From Friday, April 19th (11:00 PM CDT) through Saturday, April 20th (2:00 PM CDT), 2024, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.
We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page
bug list - updated
alexbilo
Member
08-22-2007 02:42 PM
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report to a Moderator
Hi,
Since I have to add a severe bug to the list today, I thought that updating the old list could be a good idea.
First thing first, the bug:
Bug #19: When using the map pins tool, the pin mapping isn't saved properly.
I created a 64 pins part yesterday, and I used the map pins tool. When I finished, the mapping was all properly displayed in the Symbol Pin to Footprint Pin Mapping Table (Footprint tab). I saved the part in the database, and then, all the mapping information was lost. When I re-edited the part, all the mapping was lost, and what's even worse, it contained erroneous data (footprint pins were reattributed in numerical order).
Then, the list. I also seperated it between the features and the bugs:
BUGS
>>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
Unknown status.
>>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.
Still open, filed. Severe.
>>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)
Unknown status.
>>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.
Still open, filed.
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
Still open, filed.
>>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)
Still open, filed. Severe.
>>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.
Still open, filed.
>>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!
Still open, filed.
>>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.
Still open, filed.
>>18. Clearances aren't always transferred from Multisim to Ultiboard
>>When you edit the clearances of a net in Multisim, the changes doesn't get transferred if this is the only modification that was done on this net. If you change a connection on the >>net, however, the clearances get transferred properly.
Unknown status. Severe.
19. When using the map pins tool, the pin mapping isn't saved properly.
I created a 64 pins part yesterday, and I used the map pins tool. When I finished, the mapping was all properly displayed in the Symbol Pin to Footprint Pin Mapping Table (Footprint tab). I saved the part in the database, and then, all the mapping information was lost. When I re-edited the part, all the mapping was lost, and what's even worse, it contained erroneous data (footprint pins were reattributed in numerical order).
New. Severe.
FEATURES
>>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
Still open, filed.
>>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.
Still open, filed.
>>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
Still open, filed.
>>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.
Still open, filed. Important feature.
>>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)
Still open, filed.
>>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.
Still open, filed.
Since I have to add a severe bug to the list today, I thought that updating the old list could be a good idea.
First thing first, the bug:
Bug #19: When using the map pins tool, the pin mapping isn't saved properly.
I created a 64 pins part yesterday, and I used the map pins tool. When I finished, the mapping was all properly displayed in the Symbol Pin to Footprint Pin Mapping Table (Footprint tab). I saved the part in the database, and then, all the mapping information was lost. When I re-edited the part, all the mapping was lost, and what's even worse, it contained erroneous data (footprint pins were reattributed in numerical order).
Then, the list. I also seperated it between the features and the bugs:
BUGS
>>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
Unknown status.
>>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.
Still open, filed. Severe.
>>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)
Unknown status.
>>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.
Still open, filed.
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
Still open, filed.
>>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)
Still open, filed. Severe.
>>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.
Still open, filed.
>>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!
Still open, filed.
>>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.
Still open, filed.
>>18. Clearances aren't always transferred from Multisim to Ultiboard
>>When you edit the clearances of a net in Multisim, the changes doesn't get transferred if this is the only modification that was done on this net. If you change a connection on the >>net, however, the clearances get transferred properly.
Unknown status. Severe.
19. When using the map pins tool, the pin mapping isn't saved properly.
I created a 64 pins part yesterday, and I used the map pins tool. When I finished, the mapping was all properly displayed in the Symbol Pin to Footprint Pin Mapping Table (Footprint tab). I saved the part in the database, and then, all the mapping information was lost. When I re-edited the part, all the mapping was lost, and what's even worse, it contained erroneous data (footprint pins were reattributed in numerical order).
New. Severe.
FEATURES
>>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
Still open, filed.
>>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.
Still open, filed.
>>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
Still open, filed.
>>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.
Still open, filed. Important feature.
>>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)
Still open, filed.
>>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.
Still open, filed.
Euler's_Identit
Active Participant
08-26-2007 08:40 AM
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report to a Moderator
I, for one, appreciate your contribution to this forum.
I haven't used Ultiboard since my initial purchase of it many many years ago. (MultiSim was bad enough. I wasn't about to start fighting with UltiBoard also.) However, it's of note how may bugs you have open/unsolved. MultiSim Inc has definitely not done its homework. In my case, that's not so much of a loss, but based on what you're saying, you actually have to use this thing to make money! That stinks!
I have little grounds for filing suit, as I've taken little risk; although, I can't tell you how many hours I've burned trying to figure out MultiSim's latest burp, that's hardly grounds for benefit from a suit. But you however, you're losing money! I'm thinking that the "at your own risk" in the fine print is MultiSim's out, but this is just wrong, the way this company is. This program just doesn't work and it looks like little can be done about it.
I thought that National Instruments' involvement would get some where with this program, but thus far that's proving to be an error on my part. My latest bug is the inclusion of MultiSim's multimeter causes a circuit to stop simulating. I mean how ridiculous is that?! But at least when MultiSim burps for me I'm not losing money, just time.
Thanks again for starting this thread!
I haven't used Ultiboard since my initial purchase of it many many years ago. (MultiSim was bad enough. I wasn't about to start fighting with UltiBoard also.) However, it's of note how may bugs you have open/unsolved. MultiSim Inc has definitely not done its homework. In my case, that's not so much of a loss, but based on what you're saying, you actually have to use this thing to make money! That stinks!
I have little grounds for filing suit, as I've taken little risk; although, I can't tell you how many hours I've burned trying to figure out MultiSim's latest burp, that's hardly grounds for benefit from a suit. But you however, you're losing money! I'm thinking that the "at your own risk" in the fine print is MultiSim's out, but this is just wrong, the way this company is. This program just doesn't work and it looks like little can be done about it.
I thought that National Instruments' involvement would get some where with this program, but thus far that's proving to be an error on my part. My latest bug is the inclusion of MultiSim's multimeter causes a circuit to stop simulating. I mean how ridiculous is that?! But at least when MultiSim burps for me I'm not losing money, just time.
Thanks again for starting this thread!
kittmaster
Active Participant
08-26-2007 09:11 AM - edited 08-26-2007 09:11 AM
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report to a Moderator
The problem is the repair cycle time is to slow. Fixing something every six months is completely unacceptable. Cadence and Protel have very short cycle times when bugs or major issues arise.
I would recommend NI consider a way to develop incremental update routines to fix these things issues. My other issue is that they never ever have timelines of when these issues are to be addressed or corrected. I find that very disturbing.
I would recommend NI consider a way to develop incremental update routines to fix these things issues. My other issue is that they never ever have timelines of when these issues are to be addressed or corrected. I find that very disturbing.
Message Edited by kittmaster on 08-26-2007 09:11 AM
lacy
Active Participant
08-26-2007 12:17 PM - edited 08-26-2007 12:17 PM
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report to a Moderator
I have a bug to add to the list. Bug: Subcircuits containing busses and digital components won't simulate and returns an error message.. This one was found my laProfe and I thought I would put it up here.
Message Edited by lacy on 08-26-2007 12:19 PM
LucianM
Active Participant
10-07-2007 06:14 AM
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report to a Moderator
Is there a bug in the TO-92 package footprint?The correct footprint pins should be E-1,B-2,C-3 instead of E-2,B-3,C-1.How could that happend???I'm using multisim10.0.144
Lucian
CLA
CLA
lacy
Active Participant
10-08-2007 10:43 AM
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report to a Moderator
Hi Buffer28,
I don't know if this would solve the fottprint problem you describe or not, but the current version is 10.0.343. You might want to look into updating and see if this was fixed or not.
Fernando_D
Active Participant
10-08-2007 05:42 PM
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report to a Moderator
Hi Buffer28,
The issue is solved in version 10.0.343. According to the Readme file:
107518 Fixed an issue where some additional TO-92 components had incorrect footprint mappings.
I also attached the Component Detail Report.
You can download the last version of Multisim here.
Fernando
NI, EWB Group
Fernando D.
National Instruments
National Instruments
