2 Replies Latest reply on Dec 16, 2010 3:41 PM by joe_krolla

    ODB not a suitable replacement for HKP

    craig.myers

      I have noticed that Mentor is pushing 3rd party tools to revert to ODB in liue of HKP.  This is not a direct replacement!  We use CST Microstripes for RF simulation that can accept both HKP and ODB.  In our tests we noticed that stackup information is not provided in the ODB which requires us to manually enter the information that causes extra work for the PCB Designer to document the stackup and then the RF Engineer must enter it.  With the HKP, this information is included.

       

      Another issue we have with ODB is that it is "semi-standard".  Some programs look for the matrix directory while others require the *.tgz.  It is large, cumbersome to unzip and parse (time-wise), etc.

        • 1. Re: ODB not a suitable replacement for HKP
          artsiom.shchatsko

          Actually ODB++ is a defacto industry standard and format is controlled by Valor (well, Mentor now). It can be presented either as a directory structure or as a compressed directory structure.

          AFAIK ODB++ can contain stackup data too, another thing is if this data is exported by the CAD you use.

          • 2. Re: ODB not a suitable replacement for HKP
            joe_krolla

            Thanks Artsiom, I agree with you. ODB++ is a quasi standard in the industry, broadly accepted by most, if not all major manufacturers. HKP on the other hand is proprietary and was not intended nor documented as a standard.

             

            Craig, I would recommend to challenge CST, whether they are maximizing the usage of ODB++.

             

            If CST is seeing any information gaps with ODB++, then we would encourage you to ask CST working with us understanding and resolving these potential data gaps.

             

            Joe