Ping John Larkin: Question on MAX
in [Design]
|
From: Joel Koltner on 28 May 2010 13:59 Say John, If you don't mind my asking... With your homegrown inventory/parts management/MRP program MAX, have you effectively integrated it with PADS Logic (which I'm assuming you enter your schematics with, given that you use PADS PCB for layout) by, e.g., having an attribute for each symbol that keys to one of your internal part numbers? In other words... how easy is it for you to get from schematic to BOM whereby the BOM consists of all your internal part numbers? Completely automated, or someone manually going thorugh a generic BOM report and manually linking them up with your internal part numbers? Assuming it's automated, how long did it take to have someone go through your PADS parts library and enter the (5,000 or so?) internal part numbers initially? Thanks, ---Joel
From: John Larkin on 28 May 2010 14:32 On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:59:42 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Say John, > >If you don't mind my asking... > >With your homegrown inventory/parts management/MRP program MAX, have you >effectively integrated it with PADS Logic (which I'm assuming you enter your >schematics with, given that you use PADS PCB for layout) by, e.g., having an >attribute for each symbol that keys to one of your internal part numbers? Mostly. We have a PADS-LOGIC macro that generates parts lists, in our format, from the schematic. That means we have to enter our 7-digit stock number as a part attribute for each part on the schematic. A pl needs a little hand tweaking, for hardware and such, but 98% of the work is automated. Since we often have dash number versions of boards, with different stuffing options, or do eco's, pl's need more hand tuning. We release only one schematic rev "X" and never edit it as "X", so the pl's don't necessarily 100% agree with the schematic. We treat the schematic as a reference drawing. The assembly drawing, pl, and any eco's define configuration. > >In other words... how easy is it for you to get from schematic to BOM whereby >the BOM consists of all your internal part numbers? Completely automated, or >someone manually going thorugh a generic BOM report and manually linking them >up with your internal part numbers? > >Assuming it's automated, how long did it take to have someone go through your >PADS parts library and enter the (5,000 or so?) internal part numbers >initially? Parts that only come one way, like an IC, have the MAX number wired into the library part. I think that was all done by hand, but Rob may have done a Perl script when we cut over to new part numbers. We do it now whenever a new part is created. The part creation form forces us to create the MAX number and description, and the PADS stuff, correctly. A copy goes to purchasing so Bonnie buys some right away. This is great. Things like resistors/caps/inductors only have a generic PADS part, so the actual MAX numbers have to be poked in on each schematic, depending on value and tolerance. My weekend project is to write a PowerBasic program that verifies that, on a schematic, all the r/c/l values in the "value" field are consistant with the values of the MAX part. I'll do that based on an ascii schematic dump and an ascii MAX parts listing, which is easier than messing with binaries. PB is so fast that the most brutal linear searches are fine. We need that program because certain engineers, who I will not name, keep changing parts values before the board is finished, and The Brat gets annoyed keeping up with, and checking, the results. Every time you run MAX, it generates a file called _parts.txt, with one line per part. That's handy for all sorts of things. A lot of what MAX does is based on browsing text files, and we just leave them behind. And PADS will import/export anything in ASCII. John
From: Joel Koltner on 28 May 2010 14:52 Thanks John, that's good information. "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:5g1006p4tn9geie0k1s12acg3j2o02f6bs(a)4ax.com... > My weekend project is to write a PowerBasic program that verifies > that, on a schematic, all the r/c/l values in the "value" field are > consistant with the values of the MAX part. I'll do that based on an > ascii schematic dump and an ascii MAX parts listing, which is easier > than messing with binaries. PB is so fast that the most brutal linear > searches are fine. We need that program because certain engineers, who > I will not name, keep changing parts values before the board is > finished, and The Brat gets annoyed keeping up with, and checking, the > results. Since RLCs, etc. already encode their "primary value" (e.g., resistance for resistors, capacitance for capacitors, etc.) into the internal part number, we've kicked around the idea of buliding a little program that takes a "template" part number from the (in our case) ORCAD-generated BOM, and combines it with the "value" attribute in the schematic to then generic the "fully qualified" internal part number. This idea was meant specifically to avoid the problem you're describing -- engineers can change values all day long, and you still end up with valid internal part numbers. (Granted, some of those parts numbers might not exist yet within the MRP system, if we've never used, e.g., a particular 1% resistor value before -- but that can be checked as well, and a report generated that tells purchasing to buy some/create the part/etc.) ---Joel
From: Nico Coesel on 28 May 2010 15:47 "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Thanks John, that's good information. > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:5g1006p4tn9geie0k1s12acg3j2o02f6bs(a)4ax.com... >> My weekend project is to write a PowerBasic program that verifies >> that, on a schematic, all the r/c/l values in the "value" field are >> consistant with the values of the MAX part. I'll do that based on an >> ascii schematic dump and an ascii MAX parts listing, which is easier >> than messing with binaries. PB is so fast that the most brutal linear >> searches are fine. We need that program because certain engineers, who >> I will not name, keep changing parts values before the board is >> finished, and The Brat gets annoyed keeping up with, and checking, the >> results. > >Since RLCs, etc. already encode their "primary value" (e.g., resistance for >resistors, capacitance for capacitors, etc.) into the internal part number, >we've kicked around the idea of buliding a little program that takes a >"template" part number from the (in our case) ORCAD-generated BOM, and If you use/switch to Orcad CIS it does all the work for you. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Koltner on 28 May 2010 15:55
"Nico Coesel" <nico(a)puntnl.niks> wrote in message news:4c001d6f.880956593(a)news.planet.nl... > "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>Since RLCs, etc. already encode their "primary value" (e.g., resistance for >>resistors, capacitance for capacitors, etc.) into the internal part number, >>we've kicked around the idea of buliding a little program that takes a >>"template" part number from the (in our case) ORCAD-generated BOM, and > If you use/switch to Orcad CIS it does all the work for you. We have ORCAD CIS and no, it doesn't, AIUI: If you want to change, e.g., a resistor's value only (but it's still the same old 0603 generic resistor otherwise), you can to use "change database part" and go find the new, e.g., 1.12k, 0603 resistor. In most cases that's a lot more mouse clicks that double-clicking one on the part's value, entering the new value, and calling it good. Another benefit is that you're not immediately stuck if no one's gotten around to entering 1.12k 0603 resistors into the master part database in the first place (whereas they did already have, e.g., 2.22k in there, what you initially used). ...so you call or e-mail the guy maintaining the parts database, ask him to add the part, and then come back after lunch and continue updating a schematic. Both of these things are productivity killers, in my mind. But if I'm wrong about ORCAD CIS's capabilities here, I'd appreciate being told as much. ---Joel |