[SI-LIST] Re: Hyperlynx vs. Signal Explorer
- From: Roy Leventhal <Roy.Leventhal@xxxxxxxx>
- To: si-list <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:17:07 -0600
So,
Once again, we have the "which tool is best" wars. And, some people
wisely point out that there is GUI convenience, accuracy, speed, size of
model library, accuracy of models, and a host of other issues.
The proof of what a CAE tool is good for is in what you do with the
data, and the results you achieve with your product design.
If the results are not implemented in wise design decisions, what good
is any simulation data? If the simulation results come too late, include
too many unsupported assumptions, or any number of "non-technical"
issues what exactly do minor usability count for? An assumption, for
instance, that a PCB will be manufactured exactly as specified, with no
significant manufacturing variance.
It is good sense to expect a simulator company to make productivity
improvements once a company starts making good use of a CAE tool to
drive down board turns to first working copper. My experience is that
ALL the CAE tools out there could use important improvements. But
working engineers have always had to succeed in a non-ideal world.
Best Regards to All,
Roy Leventhal
agathon wrote:
> Weston's is the best response, for which I didn't have the patience to issue
> myself.
> I'm willing to bet that those saying the tool "is ok" and such have limited
> use or employing it a limited way, per Weston.
> My postings' "anonymous" comments reflect my own experience. That's why I
> posted them. I'm a cad user.
> Again, make a realistic 'project', get the vendor to come in and work ALL
> the way through it, with your prepared use and interface needs prepared
> beforehand.
> You will find what I offered to be true if it's a serious project.
>
> On 1/10/07, Beal, Weston <weston.beal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> This discussion comes up at least once a year and the answer is still
>> the same. The best description I've seen was a couple of years ago. All
>> EDA tools suck if you use them long enough. The deeper you get into it,
>> the more bugs you find. Don't go too deep into it and you'll be happy in
>> your ignorance :)X=20
>>
>> Now, the useful answer is that you need to look at features beyond
>> functions. Every SI simulator simulates digital nets to some useful
>> accuracy. Does it interface well to your PCB layout tool? Do you need it
>> to? Does it output results in the way you want to use it? Does it
>> support models of the effects that you are concerned with? Does it have
>> the post-processing (waveform measurement) that you need? Is the cost
>> within your budget? Can you, and do you want to, automate the tool for
>> your work flow?
>>
>> So before you go looking too far for the right tool, you should figure
>> out what is the job you need to do. If you just want to simulate a net
>> once in a while to show pretty waveforms to your manager then get the
>> cheapest tool you can find that makes pretty waveforms and you both will
>> be happy for the immediate future. If you want a fully extensible,
>> highly accurate, feature rich SI tool then get ready to spend some big
>> money and time to get it set up in your environment. Thereafter you will
>> find long-term joy. Most users want something in between. That's why
>> there are so many SI tools on the market. Decide what is important to
>> you and then the choice of tool will be fairly obvious.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Weston
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of agathon
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:41 PM
>> To: si-list
>> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Hyperlynx vs Signal Explorer
>>
>> I recently received a comment about just this from an acquaintance:
>> ----
>> "Short answer: anyone trying to make full use of Cadence pcb si tools
>> for
>> interconnect sim and who, nevertheless, recommends it could make good
>> use of
>> counseling of some kind... or the receivers of that info could make good
>> use
>> of a polygraph test on the one recommending. All this based on 1st
>> hand
>> experience over time."
>>
>> ----
>> No info on Hyperlynx.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/9/07, cdomeny <craig.domeny@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> We are considering adding a base-model (<GHz) SI tool to our PCB
>>>
>> design
>>
>>> flow and have looked at Mentor Hyperlynx EXT and Cadence Orcad Sig
>>> Explorer. In research, it seems the Cadence tool does not actually
>>> perform "physical extraction", but is able to do a post-layout
>>>
>> analysis
>>
>>> somehow. Can anyone help?
>>>
>>> Hyperlynx "seems" more mature, but cost ~2X. However, we are concerned
>>> also about post-layout, and if Hyperlynx actually extracts the layout,
>>> it seems like a more robust method.
>>>
>>> Any help, insight, or guidance is appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks, - Craig
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from si-list:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>>
>> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
>> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>>
>> List FAQ wiki page is located at:
>> http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
>>
>> List technical documents are available at:
>> http://www.si-list.org
>>
>> List archives are viewable at: =20
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>> or at our remote archives:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
>> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>> http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>> =20
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from si-list:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>>
>> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
>> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>>
>> List FAQ wiki page is located at:
>> http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
>>
>> List technical documents are available at:
>> http://www.si-list.org
>>
>> List archives are viewable at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>> or at our remote archives:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
>> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>> http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from si-list:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>
> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>
> For help:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>
> List FAQ wiki page is located at:
> http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
>
> List technical documents are available at:
> http://www.si-list.org
>
> List archives are viewable at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
> or at our remote archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
> http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
List FAQ wiki page is located at:
http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
List technical documents are available at:
http://www.si-list.org
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
or at our remote archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
Other related posts:
