Multisim and Ultiboard Idea Exchange

Community Browser
About Multisim and Ultiboard Idea Exchange
Do you have an idea for how to improve Multisim and Ultiboard? Submit and vote on ideas now!

  1. Browse by label or search in the Multisim and Ultiboard Idea Exchange to see if your idea has previously been submitted. If it has, be sure to vote for the idea by giving it kudos to indicate your approval!
  2. If your idea has not been submitted click the New Idea button to submit a product idea. Be sure to submit a separate post for each idea.
  3. Watch as the community gives your idea kudos and adds their input.
  4. As NI R&D considers the idea, they will change its status.
  5. Give kudos to other ideas that you would like to see in a future version of Multisim!

The Multisim and Ultiboard R&D team is committed to reviewing every idea submitted via the Multisim and Ultiboard Idea Exchange. However, we cannot guarantee the implementation of any Multisim & Ultiboard Idea Exchange submission.

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Post an idea

It would be nice to have  align-bottons to align the parts. Like Ultiboard or LabView!

 Ultiboard's single interface for layout and simulation with ultiboard's new parts spice model library and all the test instuments from multisim
Status: New    
by Member dubmaster ‎02-19-2016 12:18 PM - edited ‎02-19-2016 12:22 PM

Set up ultiboard with all the test instruments and spice models  like multisim. You would do away with multisim and develope a single interface within ultiboard to simulate and design and layout ....

 
You would place the parts on the board, i.e. transformer ,diode caps wire them  like you do in multisim, place test instrument ...

 
This would save time because you would place parts where the are to be , have the ability to run simulation within ultiboard  single interface ..

 
Place a 741 op amp from the ultiboard library that would have the foot print and spice model with in ultiboard , place the feed back resistor ..

 

 

It kinda make no sense to lay out twice , once in multisim , then ultiboard , the single interface would be king..

 

The New symbol

 

UBNS.png

 

The Scientist

 

http://www.dubmusic.com/thescientist/youtube/p=2

Update Multisim Touch to take advantage of iOS 9 side-by-side multitasking features.

Hello 

 

is it possible to do ? -

ZOOM SHEET - F7  - to apply to all active sheets and sub sheets together.

 

 

if it is not now, it would be nice to have in next revision

 

thanks

 

Michael

I'd like to see a panelization option in Ultiboard, perhaps similar to the one in Altium (http://wiki.altium.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4426668). Preferably with an option to panelize multiple different designs onto a single panel, choice of V-groove's / scoring, break-off tabs, etc.

 

Ben

 

There are much more footprints of connectors available in Ultiboard than in Multisim. To create a correct circuit diagramm I need the same foortprints in Multisim. There are not enough connectors in Multisim.

It would be very helpful to have all the connectors in Multisim too!

In Ultiboard it is possible to export a 3D IGES, but it is not possible to import these 3D IGES files in to Solid Edge or Solid Works. It would be a big improvement of Ultiboard if this was possible in the next update.

Hi,

 

the idea is that the colors of nets in Multisim will be automatically set for different nets. For example the ground net will automatically be black, the power supply (plus) red and so on... Maybe there is a way to save the user's preference in a config-file?

 

Thanks a lot

Jan

By default the soldermask Top and Bottom for a troughhole Via in Ultiboard are checked. It would be nice if I could select in the global preferences or PCB proberties of Ultiboard what I want for default for all the via's I place on the design.

Now, when my design is ready I have to think that I should uncheck the soldermask Top and Bottom of all via's on the design and when I did that and place a via the soldermask for this new placed via is checked for Top and Bottom.

0 Kudos

 

In a recent design I had rule violations I was not aware of until ordering boards because teardrops added in did not generate errors on spacing violations, even when they were causing a direct short.  I would have to consider this a significant defect in UB.

UB14.1 Win10 64b

 

Discussion and spacing violation with no errors shown here:

https://forums.ni.com/t5/Multisim-and-Ultiboard/Teardrops-and-design-rule-errors/td-p/3684720

0 Kudos

The only way to do a horizontal cylinder is a resistor body between pins.  Often other configurations of horizontal cylinders are needed.  i.e. tubular radial resistor that lays over on it's side, some relay bodies, and various mechanical objects that don't have axial electrical pins. 

 

I've had to resort to horizontal rectangles to do this, which does not convey the image very accurately.

0 Kudos

Since netnames, power supply names and sheet connector names are not actually parts there is no conflict for naming a refdes the same as one of these.  I believe this used to be OK in some previous version of MS.

 

This would be very useful for test point parts.

 

Does anyone even read these ideas?

 

0 Kudos

The following problem has been detected in Labview communication with Multisim:
When a new instance of Multisim is connected to Labview, and several operations are performed on it, the time it takes to do these operations increases progressively each time an operation is repeated. The time increases in each and every one of the operations that are performed on the open instance: measure, place components, etc ... The increase of time is significant since an operation that first time takes 0.5 seconds after several repetitions can take more than 5 seconds.
A temporary solution until you fix the problem is to close the connection with Multisim and re-instantiate a new connection.

0 Kudos

This is not the first time this suggestion has been forwarded to NI. The process of semiconductor component selection in Msim is BACKWARDS. Components are frequently chosen to base a design upon because they are available, the price is right, already in stock, etc. Quite frequently these parts are not found in the component library. There is no way to identify which components in the library may be used as a satisfactory replacement for simulation purposes without going back to a vendor site (NI preferred vendor obviously because those vendor's parts are what's in the NI library.....) and start a tiresome search for a compatible part and whether or not it is in the NI library. That's a ridiculous process and waste of time. This request is to expand the NI semiconductor component library databases to include key semiconductor criteria, depending on device type of course,  such as hfe & HFE, Ft, leakage, capacitance/switching time, Vsat, Vf, Vgt, Igt, Ih, It, IDSS, RDS, channel mode, Vz, Iz and so forth. There should be little difficulty obtaining this from your vendor library sources and associating a part number with it's key criteria just as the vendor does to make part selection possible.

0 Kudos

There are certain types of semiconductors (such as thyristors) which fail to operate correctly or cause errors/crash unless specific simulation settings are chosen. The requirements for these settings are made known by NI techs after sending them the circuit (which works fine on the bench). Avoid having to go through NI tech support for these types of components to make known good designs operate correctly under simulation by adding the simulation settings criteria to a configuration file that associates the settings with the troublesome components and alerts the user to the requirement thus avoiding a negative simulation experience requiring tech support for the unsuspecting user. It could be a flag added to the model.

0 Kudos

When I perform any analysis, all the selected output variables are plotted on the same graph, this is good for most of the times, but sometimes I desire them to be plotted on separate graph (but on same graph page) for easy comparison and I know this can be done by copying the original graph and paste it on the same page and then deselect the unwanted variables, which is tedious work.

 

In the screen-shots,

 

Screenshot_2: Circuit diagram of 3-phase voltage.Screenshot_2.png

 

Screenshot_3: What multisim does by default - Plotted all the variables on same graph (which is good most of the times!)

Screenshot_3.png

 

Screenshot_4: I manually separated the plots by copy-paste the graph on same graph page and deselect the unwanted variables, looks good! (but tedious)

Screenshot_4.png

 

Screenshot_5: Disadvantage is - If you zoom in to one graph, the same won't be affected on the other two, one way is to manually copy the graph properties and paste in onto other, but again you will also end up in having same variable selected (red one). 

Screenshot_5.png

 

All together it will be a tedious task if one has to plot many such graph and use zoom feature regularly.

 

So I request the NI team to provide an additional option to plot the variables on separate graphs on the same graph page. User should be able to change the bottom axis range of all graph simultaneously for easy comparison and zoom feature must work for all the graphs simultaneously. Also provide same cursor for all the graph plots.

 

 

0 Kudos

Having spoken to customer support, it would be useful for Multisim to have an automated function whereby it checks if a component in a design is in the corporate database.

 

There is a function for updating components, which would bring designs from older databases or that have been created without the current corporate database to be updated. However any components that aren't in the database are simply ignored.

 

Is it possible to have the functionality to somehow point out that a component in a design is not in the database. Without having to individually go through and check?

0 Kudos

It would be nice if the mask would show up in the 3D view of the board.  This would greatly help prevent forgotten or misplaced soldier mask areas when looking at the board in 3D. 

0 Kudos

Can Multisim do a temperature sweep in DC analysis? If not, this should be added

0 Kudos

I'd like to have an option for automatically exporting simulation results to a selected file format, including automated resampling to a desired sampling rate. This is related to this previous idea. Preferably Multisim would also automatically discard the exported results from the memory.

 

I'd like to be able to set a large number of simulations to run, possibly including a wide range of parameter combinations through the parameter sweep analysis, and have the simulations run and be automatically exported to a selected output format without user interference.

 

Due to the memory handling issue I mentioned in the post linked above, I can currently only run simulations one by one manually saving the results in between. With an automated export I could leave the computer to run the desired combinations during nighttime and have it discard the exported results from memory, allowing the next set of simulations to run.