Offpage connector symbols
in [Design]
|
Prev: Rules of thumb for power transformer current rating - derivation?
Next: Anyone looking for a NEC uPD7220
From: WangoTango on 21 Jan 2010 16:16 In article <hja8b5$4cq$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, not.going.to.be(a)seen.com says... > WangoTango wrote: > > In article <hj9vf5$idp$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, not.going.to.be(a)seen.com > > says... > >> WangoTango wrote: > >>> In article <hj88ic$vam$2(a)speranza.aioe.org>, not.going.to.be(a)seen.com > >>> says... > >>>> Hi AL, > >>>> > >>>> LittleAlex wrote: > >>>>> On Jan 19, 1:17 pm, D Yuniskis <not.going.to...(a)seen.com> wrote: > >>>>>> As a side-comment to the schematic preferences thread > >>>>>> (hopefully not another lengthy thread :> ), I'm curious > >>>>>> as to what folks use as an offpage connector symbol. > >>>>> I use a CAD program. It has "input", "output", "bidirectional", and > >>>>> "passive" (none of the above, AKA don't care) for off-page and off- > >>>>> sheet. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've never seen a reason to change them from the default. > >>>> Yes, all of the tools I use do this. I am just not happy > >>>> with their symbol choices. And, since I can change them, > >>>> I have. > >>>> > >>>> E.g., I don't like an output on the right side of the page > >>>> drawn as < > >>>> > >>> I guess your CAD package doesn't have a rotate or flip? > >> Sure! Then you get a symbol that looks like > -- but now > >> the pin connection is on the *right* side of the symbol > >> instead of on the *left* (since this example was describing > >> an offpage connector for an output to be located on the > >> right edge of the page!) > >> > >>> Funny what these guys will forget. ;) > >> Funny how these posters fail to think things through! :) > >> > > OK, well then who makes a symbol that isn't grouped into a cohesive > > unit, or what CAD package can't handle such things? > > Sure. "Create a symbol". I think if you read upthread, > that's where this discussion started. > > > All in/out/bi symbols I have EVER seen are not treated as individual > > parts/lines/primitives. They are a equivalent to a symbol or part that > > is manipulated as a unit. > > So ---> becomes <--- when flipped or rotated. > > Sure! But the PoE moves, also! Not in any package I have used. Maybe in some I evaluated and tossed out. > > Or, graphically: > > --->X becomes X<--- Not in any package I have seen. The rotation point should be around the electrical connection. > > where X is the PoE (i.e., where the signal connects). > If, as I had stipulated in the discussion, you are > creating an output for the right side of the page, > then you really want: > > --->X > > If you are starting with; > > ---<X > > I think you will find "you can't get there from here". I have never had to get there to begin with. > > > ---< becomes >--- rotating around what would be the electrical > > connection point. > > Only if that connection point is located in the *center* > of the symbol. (Many eCAD packages put the PoE's on > the *edge* of the symbol boundary). Never seen a package where you couldn't add or expressly set the reference point location. I guess maybe I have just been lucky? > > > I guess I assumed you spent more than $1.50 on the software..... :) > > This was OrCAD 9. I'll check Altium/Protel this afternoon > if I get a chance. I know STRIDES would do it correctly > (because I could always move the PoE manually if need be). > I *really* don't want to fire up the Mentor Graphics > workstation to see how *that* does it... I used P-CAD which became Altium and it doesn't have any such issues, my ANCIENT DC-CAD no such problems, and I know CAD-Star handles things just fine too. Like I said, maybe I have just been lucky. Strange.
From: WangoTango on 21 Jan 2010 16:34 In article <hja8qe$54e$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, not.going.to.be(a)seen.com says... > D Yuniskis wrote: > > Or, graphically: > > > > --->X becomes X<--- > > > > where X is the PoE (i.e., where the signal connects). > > If, as I had stipulated in the discussion, you are > > creating an output for the right side of the page, > > then you really want: > > > > --->X > > > > If you are starting with; > > > > ---<X > > > > I think you will find "you can't get there from here". > > Argh! I mispoke (confusing placement of signal name with > signal PoE). I see. Now that makes sense. I never saw where you were referring to a signal name, just the symbol itself. > > You have: > > X--< SIGNALNAME > > (standard OrCAD symbol "OFFPAGELEFT-L") Well, now there's your problem. That doesn't even make sense for an off page left signal to me at all. Shouldn't that be : <--X off pageleft X--> off pageright <->X Bidir left X<-> Bidir right Where X is your electrical Connection AND rotation point? > > You want: > > X--> SIGNALNAME > > Tell me some combination of flips and rotates (remember, > you're alleging that "silly me" doesn't need to bother > editing the symbol itself -- creating a new one) will > transform the first into the second? I wasn't alleging anything. I guess I misunderstood your original point. I didn't understand that you were starting with a bizzaro symbol layout to begin with. > > Unhappy with "OFFPAGELEFT"? You can always try > OFFPAGERIGHT: > > SIGNALNAME >--X That looks more like onpage left to me. > > But, I think you will find you can't rotate *that* > either to get to > > X--> SIGNALNAME > > (even if you are willing to manually *move* "SIGNALNAME" > each time you place a connector). > > Perhaps your eCAD program works in N-dimensional space?? No, it just didn't straddle me with some RPN-esque symbols from the get go. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. I think that CAD-Star's default is to place the signal name over the 'wire' and then you move it to where you want. I will have to play again to find out. I only use P-CAD to support our older products, so I don't remember EXACTLY how it handles the names.
From: larwe on 21 Jan 2010 17:10 On Jan 21, 6:08 am, "Meindert Sprang" <m...(a)NOJUNKcustomORSPAMware.nl> wrote: > I know (from your earlier posts :-) ). Lucky for me I'm on the other end of > the scale. I'm the only engineer here, accounting for 50% of the eployees > and 100% for management :-) I don't suppose you're hiring? :) This company has crossed the event horizon where it is no longer possible to do anything except procedure.
From: krw on 21 Jan 2010 19:55 On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:24:32 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: >Hi Colin, > >colin_toogood(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> Something to bear in mind is that many users of your design won't use >> the schematic, eg your layout guy isn't going to look at the schematic >> for every net he picks up, nor is your firmware guy going to >> constantly check when he defines and uses an FPGA pin. > >Yes. Though the schematic is the driving document in both cases. >I.e., it wins all arguments ("Oh, I thought RESET was on pin 23..." >"No, it's not.") Not necessarily. In fact, it's dangerous to have the schematic be the definition of correct. The specification is *supposed* to be the definitive document. Also, it's not unusual to 'fix' the I/Os on an FPGA first. The schematic then picks up the pinouts from the FPGA. >The biggest consumer of the document is the end user. He needs >to be able to quickly understand what the design is trying to do >and how it is trying to do it. To that end, you have to balance >"information" with "clutter". The "end user" never sees our schematics. They see the product. >> We name almost every net on the board :- >> >> {source}_{destination}_{major function name}_{minor function name} > >Ouch! Your schematics must be very "dark" :> Confusing, too. >I only name things that *need* names. E.g., if I have an RC >snubber across a switching diode, I don't name the signal >*between* the R and the C. Chances are, I will never have >to refer to it in my written commentary. And, if I actually >*do* need to refer to it (e.g., to tell a technician to probe >the signal there), I would simply say "the junction of Rx >and Cy". Test point: TP1234 ;-) >> With not much thought you can define three letter acronyms for every >> source and destination and probably major function name. Suddenly you >> have a schematic where you don't have to drill up and down through >> hierarchy and fewer mistakes are made. > >Yes, but everything you put on a document is one more thing >that has to be maintained. It's like putting comments on each >line of code in a program. Or, using "FirstArrayIndex" and >"SecondArrayIndex" (as in array[FirstArrayIndex][SecondArrayIndex]) >instead of array[i][j]). I.e., it's just more than you need. > ><shrug> YMMV. The whole point of this was to elicit >*preferences* as none of these things are cast in stone... Sure, and it's been a good discussion. I think a lot of this stuff is driven by the tools used, though.
From: Meindert Sprang on 22 Jan 2010 03:12
"larwe" <zwsdotcom(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9461facb-5dd6-4b27-a068-36c8247ece12(a)p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > I don't suppose you're hiring? :) This company has crossed the event > horizon where it is no longer possible to do anything except > procedure. No, unfortunately not. Unless you bring in a couple of fine long term jobs, of course... :-) Meindert |