3 Replies Latest reply on Oct 2, 2014 12:27 PM by john_dube

    The state of the generation of symbols

    milostnik

      Hello folks,

      especially Mentor folks

       

      I was today stuck with the difference that I see in generating a symbol using DxD and the integrated bottom-up and top-down methodologies.

       

      Imagine you have a complex circuit here simplified as resistors

      Now imagine that I would like to substitute the second resistor (representing a part of the circuit) with a block.

      There are two ways for doing this.

       

      • The top - down aproach

       

      In DxD I use the add--> block command

      and I get a generated symbol that looks like this.

      It has a double border and it gets a name that was given in the requester.

       

      • The bottom-up approach

       

      Here I start with the lower level and put ports

      and let the tool generate a symbol with the tools--> Generate block symbol.

       

      The wizard will open a new symbol in symbol editor that looks like this.

      This block has a simple box and I can shape it as I like.

       

       

      Summary:

      The tool is presented with the possibility to do both approaches, but the difference is striking.

      In a schematic this looks very confusing and misleading. In this example like this:

       

       

      My question are.

      • Does the tool have a "standard" way to represent block symbols (Is it always double lines, or always simple lines, or something else)
      • Do I have to correct all the block symbols by hand to match the other style?
      • Is Mentor aware of this discrepancy
      • Does Mentor plan to do something in this area?
      • Has anyone come up with a better solution to this?

       

      Thanks for every insight.

        Matija

        • 1. Re: The state of the generation of symbols
          robert_davies

          The reason for the differences are historic. The bottom up approach is using an old piece of code from the pre-iCDB versions of the software which we've not reviewed or enhanced for several years. This is due to be looked at shortly and when we do we will probably look at making both mechanisms use the same style of box. Note also that you can edit either box style once created in the design by using Edit - Local symbol and making the blocks look consistent with your required design style.

          This has also been noted in Idea D3889 on the DxDesigner Ideas page, you may wish to vote for this enhancement.

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: The state of the generation of symbols
            robert_davies

            My previous reply inferred some answers to your five questions, so to clarify:

             

            • Does the tool have a "standard" way to represent block symbols (Is it always double lines, or always simple lines, or something else)
              • No
            • Do I have to correct all the block symbols by hand to match the other style?
              • Yes
            • Is Mentor aware of this discrepancy
              • Yes
            • Does Mentor plan to do something in this area?
              • It is under review
            • Has anyone come up with a better solution to this?
            • 3. Re: The state of the generation of symbols
              john_dube

              Hi Matija,

               

              Take a look at this script Bottom-up FUB Generation, I think it will make bottom-up hierarchical design consistent with top-down hierarchical design.

               

              John