1 2 3 First Previous 32 Replies Latest reply on Aug 28, 2015 6:03 AM by Pete

    Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?

    Pete

      I have resisted for years making the switch, there was just too much Logic legacy here.  I didn't want to maintain 2 libraries and design flows.  The VX release changed the xDx library structure, we purchased HyperLynx, so now seemed to be the time.

       

      I'm running into a LOT of questions.  Getting quite frustrated.

       

      What I've found is the library migration is not really so straightforward.  There are enough differences that need to be addressed first.  Simple things like Logic uses "\" prefix to negate a symbol, xDx uses "~" (prefix or suffix, I'm not sure since i can't figure out how to show pin names)

       

      What I think I'm realizing is that the new xDx library structure is NOT the same as the PADS Flow (Logic or Layout).  In PADS Flow, the Part Type gathered up a generic logic symbol and PCB decal, assigned pin numbers and names to both, and used the same Part Type on the schematic and board.  xDx seems to be more like Board Station, where the logic symbol is not generic, it must have pin names and numbers already assigned.  the Part Type is only used to connect the symbol to a PCB decal, using a packager.

       

      This is a HUGE difference in the way libraries are managed!  I'm having second thoughts about changing to xDx.  Has anyone else been able to do this successfully?  I'd like to share ideas, maybe we can all figure this out together?

       

      What I've done and found so far:

       

      If a (Logic) CAE decal is used in a part type that has pin names assigned, the library migrator creates a new symbol.  For example, I have quite a few op amps, all using a single CAE decal and "+" and "-" pin names assigned in the part type.  xDx creates quite a few op amp symbols, all exactly the same.   If I remove the pin names, it lets me use the same symbol for all my op amps.  I removed as many pins names as possible from my Part Types prior to conversion, I'll have to live with the rest of the additional symbols created.  But this makes library management much harder.

       

      The aforementioned "\" vs "~".  Again, edit the entire library to change all of these.  That's as soon as I can figure out is the "~" goes before or after.

       

      CAE Decals allowed pace holders for any attributes you wanted to display, called "Free Label".  The library migrator doesn't handle this, you must go back and explicitly assign the desired attribute display.

       

      xDx will not allow gate swapping using different symbols, as Logic did.  For example, I had created inverted symbols for many gates so that I did not need to clean up text when i wanted to rotate a gate. The migrator strips the swap code in these cases.  For safety's sake, I had to remove all of the alternate decals to preserve swap codes.

       

      the PINB inverted pin becomes just lines in xDx.  Manually making this an inverted pin creates a "double bubble" pin.

       

      With almost 4000 Parts in my library, I ended up exporting to a text file so i could write Visual Basic in Excel to clean all this up pre migration.  I don;t have an idea on automating the post migration cleanup requirements.

       

      Any body else doing this?  It's not helping that I have no training in xDx, and my company will not pay for any.  I'm sort of flying blnd here.

       

      Pete

        • 1. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
          DenisL

          Short answer to your subject question:

          ABSOLUTELY NOT!

          • 2. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
            Pete

            Can you expand on that at all?  Have you tried and given up?

             

            BTW, I did remember how to turn on pin name display, for some reason I don't think clicking that box next to the name was working.

            • 3. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
              DenisL

              No need or desire to try. We are a large company with worldwide engineering teams. We have nearly 100 EE's just at our corporate headquarters. The very thought of retraining them to use a different front-end tool causes me to shudder. We will not even consider it. It is far too costly.

              • 4. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
                ldogle

                I have been trying to get in the the XDX design realm and have found it not to easy also.

                 

                Library migration is very painful (mildly put) and this is just getting into the netlist flow.  The plethora of reserved characters in XDX that we use under Logic that were permissible and not now is troubling for sure.

                • 5. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
                  Pete

                  Couple updates:

                   

                  The "~" goes before.

                   

                  Part Types that have some, but not all, pins named in a decal will have that decal dropped during migration.  You will need to fix this before translating.

                   

                  Opening a Netlist (not central library) job ad importing the PADS Library does a MUCH better job of creating schematic symbols!  Text is correct, visibiliites are correct, among other issues.  The problem is that all of the extra information that belongs in the Part Type is now in the schematic symbol like pre-VX library structure.  So it will not reuse any standard symbols, you get a new symbol for every gate.  I'm still experimenting with creating symbols through a Netlist import, then either copying the symbol files to overwrite the (translated) central library symbol files, or importing those symbols during translation.  Both methods have their drawbacks.

                  • 6. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
                    ldogle

                    I was able to get a design into the Netlist flow with a bit of work but it was successful.  All the traces remain on the PCB when I synchronized everything.  Still just scratching the surface the XDX.  Have not tried a BOM output yet and a few other things.

                    • 7. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
                      ldogle

                      Pete,

                       

                      Are you using the Netlist or Integrated Flow?

                       

                      lyle

                      • 8. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
                        Pete

                        Both, sort of.

                         

                        The Netlist Flow doesn't really help us, the new integrated flow is the reason we are finally trying to migrate.  We have a large, well developed central library already, and did not want to work with parts on a design by design basis.

                         

                        So I'm using the migrator to bring in our central library.  The plan is to use Integrated flow for designs.  The only thing I've done with Netlist is import existing designs and a couple parts.  I tried using that to get correctly built symbols, but it's just a workaround for now.  Still working on some ideas, and I am getting good help from Mentor.  But it's not going to be right until they can fix the Migrator bugs.

                        • 9. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
                          ldogle

                          I can't believe for as long as  DX Designer been out there this many bugs in the VX release

                           

                          Library conversion/management is the depressing part of moving from Logic to XDX, all the tweaking that will be necessary to get everything in.

                           

                          Lyle

                          • 10. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
                            Pete

                            DxDesigner has been around, but this is the first release to use the central library architecture, to make it work more like the Logic/Layout flow.  I think the problems are because it's not fully the same.  Logic/Layout is Part Type driven, all of the data is in the Part Type, schematic symbols and PCB decals are assigned from common symbol libraries in the Part Type.  No packaging required, it's saved in the Part Type library already packaged, no matter the project.  VX now allows you to keep everything in a central library, but it's still somewhat symbol driven in xDxdesigner, yet Part Type driven in Layout.  I'm not finding bugs in xDx, only in the Central Library Migration tool.  They couldn't just use the netlist library conversion, because that would build symbols with all of the data that now belongs in the Part Type.  Though, it does seem they could have worked a little more closely with the team that wrote the netlist conversion and avoided a few of the bugs.

                            • 11. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
                              jim.granville

                              DenisL wrote:

                               

                              No need or desire to try. We are a large company with worldwide engineering teams. We have nearly 100 EE's just at our corporate headquarters. The very thought of retraining them to use a different front-end tool causes me to shudder. We will not even consider it. It is far too costly.

                              Many others are exactly the same, so we have been asking Mentor to provide a Two Way Pathway   Logic <-> xDx.

                              Offering this would allow any new libraries to be immediately available in both packages, and also give Logic users a means to use DxAnalog etc

                              • 12. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
                                jim.granville

                                Pete wrote:

                                ....  I'm still experimenting with creating symbols through a Netlist import, then either copying the symbol files to overwrite the (translated) central library symbol files, or importing those symbols during translation.  Both methods have their drawbacks.

                                Not a direct answer, but it may help some of the management.

                                We have used a nifty (somewhat hidden) feature in Logic for Library management, which is ASCII import of a netlist style partlist will auto-place all symbols nicely spread out on a (large) sheet.

                                For very large libraries, split the netlists to keep the items per sheet manageable.

                                 

                                That gives you, in Logic,

                                • An automated  verify that Library Load works
                                • A visual check of every part imported, in 'final use' format.
                                • A secondary means to save/share library that is more visual than Library ASCII import/export
                                • Export of this into Layout, also confirms the Footprint layout loads work (at least as far as default alternate )

                                 

                                You could then use the translator, to convert the Logic Library sheet(s) to xDx, many at a time.

                                (there is still housekeeping within xDx, but we find this more visual way of handling Libraries useful. You can run the import at ant time, to get a live library symbol check )

                                • 13. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
                                  Pete

                                  Jim,

                                   

                                  How do you create the partlist from the library to import?

                                   

                                  I have used VB to drop all of the parts and gates into a Logic sheet, but since I didn't need to see them.  I just dropped them all in one place.  Then used a netlist based xDx project to get symbols created.

                                   

                                  As for 2 way libraries, the xDx structure doesn't allow it.  More on that later, I need to check something first before I post on it.  I'm still learning xDx.....

                                  • 14. Re: Anyone else migrating from Logic to xDxDesigner?
                                    Pete

                                    Two way libraries:

                                     

                                    Can't happen. 

                                     

                                    xDx libraries are CAE symbol driven.  All of the part data is in the symbol.  Part types are only a way to link a PCB footprint to that CAE symbol when you package an individual design.  Logic/Layout are Part Type driven.  The Part type contains all of the data about a part, including what CAE symbol and footprint to use.  Since the Part Type data resides in a library, not a design, it is the same for all parts in all designs.

                                     

                                    Because all of the part data is in the CAE symbol, Logic can't use it.

                                     

                                    An example of why they aren't really compatible library structures:

                                    I have a lot of op-amp parts - single, dual, quad, PTH, SMT.....  They are all op-amps, so I have one CAE op-amp symbol that I use in many Part Types, often with different pinouts.  So when I migrated my library, It did allow me to use my "opamp" CAE symbol IF the pin numbers were the same as the first part that used it.  Otherwise, it created another symbol with an autogenerated name.  Looks the same, just different pin numbers.  For the parts that use the common symbol, pin numbers are stored in the part, not the symbol.  Oh, and you can't edit them in either place!  So, I need a new op-amp part.  I can create it, assign the op-amp symbol.  BUT, since the migrated symbol has no pin numbers, and pin numbers are attached to symbols, I can not assign pin numbers to my new part.  I MUST create a new symbol - that is EXACTLY like the op-amp already in the library.

                                     

                                    So, regardless of how the Central Library was presented as being similar to, or useable with, the Logic Flow libraries, it isn't at all.  Nothing has really changed, common symbols can't be used unless they were migrated from Logic, it actually is just a lot of netlist designs, with a tool to keep track of all of the many parts created for each design.

                                     

                                    I don't see this being able to change, and honestly, it may be a show stopper for me.  The Logic Flow libraries are MUCH more efficient and easier to manage, making them far more reliable.  I could have 100 op-amp part types, with one CAE symbol.  Once it's checked and in the library, it's known good.  Now, I need 100 CAE symbols, with 100 times the chance for error.  They are expected to visually identical, but might not be.  What if I need to update my op-amp symbol?  100 times, not one.  It makes no sense to me at all to work this way, especially when another way exists.

                                     

                                    I embarked on this migration for the tighter integration between schematic and simulation.  I did not make the switch previously because of the library structure differences.  With the VX release, it appeared that the time had finally come.  But, the more I work at this, the more I'm thinking it's not yet time.

                                     

                                    It's just my opinion, but I think Mentor would have had a FAR more powerful product had the put the effort into migrating DxDesigner into the Logic library structure, not the other way around.  And architecturally, it could be done.  Legacy would require carrying the old inefficient duplicate symbols, but new parts would be more efficient.  Now, moving forward means moving away from efficiency.

                                     

                                    I started this thread hoping someone may have found something I'm missing.

                                    1 2 3 First Previous