Maker Pro
Maker Pro

What's missing from manufacturer websites?

R

Richard H.

Jan 1, 1970
0
<long-winded>
Why don't manufacturers don't offer device libraries? Surely they've
got the most to gain by making it easy to drop-in their products. Maybe
they don't think it's a factor in product selection; maybe they're
right. (I'm not just talking about the package footprint, but the pin
assignments, ERC attributes, etc.)

It sounds common to set aside a library of "trusted" devices that
survived a board spin without a glaring defect. I don't know that I'd
change this approach, but I'd trust a library from the manufacturer more
than one created from a datasheet by me or the EDA vendor.

What about devices for Spice models? I'm not a Spice user (yet), but
this is something else that's traded on the underground instead of just
provided by the manufacturers...


I talked recently with the (marketing) guy that owns the website for a
large mfr. They're re-designing the site to be more "designer-centric",
and shoving the marketing / corporate glitz to the background, which
seems like a smart move. They claim to be doing the whole thing based
on focus groups with real designers, supposedly even ignoring internal
opinions. I'll be interested to see the result.

I mentioned the idea of providing device libraries for download, and he
swears not one person mentioned it as a nice-to-have during their
research. Is this just so status-quo that nobody thinks to ask for
them, or am I missing something?

Richard
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
<long-winded>
Why don't manufacturers don't offer device libraries?
[snip]

What about devices for Spice models? I'm not a Spice user (yet), but
this is something else that's traded on the underground instead of just
provided by the manufacturers...

[snip]

I mentioned the idea of providing device libraries for download, and he
swears not one person mentioned it as a nice-to-have during their
research. Is this just so status-quo that nobody thinks to ask for
them, or am I missing something?

Richard

I suspect that the use of simulators is NOT as universal as you might
think... particularly with designers using off-the-shelf IC's.

The heavy-duty users of simulators are mostly microchip designers.

...Jim Thompson
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
<long-winded>
Why don't manufacturers don't offer device libraries?

[snip]

What about devices for Spice models? I'm not a Spice user (yet), but
this is something else that's traded on the underground instead of just
provided by the manufacturers...


[snip]

I mentioned the idea of providing device libraries for download, and he
swears not one person mentioned it as a nice-to-have during their
research. Is this just so status-quo that nobody thinks to ask for
them, or am I missing something?

Richard


I suspect that the use of simulators is NOT as universal as you might
think... particularly with designers using off-the-shelf IC's.

The heavy-duty users of simulators are mostly microchip designers.

...Jim Thompson

This is partly a positive-feedback effect. Op amps and so forth do
exactly what you expect except when they don't, and the crummy
macromodels that manufacturers shovel out are no help, because they crap
out even sooner. They don't predict the details of slew limiting
correctly, nor CMR problems, just for a start. Last time I used them
(admittedly awhile back) only National's included input capacitance, and
none had good noise models. I did once extract a typical value for
input capacitance for an LF357, which wasn't in the datasheet, but that
was by *reading* the macromodel, not by executing it. Still, that shows
that they're not *entirely* useless.

When pressed, the chip house will always say that a transistor-level
simulation would run too slowly. This is of course a fib, because
they've been saying the same thing for 15 years at least, during which
time op amp complexity hasn't increased that dramatically, whereas
computing power has got quite a bit cheaper. The reality is that
device-level models would reveal more about the chip internals than
they'd like. Device level simulations are quite different, but those
are mainly used by chip designers, as you say.

The result is that the usual models are useless for simulations
requiring accuracy, so their only remaining use is as a substitute for
thought.

Cheers,

Phil "do the algebra" Hobbs
 
P

Pooh Bear

Jan 1, 1970
0
Richard H. said:
<long-winded>
Why don't manufacturers don't offer device libraries? Surely they've
got the most to gain by making it easy to drop-in their products. Maybe
they don't think it's a factor in product selection; maybe they're
right. (I'm not just talking about the package footprint, but the pin
assignments, ERC attributes, etc.)

I'd have been happy yesterday if Epcos's site recognised the part number
I'd got from a distributor !

After some guesswork, I found a similar series part with a part number 1
digit out but 'not recommended for new designs'.

It's rubbish if the distributors have the new part but you can't find the
data for it on the manufacturer's site .

Graham
 
P

Paul Burke

Jan 1, 1970
0
Manufacturers are driven by that ONE custeomer who is going to buy 10
million units. That customer will get right royal treatment. Application
engineers will design and debug the circuit for them, create device
libraries etc. etc., and wipe their arse too. The rest of us are lucky
to be allowed to buy a few.

Paul Burke
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hello Paul,
Manufacturers are driven by that ONE custeomer who is going to buy 10
million units. That customer will get right royal treatment. Application
engineers will design and debug the circuit for them, create device
libraries etc. etc., and wipe their arse too. The rest of us are lucky
to be allowed to buy a few.

Companies that subscribe to that mantra usually get choked to death soon
by a few of those "select customers", for example from the cut-throat
automotive sector. Ignoring young start-ups can lead to a quick puff of
smoke. On the stock market.

There is a reason which TI and others are doing well while Infineon
often complains about their biz.

Regards, Joerg
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hello Graham,
I'd have been happy yesterday if Epcos's site recognised the part number
I'd got from a distributor !

After some guesswork, I found a similar series part with a part number 1
digit out but 'not recommended for new designs'.

It's rubbish if the distributors have the new part but you can't find the
data for it on the manufacturer's site .

With European companies I found that to be pretty common. A few times I
had to Google for one of their parts and then could only find the data
sheet on some Russian site. Pathetic. IMHO a lot of the top S&M staff at
those companies needs to be let go and replaced. If I would be in charge
there wouldn't even be severance payments beyond what is required by law.

Regards, Joerg
 
M

martin griffith

Jan 1, 1970
0
<long-winded>
Why don't manufacturers don't offer device libraries? Surely they've
got the most to gain by making it easy to drop-in their products. Maybe
they don't think it's a factor in product selection; maybe they're
right. (I'm not just talking about the package footprint, but the pin
assignments, ERC attributes, etc.)

It sounds common to set aside a library of "trusted" devices that
survived a board spin without a glaring defect. I don't know that I'd
change this approach, but I'd trust a library from the manufacturer more
than one created from a datasheet by me or the EDA vendor.

What about devices for Spice models? I'm not a Spice user (yet), but
this is something else that's traded on the underground instead of just
provided by the manufacturers...


I talked recently with the (marketing) guy that owns the website for a
large mfr. They're re-designing the site to be more "designer-centric",
and shoving the marketing / corporate glitz to the background, which
seems like a smart move. They claim to be doing the whole thing based
on focus groups with real designers, supposedly even ignoring internal
opinions. I'll be interested to see the result.

I mentioned the idea of providing device libraries for download, and he
swears not one person mentioned it as a nice-to-have during their
research. Is this just so status-quo that nobody thinks to ask for
them, or am I missing something?

Richard
Slightly OT, but I find connectors are a PITA,recently I was trying to
layout a PCB for an EDAC516(?) connector, why don't they post a gerber
file that I can import into my PCB prog? preferably in the simplest
minimalist format. DXF files seem to screw my ancient Accel /altium
software.

Then I was trying to pick a D type from the Cannon range, jeez, 10
MBytes PDF file, 301 pages of options from the 1998 Dtype download.

I JUST WANT A D TYPE FOOTPRINT...........(that i can trust)
Or that ferrite pot core pinout, with all the pins tilted at 45degrees
to reality
</rant>


martin
 
Top