viewing wsf or psf files with waveform

[hikom]

Hi,

i have generated a wsf-file that contains a waveform by a self-written
tool and want to display it using the waveform tool (awd). to verify
this methode, I generated a wsf-file using spectre:
1. spectre -format wsfascii input.scs
2. awd /.../path/input.raw
3. create the ROF of input.raw
4. rigth mouse-click on tran.tran
--> nothing happens
If I do the same steps with a psfascii file, the correct waveforms are
displayed. So is this methode valid for wsfascii - files? If I only
can use psf-files, where ist the psfascii format documented?

thanks in advance,
hikom

 

[Andrew Beckett]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:10:25 -0500, morgenst@izm.fhg-dot-de.no-spam.invalid
(hikom) wrote:

Hi,

i have generated a wsf-file that contains a waveform by a self-written
tool and want to display it using the waveform tool (awd). to verify
this methode, I generated a wsf-file using spectre:
1. spectre -format wsfascii input.scs
2. awd /.../path/input.raw
3. create the ROF of input.raw
4. rigth mouse-click on tran.tran
--> nothing happens
If I do the same steps with a psfascii file, the correct waveforms are
displayed. So is this methode valid for wsfascii - files? If I only
can use psf-files, where ist the psfascii format documented?

thanks in advance,
hikom

I must admit I've always had trouble whenever I've tried getting wsf stuff to
work with awd (or wavescan) and I recall having to create a logFile (hacked
from one lying around from a PSF results directory) to get it to work. Even
then it wasn't that easy...

If you have an issue, I'd contact customer support (hmm, he says, creating
more work for himself potentially ;-> )

PSF is a proprietary format, and is not documented. The main reason is that
this allows Cadence to change it if needed for performance/enhancement
reasons.

Regards,

Andrew.

 

[Svenn Are Bjerkem]

In article <hq0491lq6jj0qn9n9ef87nleie18d2g59l@4ax.com>,
Andrew Beckett <andrewb@DcEaLdEeTnEcTe.HcIoSm> wrote:

PSF is a proprietary format, and is not documented. The main reason is that
this allows Cadence to change it if needed for performance/enhancement
reasons.

I think Cadence should focus on increasing the performance of the new
waveform tool wavescan than increase the performance of the file format.
I want to be able to use awd for many years to come as a backup tool for
very large files. I understand the motives of Cadence, but just want to
voice an opinion that many of my colleagues share when they discover the
difference in performance after we upgraded to 5.1 (where wavescan is
default and awd optional.)


--
Svenn

 

[Andrew Beckett]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:03:13 +0200, Svenn Are Bjerkem <spam@bjerkem.de> wrote:

In article <hq0491lq6jj0qn9n9ef87nleie18d2g59l@4ax.com>,
Andrew Beckett <andrewb@DcEaLdEeTnEcTe.HcIoSm> wrote:

PSF is a proprietary format, and is not documented. The main reason is that
this allows Cadence to change it if needed for performance/enhancement
reasons.

I think Cadence should focus on increasing the performance of the new
waveform tool wavescan than increase the performance of the file format.
I want to be able to use awd for many years to come as a backup tool for
very large files. I understand the motives of Cadence, but just want to
voice an opinion that many of my colleagues share when they discover the
difference in performance after we upgraded to 5.1 (where wavescan is
default and awd optional.)

Sometimes changing the format helps enormously with performance. Back in
4.3.4, there was a change to transpose the output (in transient) which made a
huge difference to the performance of the tools reading it. Also, the other
reason is that we might need to add new data representations for new analyses.

But I get what you're saying. In fact the results reader has had a lot of work
on it. In many cases wavescan is much quicker than awd - but perhaps not
universally. Specific cases logged to customer support would be useful.

Thanks,

Andrew.

 

[David Cuthbert]

Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote:

I think Cadence should focus on increasing the performance of the new
waveform tool wavescan than increase the performance of the file format.

Well, one way to improve the performance of the tool is to improve the
file format.

But, yes, there are other ways, as well.

--
David Cuthbert dacut at cadence dot com
Cadence Design Systems +1 (412) 599-1820

 

[Bernd Fischer]

I filed a enhancement PCR some time ago
#32827924 'Affirma Analog Environment should be able to output FSDB'
Anyone who has customer support feel free to append to it.

FSDB is a fast analog waveform file format (the fastest I knew so far)
initialy form Novas, but now Open what I heard.

Bernd


Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote:

In article <hq0491lq6jj0qn9n9ef87nleie18d2g59l@4ax.com>,
Andrew Beckett <andrewb@DcEaLdEeTnEcTe.HcIoSm> wrote:


PSF is a proprietary format, and is not documented. The main reason is that
this allows Cadence to change it if needed for performance/enhancement
reasons.


I think Cadence should focus on increasing the performance of the new
waveform tool wavescan than increase the performance of the file format.
I want to be able to use awd for many years to come as a backup tool for
very large files. I understand the motives of Cadence, but just want to
voice an opinion that many of my colleagues share when they discover the
difference in performance after we upgraded to 5.1 (where wavescan is
default and awd optional.)

 

[hikom]

Hi,
so it seem that I can't use AWD for viewing wsf and psf files. how it
is about about the nutbin (ascii) or sst2 data-format ().
1. Has anyone experience with these file format?

If I can't use the Cadence tools for it, I think it should be possible
to use gnuplot.
2. What is your opinion about this alternitive?

thanks in advance,
hikom

 

[Svenn Are Bjerkem]

hikom wrote:

If I can't use the Cadence tools for it, I think it should be possible
to use gnuplot.
2. What is your opinion about this alternitive?

Not so good as a tool designed to *inspect* graphical data. gnuplot
rather present data. You know how it is going to be, and you make it
look nice on a presentation. awd and wavescan are tools meant to
*inspect* graphical data. Their strengths are zooming, panning,
measuring, annotating etc.

If you have total control over what output your software create, I would
also consider gwave and grace. gwave is depending on too many external
packages which may not be available on your system and, thus, almost
impossible to get running. Grace is a hassle to learn and is more suited
for static data.

A third possibility is to invest some time to write some routines in
tcl/tk and use the canvas widget to plot your data. It is fairly easy to
get a simple graph up and running. The canvas widget can plot to
postscript natively. If this is something you consider, check out
http://wiki.tcl.tk for examples on how to code.

A fourth possibility is to use psfascii and inspect the output of
several different simulations and try to "guess" the file format. If I
remember correctly, it is not that difficult to understand.

Kind regards,
--
Svenn

 

[David Cuthbert]

Erik Wanta wrote:

Ultrasim supports fsdb output. At least is did before Cadence bought
Celestry. Why is there no option to output to fsdb in the ADE for
Ultrasim? I would think it is because Cadence doesn't have a viewer
to display fsdb data.

I can't speak to this case specifically (I'm not much of an Ultrasim
user), and certainly can't speak for Cadence in any official capacity...

When Cadence acquires something (code, technology, company, etc.), the
question of if and how associated rights transfer is often complicated.
There are already sources and technology that are compartmentalized
and restricted to certain groups to ensure that we don't accidentally
break these agreement.

I personally find this annoying -- I'd rather we just sign whatever
agreements are necessary to get the job done than reinvent the wheel N
times amongst various groups -- but I can understand the business
reasons for implementing this. Of course, I'm also just and R&D guy,
and am certainly not privy to all the information that goes into these
decisions.

To the extent that this affects our products and, therefore, customers,
though, is regrettable. It's certainly something that our customers
(IMHO) should not have to be aware of.

Dave

 

[Svenn Are Bjerkem]

David Cuthbert wrote:

Erik Wanta wrote:

Ultrasim supports fsdb output. At least is did before Cadence bought
Celestry. Why is there no option to output to fsdb in the ADE for
Ultrasim? I would think it is because Cadence doesn't have a viewer
to display fsdb data.

To the extent that this affects our products and, therefore, customers,
though, is regrettable. It's certainly something that our customers
(IMHO) should not have to be aware of.

Since how many years have we used computers and software to solve our
problems that using computers and software to solve problems have
caused? Now, how many years will it take for the computer to serve the
engineer instead of the engineer to serve the computer? What David say
here is something I must understand even if I, as engineer, cannot
accept: Somebody (not nescessarily Cadence) earns money by making it
difficult for me to do my job in the way I think I could do it most
efficient. Problem for me is that I somewhere down the line got so hung
up in the computer as a tool that I sometimes forget to use it. Not
seeing the forrest for trees.

Let's hope that the OpenAccess initiative provide true interoperability
and that I finally one day may be allowed to choose the schematic
capture tool that fits my needs or the layout tool that fits my needs
and all can communicate via a common data exchange.

Oh, brave new world.

--
Svenn

 

[Erik Wanta]

Bernd:
Ultrasim supports fsdb output. At least is did before Cadence bought
Celestry. Why is there no option to output to fsdb in the ADE for
Ultrasim? I would think it is because Cadence doesn't have a viewer
to display fsdb data.
---
Erik