1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. Capture hierarchy

Capture hierarchy

So I'm working with hierarchical schematics in Cadence OrCad Capture. It seems like a not very well implemented feature.

1) Can I create the block symbol itself as a library part? It seems pretty damn stupid to have to draw the box (and get stupid error messages if your box is too small to accomodate all the ports on its side). Not to mention you have to enter the "implemenation name" by hand, with no clicky thing to select the schematic name you want to use as a block.

2) The printing is unpredictable. Pages all over the place. How can this be organized properly?

3) Suppose I re-use the same block 8 times on the root level. The 8 occurences will correctly have different refdeses. But all the visible netnames I placed with the "alias" command will still be the same. Since all I send the customer is the PD, how will he know that A0 is not actually shorted together across all 8 occurences, but instead has a different netname thanks to the connection at the higher level?

Is there a property I can add to hierarchical connectors to make visible either

1) The schematic path of the page (this property only works in title blocks! How infuriating! Why can't all information be available in any circumstance!) 2) The "inherited" net name from the higher level of the hierarchy?

Is there some documentaion that's better than the horrific Cadence docs? The usual Cadence crap of using five new words without defining them, or defining them in a circular or self-referential way, or using two words that mean the same thing to mean different things in some nuanced, cryptic way? (Instance? Occurence? That means pretty much the same to me.)

Reply to
a7yvm109gf5d1
Loading thread data ...

The "PDF", not "PD"...

TIA!

Reply to
a7yvm109gf5d1

Give it up. It doesn't work.

Would you rather be able to make a box too small to use?

Huh? You create a block in a library. That library then gets used in a schematic, not the other way around. Start with the library.

Do what everyone else does; the first two characters of the page name is the page number. I use "00- Block Diagram", or "01- Connectors", or "99- Power Pins".

Hierarchical doesn't work. Forget it. You'll sleep better. BTDT.

Hierarchical doesn't work. Forget it. You'll sleep better. BTDT.

Hierarchical doesn't work. Forget it. You'll sleep better. BTDT.

It's OrCrap. What do you want? Function? Hey, you paid your money. Cadence doesn't care.

Reply to
krw

IME, this is just not worth the effort. You're better off cutting and pasting big pieces of the schematic (when you need to duplicate a "functional block"), etc.

Perhaps I just wasn't patient enough (?) Or, maybe I just never "clicked" into the "right" mindset of the original implementor... but I found it more trouble than it was worth.

I also found lots of quirks in their PCB package -- routes that went where *they* wanted even if you were "manually" routing (and, often, where they wanted to go was the WRONG PLACE!)

Should you choose to persist...

Reply to
D Yuniskis

That at least works.

No, you are correct. OrCAD is broken as designed. I spent a couple of weeks trying to get this to work and even opened a maintenance ticket on these issues. I was told "that's the way it works. Don't use hierarchy."

OrCAD works OK for flat schematics, well other than crashing ten times a day.

Reply to
krw

OrCad SDT did hierarchies perfectly. A flat sheet structure really gets old when it's a dozen or more sheets and someone else has to plow through it later (which for me as a consultant is always the case). Did they break it?

WRT crashes that started with the first Windows versions, it crashed on me numerous times. Badly, although not quite as bad and as often as Adobe Acrobat. OrCad SDT, can't remember a single time it crashed and I've done some rather fat designs with it. Large chunks of ultrasound machines and so on.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Reply to
Joerg

In most of the cases it just takes some getting used to. It should be intuitive to use but like most software it isn't.

The dynamic reconnect is causing that. It can be switched off for a net. I usually do that with larger nets (power and ground) because Layout can get confused.

The main problem is that CAD packages tend to get bigger and more complicated. It just takes a lot more time to learn. A few years ago I had to use Altium. That was one of the very few occasions I really needed the manual to get started. And I did use Protel's Autotrax before...

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to
Nico Coesel

Never used SDT, but Windows versions do not. They pretend to, but it doesn't work. The thing that busted it was that net names are not pushed down through the hierarchy so everything gets tied in a knot. It sorta looks like it really hooks things up right but the schematic doesn't show it.

I didn't use OrCad before 9.0. I used proprietary tools until the late '90s.

Reply to
krw

Oh man, how did they screw that up? OrCad SDT handles net names flawlessly down the hierarchy. Software is often like Pinot Noir, older = better.

There are many other SW packages where they broke things and it seems that either didn't test it or nobody gave a s..t. For example, I use MS-Works for bookkeeping. Up until version 6.0 even the Windows versions worked nicely. Then they broke rather mundane stuff, like copy and paste.

Good old Orcad-SDT was hands down the very best CAD software I've seen in my whole life. Windows OrCad, no, not by a longshot. That's when I decided it's time to move on to Cadsoft Eagle. But that doesn't have a hierarchy which is IMHO a serious flaw so I am still in the market for something better.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Reply to
Joerg

"The Gostack deshtims the Doshes"

Reply to
JosephKK

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.