics or Capture?

p.s. is there an 'idiots guide' to using new subcircuits in Schematics?
e.g. if I want to use a specific op-amp subcircuit 'macromodel' that's not
in the standard libraries.
(I'm using PSpice a little more recently, and am probably one step away from
using downloaded subcircuits, but thought I'd ask while I'm here

Thanks,
Paul T

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:36:20 +0100, "Paul Taylor" <no way> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:kqu1k0ls1kfl6b46es2j6sqqhjcj51dhle@4ax.com...
snip]
On the other hand PSpice Schematics is the easiest schematic front-end
that I've ever used.

I agree. I only use the 9.1 student 'demo' version, but find Schematics
extremely easy to place components and connect them to do a quick sim.
Also I find it very nice to be able to simply create for example a
C:\Projects\PSpice\Job2 folder and copy the .sch from another job, double
click the .sch, make the changes and it's done.

I've used Capture for at least 4 years in the past for PCB circuit designs,
but would rather use a different Spice program if the only PSpice option is
Capture!
I thought I saw the standard library parts have very different settings
whether using PSpice Schematics or Capture?

The **Library** (Model descriptions) should be identical. But the
symbol renditions are different.

p.s. is there an 'idiots guide' to using new subcircuits in Schematics?
e.g. if I want to use a specific op-amp subcircuit 'macromodel' that's not
in the standard libraries.
(I'm using PSpice a little more recently, and am probably one step away from
using downloaded subcircuits, but thought I'd ask while I'm here

Thanks,
Paul T

I have uploaded to my site "SUBCKT.SLB" which you can add to your
symbol libraries.

These are symbols for 1-pin thru 16-pin subcircuits.

To use, just edit pin names (maintaining node order the same as in the
subcircuit definition) and edit "model" to reflect the name of your
subcircuit.

Then grab part "INCLUDE" and fill in the filename of the file which
defines your subcircuit(s).

I developed these symbols a number of years ago when I was doing a DLL
project for SGS using IBM standard cells. Rather than enter each cell
as a schematic I just used my symbols to call the subcircuit netlist.

Read up on subcircuit **definition** and subcircuit **instantiation**
in the reference and user guides.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Paul Taylor]

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:nq64k0pmito17l5bgnn3q3qf1jvqp724pc@4ax.com...

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:36:20 +0100, "Paul Taylor" <no way> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:kqu1k0ls1kfl6b46es2j6sqqhjcj51dhle@4ax.com...
snip]
I thought I saw the standard library parts have very different settings
whether using PSpice Schematics or Capture?

The **Library** (Model descriptions) should be identical. But the
symbol renditions are different.


p.s. is there an 'idiots guide' to using new subcircuits in Schematics?
e.g. if I want to use a specific op-amp subcircuit 'macromodel' that's not
in the standard libraries.
(I'm using PSpice a little more recently, and am probably one step away
from
using downloaded subcircuits, but thought I'd ask while I'm here

Thanks,
Paul T


I have uploaded to my site "SUBCKT.SLB" which you can add to your
symbol libraries.

These are symbols for 1-pin thru 16-pin subcircuits.

To use, just edit pin names (maintaining node order the same as in the
subcircuit definition) and edit "model" to reflect the name of your
subcircuit.

Then grab part "INCLUDE" and fill in the filename of the file which
defines your subcircuit(s).

I developed these symbols a number of years ago when I was doing a DLL
project for SGS using IBM standard cells. Rather than enter each cell
as a schematic I just used my symbols to call the subcircuit netlist.

Read up on subcircuit **definition** and subcircuit **instantiation**
in the reference and user guides.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Thanks a lot Jim, I'll spend some time tomorrow playing with libraries

Paul

 

[Boris Mohar]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:56:32 GMT, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote:

snip

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs http://www3.sympatico.ca/borism/

Boris. Will MegaSquirt work on a TBI system?

Yes.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=megasquirt+TBI



Regards,

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs http://www3.sympatico.ca/borism/

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Paul Taylor wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:kqu1k0ls1kfl6b46es2j6sqqhjcj51dhle@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:23:47 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Hi Jim,

What is so bad about Capture?

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Terribly unfriendly user interface.

On the other hand PSpice Schematics is the easiest schematic
front-end that I've ever used.

I agree.

Have you actually tried SS?

I agree that Schematics is not bad, certainly compared to say EWB, CM,
or LTSpice, but, imo, its a no contest. SuperSpice is way ahead in ease
of use.

I only use the 9.1 student 'demo' version,

But why?

The demo of SS actually allows for quite a large circuit. Like, 750
components if you use the hierarchy feature.

but find
Schematics extremely easy to place components and connect them to do
a quick sim. Also I find it very nice to be able to simply create for
example a C:\Projects\PSpice\Job2 folder and copy the .sch from
another job, double click the .sch, make the changes and it's done.

I've used Capture for at least 4 years in the past for PCB circuit
designs, but would rather use a different Spice program if the only
PSpice option is Capture!
I thought I saw the standard library parts have very different
settings whether using PSpice Schematics or Capture?

p.s. is there an 'idiots guide' to using new subcircuits in
Schematics? e.g. if I want to use a specific op-amp subcircuit
'macromodel' that's not in the standard libraries.

Again, with SS this sort of thing is all drag and drop. Its trivial to
add a .subckt and connect them to existing symbols. e.g.

1) Drag a file with models in it to the SS main window.
2) Place an opamp symbol on the schematic.
3) double click on it, use the model tab and use the "select model"
button. The added file models will show up in a list box to select from.

There is also an auto symbol generator.

For adding standard devices like transistors, you don't need to do
anything but drag and drop. The new models will show up in the docked
browser on the left and will automatically be connected to the correct
symbol.

Jim can huff and puff all he likes about how great PSpice is, but truly,
the SS GUI is the best in the known 3 universes.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:35:24 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Jim can huff and puff all he likes about how great PSpice is, but truly,
the SS GUI is the best in the known 3 universes.

Just downloaded the demo, and it is quite nice - except for when you
are deleting bits, which involves too much mouse work. My main gripe,
though, is that it puts dots in the wrong places. I only want to see
them at wire junctions, not the ends of components. Just leave a bare
wire end - I'm sure we can work out where to join to. Also, when
editing a value, I would like to be able to double click the value,
not the component.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:35:24 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Jim can huff and puff all he likes about how great PSpice is, but
truly, the SS GUI is the best in the known 3 universes.

Just downloaded the demo, and it is quite nice - except for when you
are deleting bits, which involves too much mouse work.

In what way?

You can do a mouse area, of cntl click on individul bits, and then the
delete button.

My main gripe,
though, is that it puts dots in the wrong places.

Ahmmm...

I only want to see
them at wire junctions, not the ends of components.

I absolutly *love* the dots on component junctions/pins. Its something I
find *very* irritating in those that dont have it. I like to know that
the component is definitely being connected to a wire. I suppose I could
as an option to defete this...

Just leave a bare
wire end - I'm sure we can work out where to join to. Also, when
editing a value, I would like to be able to double click the value,
not the component.

You can for the majority of labels, e.g RCL values. The only ones you
can't are for the sources. This is simply because I got lazy. Sources
need a bit more processing.

Note that you don't have to click select anything, once the mouse is
over it you can delete or "q" to bring up properties etc.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 10:50:42 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:35:24 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Jim can huff and puff all he likes about how great PSpice is, but
truly, the SS GUI is the best in the known 3 universes.

Just downloaded the demo, and it is quite nice - except for when you
are deleting bits, which involves too much mouse work.

In what way?

You can do a mouse area, of cntl click on individul bits, and then the
delete button.

My main gripe,
though, is that it puts dots in the wrong places.

Ahmmm...

I only want to see
them at wire junctions, not the ends of components.

I absolutly *love* the dots on component junctions/pins. Its something I
find *very* irritating in those that dont have it. I like to know that
the component is definitely being connected to a wire. I suppose I could
as an option to defete this...

I disagree - the schematic should look as much like a standard one as

possible. If you want to make certain that wires are joined, leave
disconnected tails colored red - set them to the normal colour only if
they are connected both ends. That way you have no uncertainty, and no
unsightly (non-standard) blobs.

Just leave a bare
wire end - I'm sure we can work out where to join to. Also, when
editing a value, I would like to be able to double click the value,
not the component.

You can for the majority of labels, e.g RCL values. The only ones you
can't are for the sources. This is simply because I got lazy. Sources
need a bit more processing.

Fair enough.

Note that you don't have to click select anything, once the mouse is
over it you can delete or "q" to bring up properties etc.

I find combinations of mouse and keyboard clumsy. How about a delete

tool on the toolbar, which you can select and just click the schematic
as much as you like.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 10:50:42 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:35:24 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Jim can huff and puff all he likes about how great PSpice is, but
truly, the SS GUI is the best in the known 3 universes.

Just downloaded the demo, and it is quite nice - except for when you
are deleting bits, which involves too much mouse work.

In what way?

You can do a mouse area, of cntl click on individul bits, and then
the delete button.

My main gripe,
though, is that it puts dots in the wrong places.

Ahmmm...

I only want to see
them at wire junctions, not the ends of components.

I absolutly *love* the dots on component junctions/pins. Its
something I find *very* irritating in those that dont have it. I
like to know that the component is definitely being connected to a
wire. I suppose I could as an option to defete this...

I disagree

Apparantly so.

- the schematic should look as much like a standard one as
possible.

Not at all. I disagree. The "standard" you allude to, isn't. We all have
our own opinions, and this is one I feel quite strongly about. My way is
*the* best way to do it. Indeed, I stole the idea from Analog Artist. I
never head anyone complain about junction dots, and I have met many 40
hour a week i.c. designers using AA. On the other hand, I have had
complaints on not having dots. Your the first to actually complain.

If you want to make certain that wires are joined, leave
disconnected tails colored red - set them to the normal colour only if
they are connected both ends. That way you have no uncertainty, and no
unsightly (non-standard) blobs.

This is *your* opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. I don't
consider them unsightly in the slightest. They give solid comfort. This
is more like an issue because its not what you are used to, not because
it isn't useful.

Just leave a bare
wire end - I'm sure we can work out where to join to. Also, when
editing a value, I would like to be able to double click the value,
not the component.

You can for the majority of labels, e.g RCL values. The only ones you
can't are for the sources. This is simply because I got lazy. Sources
need a bit more processing.

Fair enough.

Note that you don't have to click select anything, once the mouse is
over it you can delete or "q" to bring up properties etc.

I find combinations of mouse and keyboard clumsy.

I don't. Again, I pinched this "q" bit from Analog Artist. Most like it.
I think its wonderfull. However, you can still use the right button
context menu to delete if you want to keep things single handed (or main
edit menu).

tool on the toolbar, which you can select and just click the schematic
as much as you like.

There is a toolbar button for cut (which does delete), but why there
isn't a specific delete as well is something I just noticed. I think
there was one at some time. I'll add it back in. I agree that the repeat
delete can be useful although I have obviously not missed it, otherwise
I would have added it in prior.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:11:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

- the schematic should look as much like a standard one as
possible.

Not at all. I disagree. The "standard" you allude to, isn't. We all have
our own opinions, and this is one I feel quite strongly about. My way is
*the* best way to do it. Indeed, I stole the idea from Analog Artist. I
never head anyone complain about junction dots, and I have met many 40
hour a week i.c. designers using AA. On the other hand, I have had
complaints on not having dots. Your the first to actually complain.

If you want to make certain that wires are joined, leave
disconnected tails colored red - set them to the normal colour only if
they are connected both ends. That way you have no uncertainty, and no
unsightly (non-standard) blobs.

This is *your* opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. I don't
consider them unsightly in the slightest. They give solid comfort. This
is more like an issue because its not what you are used to, not because
it isn't useful.

Can you point me to a few published schematics that use dots this way?
I can certainly locate those that use them purely for wire junctions
by the cartload.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:11:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

- the schematic should look as much like a standard one as
possible.

Not at all. I disagree. The "standard" you allude to, isn't. We all
have our own opinions, and this is one I feel quite strongly about.
My way is *the* best way to do it. Indeed, I stole the idea from
Analog Artist. I never head anyone complain about junction dots, and
I have met many 40 hour a week i.c. designers using AA. On the other
hand, I have had complaints on not having dots. Your the first to
actually complain.

If you want to make certain that wires are joined, leave
disconnected tails colored red - set them to the normal colour only
if they are connected both ends. That way you have no uncertainty,
and no unsightly (non-standard) blobs.

This is *your* opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. I don't
consider them unsightly in the slightest. They give solid comfort.
This is more like an issue because its not what you are used to, not
because it isn't useful.

Can you point me to a few published schematics that use dots this way?
I can certainly locate those that use them purely for wire junctions
by the cartload.

That's not really relevant. We're talking simulation schematics here,
not paper drawings. The requirements are not the same. The dots a great
visual aid when seperating the pins from wires in order to probe current
or voltage. Once you get used to it, you never whant to go back, imo, to
a dumb schematic. Again, 10,000's use cadence analog artist that has
this feature, so this *is* an "industry standard" for simulation tools,
i.e. Cadence is the biggest cad supplier.

In SS you probe pins (current) wires (voltage) device symbol (power).
Dots make this much easier to see.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:52:28 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:11:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

- the schematic should look as much like a standard one as
possible.

Not at all. I disagree. The "standard" you allude to, isn't. We all
have our own opinions, and this is one I feel quite strongly about.
My way is *the* best way to do it. Indeed, I stole the idea from
Analog Artist. I never head anyone complain about junction dots, and
I have met many 40 hour a week i.c. designers using AA. On the other
hand, I have had complaints on not having dots. Your the first to
actually complain.

If you want to make certain that wires are joined, leave
disconnected tails colored red - set them to the normal colour only
if they are connected both ends. That way you have no uncertainty,
and no unsightly (non-standard) blobs.

This is *your* opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. I don't
consider them unsightly in the slightest. They give solid comfort.
This is more like an issue because its not what you are used to, not
because it isn't useful.

Can you point me to a few published schematics that use dots this way?
I can certainly locate those that use them purely for wire junctions
by the cartload.

That's not really relevant. We're talking simulation schematics here,
not paper drawings. The requirements are not the same. The dots a great
visual aid when seperating the pins from wires in order to probe current
or voltage. Once you get used to it, you never whant to go back, imo, to
a dumb schematic. Again, 10,000's use cadence analog artist that has
this feature, so this *is* an "industry standard" for simulation tools,
i.e. Cadence is the biggest cad supplier.

In SS you probe pins (current) wires (voltage) device symbol (power).
Dots make this much easier to see.

I can see we won't agree. Let's leave it there.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Mike]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:37:09 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:57:41 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

[snip]
Still, Capture is the defacto standard in many companies on the West Coast.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

And Cadence is the "de facto standard" in most IC houses, but it's a
piece of crap also... slow and a terrible GUI.

That's a horrible understatement. Even worse, every tool in their suite was
written by someone like Kevin, who knew exactly what a user interface
should be like, and that everyone else had it wrong. Thus, in some dialog
boxes, the escape key means "cancel," and in others it does nothing. In
some, buttons and tabs are selected with the left mouse button, and in
others it's the middle mouse button. They use X, of course, which has no
way to indicate which windows are linked to which application, so if you
have two copies of AA (Analog Artist) running, you'll eventually have
multiple identical windows open, some of which are related to what you're
doing, and some of which aren't. The editor retains state, but provides no
indication of it - a UI disaster. Are you in delete mode? Cadence users hit
the escape key alot, just to make sure they aren't - there's no other way
to tell. By default, text is displayed next to devices, but if it ever gets
moved, or if devices are placed near each other, there's no way to tell
which device the text is associated with. Even when the text is selected
and moved, there's no rubber-band line to indicate which device it's
associated with unless you move the entire device. Wires can't be run
through devices, so in a long string of current sources, where the bias
line connecting the gates/bases should run through the center of all the
devices, the bias line instead has to be routed above or below the device,
and each gate/base has to be individually connected. I won't even get
started on the automatic connection tool, except to say that the moron who
wrote it was clearly a fan of Jackson Pollock.

There is no such thing as a pretty Cadence schematic.

The last time I used AA was three years ago, and they still couldn't even
netlist (yes, they can produce a binary netlist that can be used by any
simulator that's integrated into their "framework," but they can't produce
a simple text netlist. Fortunately, I worked for a big-huge company that
could afford to write their own. Even so, it's slower than molasses in
January.

Not that AA adherents (there are always some, aren't there?) have anything
to worry about. I'm good friends with the local Cadence rep, and he tells
me every time I see him that the user interface on Analog Artist is not
ever going to change. The demand for schematic entry software is small, and
the number of users is nowhere close to the number of users of their
digital tools. There hasn't been any staff devoted to AA tools or the
mucked-up user interface for years, and there are no plans to add any soon.

-- Mike --

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:10:33 -0700, Mike <mike@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:37:09 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:57:41 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

[snip]
Still, Capture is the defacto standard in many companies on the West Coast.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

And Cadence is the "de facto standard" in most IC houses, but it's a
piece of crap also... slow and a terrible GUI.

That's a horrible understatement. Even worse, every tool in their suite was
written by someone like Kevin, who knew exactly what a user interface
should be like, and that everyone else had it wrong.

[snip]

There is no such thing as a pretty Cadence schematic.

I just love receiving Cadence schematics from clients with the device
sizing information written on top of the symbol so you can't read most
of them :-(

The last time I used AA was three years ago, and they still couldn't even
netlist (yes, they can produce a binary netlist that can be used by any
simulator that's integrated into their "framework," but they can't produce
a simple text netlist. Fortunately, I worked for a big-huge company that
could afford to write their own. Even so, it's slower than molasses in
January.

I think the netlist incompatibility is purposely done to prevent
cross-tool usage.

And my clients can't (or won't figure out how) to import MY netlist
into their system.

Not that AA adherents (there are always some, aren't there?) have anything
to worry about. I'm good friends with the local Cadence rep, and he tells
me every time I see him that the user interface on Analog Artist is not
ever going to change. The demand for schematic entry software is small,

It seems to me that there's still a lot of analog work going on.

and
the number of users is nowhere close to the number of users of their
digital tools. There hasn't been any staff devoted to AA tools or the
mucked-up user interface for years, and there are no plans to add any soon.

-- Mike --

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mike wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:37:09 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:57:41 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

[snip]
Still, Capture is the defacto standard in many companies on the
West Coast.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

And Cadence is the "de facto standard" in most IC houses, but it's a
piece of crap also... slow and a terrible GUI.

That's a horrible understatement.

Complete nonsense.

Even worse, every tool in their
suite was written by someone like Kevin, who knew exactly what a user
interface should be like, and that everyone else had it wrong.

Stick to writing spice engines mike, cos you know f'all else.

Thus,

in some dialog boxes, the escape key means "cancel," and in others it
does nothing. In some, buttons and tabs are selected with the left
mouse button, and in others it's the middle mouse button. They use X,
of course, which has no way to indicate which windows are linked to
which application, so if you have two copies of AA (Analog Artist)
running, you'll eventually have multiple identical windows open, some
of which are related to what you're doing, and some of which aren't.
The editor retains state, but provides no indication of it - a UI
disaster. Are you in delete mode? Cadence users hit the escape key
alot, just to make sure they aren't - there's no other way to tell.

I agree. This is a major irritant. Its one part of AA that I hated.
Nevertheless, a few bugs aint enough to trash the system. Nothings
perfect, and the GUI in LTSpice is far from it. It don't get a look in
compared to AA.

By default, text is displayed next to devices, but if it ever gets
moved, or if devices are placed near each other, there's no way to
tell which device the text is associated with.

Minor, inconsequential irritant. Its far more annoying not being able to
simple drag a component with the mouse, a major fault that LTSpice is
inflicted with.

Even when the text is
selected and moved, there's no rubber-band line to indicate which
device it's associated with unless you move the entire device.

Dah... that's a pedestrian way anyway. In SS, if you click on a label,
the device its attached to changes colour. So, I certainly don't copy
all the bad aspects of other packages.

For example, the AA method of locking onto the waveform to display data
is brilliant, so I copied that from day one. Having to hold the mouse
down and piss about with cursors is so outdated its unreal, as does
LTSpice.

Wires
can't be run through devices,

Of course they can.

so in a long string of current sources,
where the bias line connecting the gates/bases should run through the
center of all the devices, the bias line instead has to be routed
above or below the device, and each gate/base has to be individually
connected.

Nonsense. You can turn auto rout off and manualy wire it.

I won't even get started on the automatic connection tool,

Well, don't. Its great. Sure on a few occasions it can be a bit dubious,
but by far its excellent most of the time. It weaves in and out around
components like magic. There difference here is that you are a software
engineer, not someone who does 40 hours a week designing circuits, so
your opinion on this means diddle squat. Its that simple.

except to say that the moron who wrote it was clearly a fan of
Jackson Pollock.

There is no such thing as a pretty Cadence schematic.

Nonsense.

The last time I used AA was three years ago, and they still couldn't
even netlist (yes, they can produce a binary netlist that can be used
by any simulator that's integrated into their "framework," but they
can't produce a simple text netlist.

Nonsense. Your simple clueless. Hint: I have spent many a time editing
the text netlist, e.g. adding in .measure statements and rerun
statements.

{snip drivel}

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Active8]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:10:33 -0700, Mike wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:37:09 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:57:41 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

[snip]
Still, Capture is the defacto standard in many companies on the West Coast.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

And Cadence is the "de facto standard" in most IC houses, but it's a
piece of crap also... slow and a terrible GUI.

That's a horrible understatement. Even worse, every tool in their suite was
written by someone like Kevin, who knew exactly what a user interface
should be like, and that everyone else had it wrong. Thus, in some dialog
boxes, the escape key means "cancel," and in others it does nothing. In
some, buttons and tabs are selected with the left mouse button, and in
others it's the middle mouse button. They use X, of course, which has no
way to indicate which windows are linked to which application,

Are you saying what I think? That regardless which X tools/libraries
you're using (Qt or whatever,) there's no way to store a pointer to
the controller (or whatever class you use to keep track of state) in
the window. IOW, there's no equivalent to SetWindowLong(hwnd, ...) /
GetWindowLong(hwnd, ...) which I use to store a pointer to a
controller class which implements the functions used to process
winders messages and keep track of what's going on in that specific
window.

If that's what you mean, I may be able to find a workaround for that
in the wxWidgets cross platform UI framework. Dunno. For some
reason, I haven't used that technique since I moved from winders API
GUIs to wxWidgets. Now that you've got me on alert, I'm waiting for
the bottom to drop out.

Maybe you're talking about something higher up. At the application
level. Something isn't right. With proper OOP, there should be no
problems.

<snip>

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:28:17 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:35:01 GMT, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:30:32 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:21:01 GMT, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:

[snip]
I take it you mean they're
thinking of dropping Schematics and keeping Capture, right?

support@ema-eda.com

or go to...

http://support.ema-eda.com/


Correct. If they carry thru with their plan, only Capture will
"talk" to PSpice.

That's nice. If they go that way, it's only a matter of time before
someone discovers the ActiveX interface and writes a new capture
program. But if they "talk" through the interface using encryption
or encoding, it won't be so trivial.

Maybe some sharp programmer could crack the interface so that our
copies of Schematics can talk to PSpice updates.

I'd gladly pay for the convenience.

How much?

You mean you've gotten around to figuring out ActiveX and friends? I

saw something the other day in the winsock FAQ, IIRC, that implied
that the solution to your commo prob might be shared memory. There
was another suggestion, but I can't remember it. I'd expect any type
of COM to be slower than shared memory.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:09:43 GMT, Don Pearce wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:52:28 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:11:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

- the schematic should look as much like a standard one as
possible.

Not at all. I disagree. The "standard" you allude to, isn't. We all
have our own opinions, and this is one I feel quite strongly about.
My way is *the* best way to do it. Indeed, I stole the idea from
Analog Artist. I never head anyone complain about junction dots, and
I have met many 40 hour a week i.c. designers using AA. On the other
hand, I have had complaints on not having dots. Your the first to
actually complain.

If you want to make certain that wires are joined, leave
disconnected tails colored red - set them to the normal colour only
if they are connected both ends. That way you have no uncertainty,
and no unsightly (non-standard) blobs.

This is *your* opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. I don't
consider them unsightly in the slightest. They give solid comfort.
This is more like an issue because its not what you are used to, not
because it isn't useful.

Can you point me to a few published schematics that use dots this way?
I can certainly locate those that use them purely for wire junctions
by the cartload.

That's not really relevant. We're talking simulation schematics here,
not paper drawings. The requirements are not the same. The dots a great
visual aid when seperating the pins from wires in order to probe current
or voltage. Once you get used to it, you never whant to go back, imo, to
a dumb schematic. Again, 10,000's use cadence analog artist that has
this feature, so this *is* an "industry standard" for simulation tools,
i.e. Cadence is the biggest cad supplier.

In SS you probe pins (current) wires (voltage) device symbol (power).
Dots make this much easier to see.


I can see we won't agree. Let's leave it there.

I don't have a prob with the dots as far as indication of
connectivity is concerned, but I'd certainly want to turn them off
to print a schematic. I wouldn't want to have to use a separate CAD
program just to print a schem.

I also don't have a prob with the red lead indicating "not
connected", changing to blue or wire/component color when connected.
I can always move the component around to see if it's connected.

Sometimes in Capture, I've found that the part was connected wrong -
have to cut/paste or delete it and clean up a bunch of wire
segments. IOW segments end up under the part and sometimes moving
the part will cause an unconnected lead to connect to something
hidden under it. You have to watch out for that alert triangle that
indicates something's about to connect.

Since I'm talking about printing schems, something else about SS
annoys me, whether on screen or on paper. It's that limey looking
transistor symbol with the collector and emitter leads forming a "V"
at the base instead of being separated - the way I'm used to seeing
it. If there are other graphics in SS that annoy me, I've forgotten
them.

Overall, I could live with SS if I had to. That LTSpice GUI is the
pits to get used to, which sucks because LT is a very useful CAD for
these group discussions.

And Kevin *has* conceeded to some of your points, thus upholding his
claim of excellent customer service.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <0Vx0d.15025$F73.1189@fe2.news.bl
ueyonder.co.uk&gt about 'PSpice SCHEMATICS Users Take Note!', on Sat, 11
Sep 2004:

the SS GUI is the best in the known 3 universes.

Which three are those?

Have you seen this week's 'New Scientist' article on consciousness? It
starts with your mechanistic explanation (due to Leibniz) and improves
thereafter. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk