IDE with emulation!

[T.Jackson]

Like it, love it or even hate it! It's what's destined for pretty much everything in the not too distant future. Most people have already started to welcome it.
It has only just started...

How can it reduce development cost?

1. Less time. Fewer overheads.
2. Fewer errors.
3. No need for developers to maintain an inventory of parts.
4. Existing designs are much more easily maintained.
5. Less staff (don’t know if this is such a good thing for society)

Best Regards,

Trent Jackson

[skimask]

Like it, love it or even hate it! It's what's destined for pretty much everything in the not too distant future. Most people have already started to welcome it.
It has only just started...

How can it reduce development cost?

1. Less time. Fewer overheads.
2. Fewer errors.
3. No need for developers to maintain an inventory of parts.
4. Existing designs are much more easily maintained.
5. Less staff (don’t know if this is such a good thing for society)

Best Regards,

Trent Jackson

Agree with mister_e 99%. Simulators might be a good 1st step, but that's it, an initial 1st step to see if an idea might even be remotely feasible. Relying on a simulator in my mind is false economy. 2nd step straight to the prototyping stage, not straight to a production PCB.

[T.Jackson]

Agree with mister_e 99%. Simulators might be a good 1st step, but that's it, an initial 1st step to see if an idea might even be remotely feasible. Relying on a simulator in my mind is false economy. 2nd step straight to the prototyping stage, not straight to a production PCB.

I have about 10 years of expertise with electronics and computers. There's a heck of a lot that I know and an equal amount that I don't. Over the years I have had a dozen projects published in the Silicon Chip magazine, and I've also been employed as an electronics technician in some previous job roles.

Often the people that I’ve worked around have reminded me that a lot of professional design engineers take their initial schematic and go straight to PCB. In my first technical role with a company called BEAR Solutions, I once threw my hands in the air offering to prototype some of their designs. In my spare time even. I figured I'd learn a thing or two. The response was very clear. We go straight to PCB; if the design needs corrections we simply modify the layout and request another 1 off board from our suppliers.

Economically this can work well, but only if you plan on ordering a specific quantity after the design has been perfected. At worst you'll be up for the tooling fee. Some manufactures may write this amount off or bury it somewhere into the actual total cost. Of course though, if your production runs small, or you have extreme doubts with the integrity / workability of your design, then this may not be a feasible approach. There’s a big difference between R&D and setting out to produce a product that uses known to be good and working technology.

All told, if you know exactly what you're doing then there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to go straight to PCB. (*Sure wish I did)

Best Regards,

Trent Jackson

[malc-c]

We go straight to PCB; if the design needs corrections we simply modify the layout and request another 1 off board from our suppliers.

So you could end up with half a dozen PCB's that are of no use what so ever and have costed you a small fortune for one off runs.. not to mention the time wasted in lead time from the PCB house. This would be fine if you worked in a multi-million pound company, but for hobby or small companies I still feel that breadboarding first is the way to go.

I used to work for a national defence organisation in the UK, and spent a lot of time in the labs with the engineers and designers. They would often supply me with the probervial "design on the back of an envelope" and I would first build the circuit on some strip board - they would then test it to see if it works as they predicted, and then it would be passed for prototyping - once the prototype board was etched and tested the first revison batch of PCBs were made. By the time the whole project had been researched and developed and then put forward for production the revison of the PCB may of changed five fold, but originally the concept was prototyped on a breadboard / stripboard first.

For hobby use - can't see the point of using a simulator. Breadboard the circuit, and test in the real world. Then build a prototype PCB and test that - it it works add the glitter round the edges (logo etc) and publish !

[T.Jackson]

If you anticipated on this then going straight to PCB isn’t for you. In fact, the anticipation of ending up with half a dozen unsuccessful attempts clearly spells out that there must be a lot of uncertainty in the design. Possibly due to the fact that it might be a large-scale project, or just a whole heap of research and development that’s required.

Consider this scenario:
You design say 5 new projects every month. On average, 20 discrete logic IC’s, Z80 microcontroller, 50 passive components to boot…

Now, in the real-World implementation phase you have 1 of 2 choices.

A) Employ someone to prototype it. Skilled person required. Might take possibly a week to Vero-board it.

B) Double check, TRIPPLE check your work and go straight to PCB.
Board comes back from the manufacture, fill it, solder it, test it and you’re done. Few hours work. Possibility you might get it the first time? For someone who really knows their stuff, yes I believe so.

Tooling fee is about $100. Of course though, this arrangement would only work if your design used existing technology. Otherwise there would be too much guess work involved and I would agree with your argument entirely.

Best Regards,
Trent Jackson

[T.Jackson]

Another worthwhile mention is that, if a circuit works on vero or breadboard, it doesn’t necessarily guarantee that it will work as planed on a PCB. Conductors have both capacitance and resistance attributes which can effect the proper operation of many circuits. In particular with RF and audio designs. Even some digital too.

Poorly designed audio is very distinctly noticeable to the human ear - noise introduced perhaps because of an earth loop - while RF based designs may often just refuse to work. Another consideration is track width on a PCB, you may have used heavy-duty hookup wire for these parts on some vero-board, works fine perhaps, but on the PCB the width may be insufficient to handle the amount of required current.

Plus…
On breadboard or vero the design may work well, perhaps because of the exact layout of the components? When you take it to PCB it might produce an adverse result because you changed things. If this is the case then you have effectively taken a step backwards.

All told, if what you’re doing now seems to work well for you then don’t change it. Better the devil you know. I am a firm believer in this entirely.

Best Regards,
Trent Jackson

[vacpress]

t. jackson..

checkout 'proteus', it is a fairly cool program that 'has every component', emulates PICs, etc. and it is almost useless except as an education or schematic capture program. this isnt your fault, i know, but it is the way it is. Apparently some people use In Circuit Emulation, which is beyond me right now. Maybe you should go checkout some really expensive tools at microchip.com.

however, just wait till you need a component not in the library, then you get to learn all about SPICE models. Then imagine, you dont own protron, you own PBP.. hehe.. whoops.

why are you berating people here about direct to PCB? I have worked a few places also.. At least one huge multinational.. In engineering.. (Not electronics).

Some projects we had lots of boards comming in, sometimes a few a week. Other times it was wirewrap..Not much breadboarding, admitadely.. Another good example of 'people who know what they are doing' is in university.. They work out their complex physics stuff on breadboards often.

Furthermore, this work style you are talking about is really geared to companies with a product range they have worked on for some time, so they have existing design experience particular to the type of design they are doing..


Your condescending tone is worthless in comparison to the friendly and obvious excellence of the people who are debating with you.

[Luciano]

Another worthwhile mention is that, if a circuit works on vero or breadboard, it doesn’t necessarily guarantee that it will work as planed on a PCB. Conductors have both capacitance and resistance attributes which can effect the proper operation of many circuits. In particular with RF and audio designs. Even some digital too.

Poorly designed audio is very distinctly noticeable to the human ear - noise introduced perhaps because of an earth loop - while RF based designs may often just refuse to work. Another consideration is track width on a PCB, you may have used heavy-duty hookup wire for these parts on some vero-board, works fine perhaps, but on the PCB the width may be insufficient to handle the amount of required current.

Plus…
On breadboard or vero the design may work well, perhaps because of the exact layout of the components? When you take it to PCB it might produce an adverse result because you changed things. If this is the case then you have effectively taken a step backwards.

Hi Trent,

All that applies also if you simulate your circuit on the screen of a PC.

Best regards,

Luciano