Multisim and Ultiboard

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Bugs List - please advise

Hi,

I've been using Multisim/ultiboard for more than a year now (now running v10), and here is a non-exhaustive list of bugs/lacking features that needs to be adressed. I sent this to technical support several months ago now, so I thought that taking a chance with the forums was worth it.

Please note that we run a corporate DB with several user field as we use Multisim to generate complete BOMs for the products we design.

1. User field information lost
The user fields' content disappears when I edit a part and I don't enter the user fields tab

2. Tab order messed up
I really wonder how this is possible for a professionnal software such as Multisim, but the tab order doesn't follow any logic in many forms in the software

3. Components clearances
We NEED the clearances between the parts to be verified (using the Part Spacing properties) when we do DRC checks. I can tell the DRC will report part clearance errors, and sometimes it won't.

4. Ultiboard getting painfully slow after forward annotate
Whenever I do a forward annotate from Multisim, Ultiboard gets very, very slow and I start experimenting connection issues (connections between the planes and traces running into them are intermittent)

5. Wrong forward annotation list
The modifications list that pops in Ultiboard when I do a forward annotation rarely shows the real modifications. Most of the time it's full of items that weren't changed.

6. Footprints name editing issue (Ultiboard)
When I edit the name of a footprint in Ultiboard, pressing the delete key generates a popup that ask to delete the package instead of simply deleting the next character in the name

7. Connectivity check issue
No earlier than this week I discovered on a real board that the connectivity check doesn't report errors for a trace that is connected by a single pixel (which can't, of course, represent a physical connection)

8. Capacitors, inductors and such displayed value issue
I've tried to explain that one several times to technical support. Let me try to put it simply:
  - when one places a capacitor on a schematic, he usually wants to see its VALUE displayed
  - we NEED to use only parts from our corporate database since they contain custom fields information such as the part number, the price, etc.
    and we use the automatically generated BOM report to create our order files
  - when I place a capacitor from the corporate database on a schematic page, it displays its NAME property, not its value. We have to use the part number as a name
    for our parts since there is many capacitors of the same value but with different characteristics
Now, the only way to do this, according to NI, is to open the part properties, deselect display value, and enter a the capacitor's value in the Label field.
It works, for sure, but let me tell you that it's not what I call a productivity gain, even more so that several of the boards we design uses tens and even hundreds of capacitors of
different values. It's painful to do and it's very error prone.

9. Part symbols gets ugly when flipped horizontally
Not a big deal, but still can't be for a professionnal product: when I flip parts in a schematic, the pin numbers and names get misaligned

10. Part selector improvement
We rely heavily on the user fields to carry important information about our parts such as the price, part number, etc. I can tell that it would be very usefull to see those fields displayed in the part selector.

11. Toolbars won't stay in place!
I reorder my toolbars time after time, after time, after time I use Multisim or Ultiboard. Sometimes they are displaced even when I come back to the office the following morning!

12. 3D data
3D is a great feature of Ultiboard. However, it would be a lot more useful if it would be possible to place basic shapes in other plans than X-Y alone

13. Power sources, grounds and offpage connectors
We usually need to rename the powers the give them more meaningful names such as 5V, 5VIsolated, etc. instead of VCC, VDD and such (the same holds for the grounds, the offpage connectors, etc.). Actually we can't copy those objects without losing the name!! It means that we have to re-type the custom name each time, which, again, can very easily leads to errors.
For the same reason, it would be great to be able to copy wire segments that carry a net name.

Well that makes it for now. Last year when I bought Multisim/Ultiboard for my business, I thought it a very promising product, NI releasing a new version soon, reasonable price, some interresting features, pretty much the same issues I exposed here but a lot of promises that they were to be fixed in V10.

Now here I am, still waiting, and seeing that the price for a product that is not fully ready for professionnal use skyrocketed to about 12000$ (CAN)!!! Guys, now your pricing compares with OrCAD's and PAD's, but I don't think the software really does.

Let me be honest: if you think I'm wrong on any issue I submitted here, I will be glad to learn it since it will solve problems that I experiment every day!

Thanks,

Alex
0 Kudos
Message 1 of 23
(4,876 Views)
I thought of two more that were worth mentionning:

14. Value not taken into account when clicking OK
When you edit a pad in the footprint editor and you change its X or Y properties, the value is not taken into account if you directly click OK without previously clicking elsewhere in the dialog box

15. Plane Z-order
We often need to place a plane within a plane (per example a +5V area on a layer that is entirely covered by a ground plane. Since there's no defined z-order for the planes, the last one that was created is the one on top. No need to tell that it creates a few headaches.

Be sure everyone that this is no useless flaming. I really hope that this software will become what it needs to be in order to compare with the top ones of the industry.

Alex
0 Kudos
Message 2 of 23
(4,855 Views)

I don't know if this is of any help to you, but number 11 on your list has been discussed here before. Try re-ordering your toolbars and then immediately shut down multisim and re-start it without doing anything else. This happened to me once and after doing this it never happened again.

I hope maybe that I may have helped in this one issue. I agree that your list should be evaluated by their Tech Dept. so that maybe at least the next version can be improved upon.

Have a nice day.

Kittmaster's Component Database
http://ni.kittmaster.com

Have a Nice Day
0 Kudos
Message 3 of 23
(4,851 Views)
Hi,

I would like to hear from the multisim support team. At least to know if these items are all bugs or if there is a way to work around any of them.

Thanks!

Alex
0 Kudos
Message 4 of 23
(4,773 Views)
Sorry Alex, we should probably had give you an update... we are validating all the issues you listed... we need to be able to reproduce them and we need to check with current builds and bug lists, we are indeed looking at this post and we are trying to get all of the reported items done... we will certainly post a message here once we are finish.
Nestor
0 Kudos
Message 5 of 23
(4,761 Views)

Alex, here are my comments on your 15 points... please let me know if you have further information that can help us on the ones we can't reproduce... please be advised that I am running version 10.0.1, if you are running the original 10.0 you might want to update it... you can download the full installer from:

ftp://ftp.ni.com/support/circuitdesignsuite/10.0.1/NI_Circuit_Design_Suite_10_0_1.exe

1. I tried doing the same, but I was not able to reproduce it. User Fields stay on the same place with the same information, unless I directly delete the information on the user field. I tried with Corporate, User and changing a Master DB component.

2. Please give a detail example, tabs in a dialog, tabs on the workspace, etc. And give a suggestion that we can file. Please clarify for me which sections of the software don't have a tab order that is logic.

3. This is a known issue we are trying to improve. DRC reports components that are overlapping each other, but is not checking for component spacing.

4. Do you have a sample file we can test? Or is there a special change to forward annotate that would cause this?

5. This is a known issue. The forward annotation list shows the complete netlist, inside this list you will find the new changes you are trying to send. We are trying to improve this functionality to make more intuitive.

6. I just filed a defect about this. I agree with you in that pressing the <DEL> key should erase the next character. For some reason the software is not taking the <DEL> key as a text editing command.

7. I filed a feature request for this. Connectivity Checks checks for connectivity, it does not checks for specific connection attributes such as connection thickness, it only checks if there is a copper connection.

8. This has been requested and we are trying to improve it.

9. This has been requested and we are trying to improve it.

10. Actually you can, from the Component Browser when placing parts, you can click the Search button, then you can click the Advanced button, and then check the box Advanced Search Using User Fields.

11. This is something that usually happens when the software has been left open for long periods of time. We are trying to fix it. In the meantime see if Lacy's suggestion (see message above) can help.

12. I filed the feature request for this.

13. This is a feature that has been requested and R&D is working on it.

14. I was not able to reproduce this one. I tried with SMD and THT pads and it works ok.

15. I did not quite understood this one. Tell me if I am wrong, but we are talking about the same layer, you have a power plane and you want to embed a copper area within this plane so lets say you have a rectangle plane for GND and inside this rectangle you want another rectangle but for VCC. I can do that and it works ok, as soon as you place another copper area it splits the previous one and you have one copper area inside the original one... obviously with a voided boundary line. Now, if you are trying to insert a new "layer", then that is not a feature, I filed a feature request for something like that though.

So this are my comments Alex, sorry it took so long but like I said, we take every comment very seriously and we try to make sure we can reproduce any reported error, that we understand any suggestion and that our internal databases have no similar error or feature reported. Let me know if you have further assistance you can give us on those points we were not able to reproduce...

Thanks!

 

Nestor
0 Kudos
Message 6 of 23
(4,744 Views)
One bug I've notice still in 10.0.1 is that when you edit the via pad diameter or drill diameter user field without using the up/down arrows, the numbers are acting as inserts. In other words, if its 23.345435, if I highlight and delete, the number remain > if I try to type a new number like 32 it appends the 32 to the FRONT of the 23.234 number.......???????????????????

In the autorouter, the via cost factor field, the default is set to 15??? but it only displays 5, when you hit the up/down, it 14 13 etc etc and displays right, but when you accept, close and reopen, the cost factor is now 3 instead of 14, 14 etc......


Signature: Looking for a footprint, component, model? Might be here > http://ni.kittmaster.com
0 Kudos
Message 7 of 23
(4,733 Views)
Hi,

Thank you for your reply. Here are my comments on the status of these bugs:

>>1. User field information lost
>>The user fields' content disappears when I edit a part and I don't enter the user fields tab

This bug is no longer there in 10.0.1

>>2. Tab order messed up
>>I really wonder how this is possible for a professionnal software such as Multisim, but the tab order doesn't follow any logic in many forms in the software

Best example I can give is in Ultiboard --> Footprint Edit Mode --> SMT Pin Properties --> General Tab
As for the order I suggest, usually the tab order goes from top to bottom, section by section. If you try that dialog box, I'm convinced you'll see immediately what I'm complaining about.
This is the one I noticed because I use it very often, but I suggest that you verify the tab order for all the dialogs. I won't do it myself because this would be quite time consuming and I think that it is your responsability to do it.

>>3. Components clearances
>>We NEED the clearances between the parts to be verified (using the Part Spacing properties) when we do DRC checks. I can tell the DRC will report part clearance errors, and >> sometimes it won't.

I'm glad to know that this is already in your priorities.

>>4. Ultiboard getting painfully slow after forward annotate
>>Whenever I do a forward annotate from Multisim, Ultiboard gets very, very slow and I start experimenting connection issues (connections between the planes and traces running >> into them are intermittent)

The only thing I can tell you is that the file that creates the problem is medium-sized (~400 components) and has multiple planes. When I have done a forward annotation, it takes up to 3 secondes to move a component (counting between the time I release the component and the time the software unfreezes). As soon as I close the file and open it again, moving a component becomes instantaneous.
If you really need a demo file, then you can contact me by email.

>>5. Wrong forward annotation list
>>The modifications list that pops in Ultiboard when I do a forward annotation rarely shows the real modifications. Most of the time it's full of items that weren't changed.

OK.

6. Footprints name editing issue (Ultiboard)
When I edit the name of a footprint in Ultiboard, pressing the delete key generates a popup that ask to delete the package instead of simply deleting the next character in the name

OK.

>>7. Connectivity check issue
>>No earlier than this week I discovered on a real board that the connectivity check doesn't report errors for a trace that is connected by a single pixel (which can't, of course, represent a physical connection)

I understand that the Connectivity Check does not verify the actual thickness of the connection. A nice feature would be to be able to specify the minimum thickness to consider a connection as valid. However, it is absolutely sure that a single-pixel connection shouldn't be considered valid.



>>8. Capacitors, inductors and such displayed value issue
>>I've tried to explain that one several times to technical support. Let me try to put it simply:
>> - when one places a capacitor on a schematic, he usually wants to see its VALUE displayed
>> - we NEED to use only parts from our corporate database since they contain custom fields information such as the part number, the price, etc.
>>   and we use the automatically generated BOM report to create our order files
>> - when I place a capacitor from the corporate database on a schematic page, it displays its NAME property, not its value. We have to use the part number as a name
>>   for our parts since there is many capacitors of the same value but with different characteristics
>>Now, the only way to do this, according to NI, is to open the part properties, deselect display value, and enter a the capacitor's value in the Label field.
>>It works, for sure, but let me tell you that it's not what I call a productivity gain, even more so that several of the boards we design uses tens and even hundreds of capacitors of
>>different values. It's painful to do and it's very error prone.

OK. I think that this one is quite important.

>>9. Part symbols gets ugly when flipped horizontally
>>Not a big deal, but still can't be for a professionnal product: when I flip parts in a schematic, the pin numbers and names get misaligned

OK.

>>10. Part selector improvement
>>We rely heavily on the user fields to carry important information about our parts such as the price, part number, etc. I can tell that it would be very usefull to see those fields displayed in the part selector.

I know that I can search through the properties, but it would be still usefull to see the user fields in the main part placement dialog. If per example I want to pick up the cheapeast capacitor of a given value in our library, I can't really do it now. I would have to place each capacitor on the schematic in order to compare their price afterwards. Knowing that the price of a product must always be minimized, I'm sure that you will agree that this is an usefull feature!

>>11. Toolbars won't stay in place!
>>I reorder my toolbars time after time, after time, after time I use Multisim or Ultiboard. Sometimes they are displaced even when I come back to the office the following morning!

OK.

>>12. 3D data
>>3D is a great feature of Ultiboard. However, it would be a lot more useful if it would be possible to place basic shapes in other plans than X-Y alone

OK. With this improvement, this would give Ultiboard an edge, in my humble opinion.

>>13. Power sources, grounds and offpage connectors
>>We usually need to rename the powers the give them more meaningful names such as 5V, 5VIsolated, etc. instead of VCC, VDD and such (the same holds for the grounds, the >>offpage connectors, etc.). Actually we can't copy those objects without losing the name!! It means that we have to re-type the custom name each time, which, again, can very easily leads to errors.
>>For the same reason, it would be great to be able to copy wire segments that carry a net name.

OK. I think that this one is major also, because it is very error prone to rename the nets each time we copy it.

>>14. Value not taken into account when clicking OK
>>When you edit a pad in the footprint editor and you change its X or Y properties, the value is not taken into account if you directly click OK without previously clicking elsewhere in the dialog box

This bug is gone in 10.0.1. Good!

>>15. Plane Z-order
>>We often need to place a plane within a plane (per example a +5V area on a layer that is entirely covered by a ground plane. Since there's no defined z-order for the planes, the last one that was created is the one on top. No need to tell that it creates a few headaches.

It is sometimes desirable, when you have several planes that overlap, to be able to determine which one has the priority over the others. This is why I suggest a Z-order property. However, there was a bug in 10.0.0 that made some planes of different nets fuse together. This bug is now gone in 10.0.1.

Thank you,

Alex
0 Kudos
Message 8 of 23
(4,696 Views)
Hi,

I've just found out bug #16, new in 10.0.1

16. Can't specify Reference Designators with more than 1 letter
When you create a new family (or you want to change an old family, for that matters), you can't specify a default reference designator with more than 1 letter (ex. TR? for transformers)

Thanks,

Alex
0 Kudos
Message 9 of 23
(4,686 Views)
Hi,

Here is bug #17:

17. Vertical and horizontal swap error in Footprint Edit Mode
In the footprint edit mode, you'll notice that the horizontal swap command actually does a vertical swap and vice versa.

Is it possible for the NI staff to acknowledge that these new bugs were seen and will be taken care of?

Thanks,

Alex
0 Kudos
Message 10 of 23
(4,665 Views)