Prev: Software bloat (Larkin was right)
Next: Rado Integral Jubile Ladies Watch R20488742
From: a7yvm109gf5d1 on 18 May 2010 22:26
On May 18, 9:24 pm, a7yvm109gf...(a)netzero.com wrote:
> netnames I placed with the "alias" command will still be the same.
> Since all I send the customer is the PD, how will he know that A0 is

The "PDF", not "PD"...

TIA!
From: krw on 19 May 2010 00:08
On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:06:55 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>
wrote:

>a7yvm109gf5d1(a)netzero.com wrote:
>> So I'm working with hierarchical schematics in Cadence OrCad Capture.
>> It seems like a not very well implemented feature.
>
>IME, this is just not worth the effort. You're better off
>cutting and pasting big pieces of the schematic (when you
>need to duplicate a "functional block"), etc.

That at least works.

>Perhaps I just wasn't patient enough (?) Or, maybe I just
>never "clicked" into the "right" mindset of the original
>implementor... but I found it more trouble than it was
>worth.

No, you are correct. OrCAD is broken as designed. I spent a couple of weeks
trying to get this to work and even opened a maintenance ticket on these
issues. I was told "that's the way it works. Don't use hierarchy."

>I also found lots of quirks in their PCB package -- routes
>that went where *they* wanted even if you were "manually"
>routing (and, often, where they wanted to go was the WRONG
>PLACE!)
>
>Should you choose to persist... <shrug>

OrCAD works OK for flat schematics, well other than crashing ten times a day.
From: Joerg on 20 May 2010 15:31
krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:06:55 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>
> wrote:

[...]

>> I also found lots of quirks in their PCB package -- routes
>> that went where *they* wanted even if you were "manually"
>> routing (and, often, where they wanted to go was the WRONG
>> PLACE!)
>>
>> Should you choose to persist... <shrug>
>
> OrCAD works OK for flat schematics, well other than crashing ten times a day.


OrCad SDT did hierarchies perfectly. A flat sheet structure really gets
old when it's a dozen or more sheets and someone else has to plow
through it later (which for me as a consultant is always the case). Did
they break it?

WRT crashes that started with the first Windows versions, it crashed on
me numerous times. Badly, although not quite as bad and as often as
Adobe Acrobat. OrCad SDT, can't remember a single time it crashed and
I've done some rather fat designs with it. Large chunks of ultrasound
machines and so on.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
From: Nico Coesel on 20 May 2010 16:58
D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote:

>a7yvm109gf5d1(a)netzero.com wrote:
>> So I'm working with hierarchical schematics in Cadence OrCad Capture.
>> It seems like a not very well implemented feature.
>
>IME, this is just not worth the effort. You're better off
>cutting and pasting big pieces of the schematic (when you
>need to duplicate a "functional block"), etc.
>
>Perhaps I just wasn't patient enough (?) Or, maybe I just
>never "clicked" into the "right" mindset of the original
>implementor... but I found it more trouble than it was
>worth.

In most of the cases it just takes some getting used to. It should be
intuitive to use but like most software it isn't.

>I also found lots of quirks in their PCB package -- routes
>that went where *they* wanted even if you were "manually"
>routing (and, often, where they wanted to go was the WRONG
>PLACE!)

The dynamic reconnect is causing that. It can be switched off for a
net. I usually do that with larger nets (power and ground) because
Layout can get confused.

The main problem is that CAD packages tend to get bigger and more
complicated. It just takes a lot more time to learn. A few years ago I
had to use Altium. That was one of the very few occasions I really
needed the manual to get started. And I did use Protel's Autotrax
before...

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: krw on 21 May 2010 00:04
On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:31:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:

>krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:06:55 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>
>> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> I also found lots of quirks in their PCB package -- routes
>>> that went where *they* wanted even if you were "manually"
>>> routing (and, often, where they wanted to go was the WRONG
>>> PLACE!)
>>>
>>> Should you choose to persist... <shrug>
>>
>> OrCAD works OK for flat schematics, well other than crashing ten times a day.
>
>
>OrCad SDT did hierarchies perfectly. A flat sheet structure really gets
>old when it's a dozen or more sheets and someone else has to plow
>through it later (which for me as a consultant is always the case). Did
>they break it?

Never used SDT, but Windows versions do not. They pretend to, but it doesn't
work. The thing that busted it was that net names are not pushed down through
the hierarchy so everything gets tied in a knot. It sorta looks like it
really hooks things up right but the schematic doesn't show it.

>WRT crashes that started with the first Windows versions, it crashed on
>me numerous times. Badly, although not quite as bad and as often as
>Adobe Acrobat. OrCad SDT, can't remember a single time it crashed and
>I've done some rather fat designs with it. Large chunks of ultrasound
>machines and so on.

I didn't use OrCad before 9.0. I used proprietary tools until the late '90s.

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Software bloat (Larkin was right)
Next: Rado Integral Jubile Ladies Watch R20488742