| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Jacques
Belgium
17 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Apr 2007 : 13:42:48
|
I use <power objects> to make connections to supplies and GND. Of course the pad is tied to a net in the component definition.
Suppose I place a GND power object. Making a connection to its pad correctly assign this connection to the GND net.
Now suppose I <duplicate> that GND power object, and place it somewhere else in the schematic, not droping the pad on an existing connection/net. Making a connection from this free pad gives a N0xxx net, not my good ole GND anymore!
I use the duplicate feature a lot, it's much faster than browsing in the libraries.
If this net change when duplicate is a feature, I really dont see the point. It's confusing and dangerous.
If it's a bug, I think this should be addressed asap.
If there something I missed, please light my bulb.
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it" ... I should remember this ! |
|
|
Peter Johnson
United Kingdom
499 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2007 : 14:41:49
|
| The power objects should force a link to a net, but depending on the version of library you have, most don't. This was a capability that was only introduced with V9, and due to an oversight, the libraries weren't modified to use it. You'll need to open the component in the editor, and in the last column of the table at the top, put the name of the net you want it to force. Save to library and update your design. Now adding the power object should force the net name you chose. |
 |
|
|
Jacques
Belgium
17 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2007 : 12:46:02
|
Yes, I know all this.
What I am saying is that IF you do like you said (which I did), and IF you DUPLICATE a power object behaving normaly (i.e. forcing the net it is connected to to its pad net value), then the NEW (duplicated) power object will NOT force the value of a net started on its pad.
Updating components doesn't solve anything, btw.
Try this : place a power object (GND for example). Make a connection from it's pad a few centimeters, and <finish here>.
Right Click on the new wire and <Display Net Name>. The new is GND alright.
Now select the power object, and <D>uplicate.
Place it elsewhere, draw a connection from its pad, display net name : it shows something like N0123  or whatever, but NOT GND.
I am VERY concerned about this dangerous behaviour.
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it" ... I should remember this ! |
Edited by - Jacques on 25 Apr 2007 13:04:46 |
|
|
|
Peter Johnson
United Kingdom
499 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2007 : 05:22:38
|
| I've checked this out, and you're quite correct. It's also failing to rename with auto weld. I've logged this as an urgent bug. I'm a little surprised that it hasn't been reported already. I'll advise when it's been fixed. |
|
|
|
Rogers6775
USA
14 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2007 : 10:59:55
|
I just got my first board back from manufacturing and was about to write you about this same problem.
I have unconnected power and ground pins all over the place because of this.
I duplicated my power and ground components rather than use "add component ".
You've tried it, and understand that it does not ask you if you want to merge nets.
I am, in general, very happy with Easy PC, but this problem just cost me about twice what I paid for the Easy PC package. |
|
|
|
Rogers6775
USA
14 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2007 : 11:38:49
|
I agree with Jacques that this is very dangerous, and not just a little unnerving!
We depend on these tools to preserve the integrity of the design from schematics to PCB. If they don't do that they are WORSE than useless.
|
|
|
|
Rogers6775
USA
14 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2007 : 12:31:36
|
At the risk of sounding like I am "piling on" regarding the way power objects are handled, I would like to make another observation:
Given that power objects should be treated as nothing more than a means of forcing a net to assume a particular name, it is not logical to have them appear in the parts list.
This problem is easily fixed with a text editor, so it's not really a big deal, but is there any way to keep this from happening? |
|
|
|
Rogers6775
USA
14 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2007 : 12:58:05
|
| Disregard my previous post regarding power objects appearing in parts lists. I was able to suppress this by using the custom reports dialog. |
|
|
|
Iain Wilkie
United Kingdom
1015 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2007 : 05:38:21
|
There is an obvious problem here, so this is not a "get-out". However you sould run an "unconnected pins" report before finialising a design. This would trap things like this.
I use it because sometimes it may look like a connection is
made on the schematic, but it is not actually connected.
Iain |
|
|
|
Rogers6775
USA
14 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2007 : 07:28:39
|
Thanks for weighing in on this Iain.
I am not sure that this would have found the problem, since the pins were connected to the power objects, in this case Gnd and Vdd. I also had decoupling caps on all IC's. They were just not connected to the Gnd and Vdd nets.
I will go back and try running these reports just to see if they spot anything though. I agree with you that running and carefully examining these reports is a good practice.
The way I found the problem was by highlighting the nets using the "goto" tool. Took me a little while to determine that the problem only occurred when duplicating power objects, not when they are picked using "add component".
By the way, in spite of the bugs that have been uncovered in V10, I am very happy with the software. It was just disconcerting to have a connectivity issue.
There is simply nothing that will come close to the features for the price, and the support is excellent.
I hope that Number One Systems will aggressively market it here in the US. There is a tremendous need for such a package, but very few here are even aware of its existence.
Regards,
John |
|
|
|
Iain Wilkie
United Kingdom
1015 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2007 : 07:58:34
|
John,
I have used EasyPC professionally for years and found the package and support excellent. The features have been steadily increased with every revision, however I know from experiance that "updates" can cause un-associated problems, and unless we let Numberone know about it they won't get fixed. However this one is quite serious. I am always aware of getting something wrong, so I always run all the reports and check them off before pressing the button.
I am sure Numberone will have this fixed right away.
Iain |
|
|
|
Iain Wilkie
United Kingdom
1015 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2007 : 08:09:22
|
John, Please don't take this as any kind of critisism, but I am a little surprised that you did not notice the errors on the actual layout. As these were on the supply rails, if you were using a double sided PCB, then the absense of these tracks would have been very noticable, also it woud have been normal practice to route these in manually, rather than using an autorouter. If on a 4 layer board were your power is on the internal two layers, well yes you would need to look closely at these to spot the problem, but even so, you would normally place and rout your de-couplers manually, so would have noticed these were not connected.
Iain |
|
|
|
Rogers6775
USA
14 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2007 : 10:14:39
|
Hi Iain,
No offense taken. Sometimes I need criticizing!
In the case of the particular boards in question, they are four layer boars with power and ground planes. If I had checked the power plane plots to insure each and every pin was assigned to either power or ground I would have have spotted the error.
When I add decoupling caps, I simply move them to the IC that they are associated with. I do not use the common technique of placing all the decoupling caps in one area of the schematic, and then labeling them "near Ux".
And I do not use power gates at all.
Every IC I use has symbols that I have created myself , and all have power and ground pins. When I use decoupling caps they are directly attached to the appropriate pins of the IC's. I find that this helps a lot during component placement.
If I used power gates and if the schematics showed each decoupling cap connected to a power gate then I would most definitely have spotted the problem in missing power and ground connections.
When placing components on the board I suppress the power and ground connections, since I always use four layer boards and these connections just add to the confusion when making placement decisions. Actually, in 24 years of doing this I have never designed a two layer board!
A little while ago I ran the unconnected pins report and as I suspected it did not detect this problem.
I will repeat that I am NOT unhappy with Easy PC, and as you stated the support from the company is outstanding.
I used OrCad for many years, and then Pads Power PCB with the Spectraa autorouter. I threw the Power PCB package in the trash can not too long ago because of the crappy support. My annual maintenance agreement was nearly the cost of the entire Easy PC package.
I understand the difficulty of doing regression testing on new releases of software. We have sent out software with bugs in it too.
It is nearly impossible to test every feature at every release.
I, like you, am sure that this will be fixed very soon.
Just being aware of the problem is enough to avoid it.
Regards,
John |
|
|
|
Iain Wilkie
United Kingdom
1015 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2007 : 10:54:02
|
John,
You use exactly the same tenchnique as I do, however I don't use power gates, I simply make a connection to the power pins if the device and connect it to the power lines on the named net list (i.e. VCC or GND) and set it to display the net name, so it now appears on the diagram. Doing it this way means you are assured that it is connected to the correct net.
Iain |
|
|
|
DavidM
United Kingdom
458 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2007 : 11:38:35
|
I am sure you will all be happy to hear that we have just issued Easy-PC update 10.0.6 which includes a fix for this very problem. The update is available now on the web site for you to download and install from ../updates.asp?product=easypc.
We are proud - I think justifiably - of the responsive nature of our service and support. If a problem is discovered which can have a significant impact on reliability of either the software or of designs created with it, this is treated by us with utmost priority. We are often able - as in this particular case - to issue a fix within hours of the problem being reported. So let us know about the problems you find, and we'll do our best to sort them out!
David Manns
Number One Systems.
|
|
|
|
Rogers6775
USA
14 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2007 : 11:53:23
|
Iain,
I may have to consider doing it that way.
It certainly guarantees integrity.
Thanks for all your helpful suggestions. One of the things I wanted to know about before I purchase EPC is that there was a forum for just this type of conversation.
Collectively we know much more than any of us do individually.
John |
|
|
|
Iain Wilkie
United Kingdom
1015 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2007 : 12:09:23
|
David,
To me it has always been the level of support given by Numberone that has made this an excellent package, over and
above the fact that it is a very very good laout tool.
John,
Looks like your problem is solved, albeit you've taken a bit of a hit
with your boards |
|
|
|
Jacques
Belgium
17 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2007 : 14:27:19
|
Superb support !
Thanks for the patch.
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it" ... I should remember this ! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Bug or feature ?