On Mar 15, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Dan McMahill wrote:
>>> I spend a *lot* of time looking at simulator output and some of the things
>>> which are used over and over again are easy interactive zoom in/out,
>>> panning at a fixed zoom, putting cursors on waveforms that will lock onto
>>> the actual datapoints, having delta cursors, and having a flexible and
>>> *extensible* waveform calculator. The types of postprocessing range from
>>> the very simple (out_plus - out-minus) to more complex but standard like an
>>> fft to fairly complex custom functions.
>> Good heavens. That's the sort of stuff I do with a digitizing
>> oscilloscope. I could never imagine doing that with simulator output.
>
> I think your 2nd sentence hits the nail on the head. Simulator output can be
> for 2 things.
>
> 1) presentation like in a design review or a paper. When you get here,
> you're supposed to be "done"
>
> 2) this one is where the majority of the time is typically spent. debugging!
> Is the circuit hooked up right? Is it performing right? Why isn't it
> working right, why isn't it performing at the level you want. So think of
> the simulator and waveform viewer as a scope and a spectrum and network
> analyzer. The interactivity needs to be as easy in a waveform tool as it is
> in a scope. Since you have the disadvantages of model inaccuracies and
> simulation time being much longer than real time you want to further
> disadvantage yourself and you should take advantage of the zero-capacitance
> voltage probes, ideal current probes, gnucaps ability to access internals
> like diode junction current versus the charging current, etc.
>
> so why not do this with simulator output?
This makes perfect sense of course. It's just that I've never even dreamed
of doing that
with a simulator. The concept just makes my head spin...in a good way. :)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
