OrCAD: Determining which trace in Secondary Sweep is which after simulating

When you run a primary and secondary sweep, there are multiple sets of traces for the same signal, where each individual trace represents a different value from the secondary sweep. In OrCAD 16.0, I want to know which secondary sweep value produced a particular trace; how do I do that?

Edit: I tried Linkyyy's suggestion and got the following info box:

So it tells me what generated that trace, but not the specific value of the secondary parameter that generated it.

Am I doing something wrong? Should I be using parametric sweeps instead of and/or in addition to secondary sweeps?

• If it’s like microcap, you hover the mouse over a trace and it gives you a reference number. – Andy aka Jan 24 '18 at 19:39
• Apparently it's not, because it doesn't, unless there's an option that I have unchecked somewhere that I don't know about. – John Doe Jan 24 '18 at 19:44

When you view the waveforms, you can right click on the trace, and click "Trace Information". This will show the parameter value used corresponding to that trace.

EDIT

Double sweeps:

To be honest im not sure how to read the sweep value then, but if you use "parametric sweep" instead, you can do as i described above. So you use "primary" and "parametric" sweep.

• See edit to question; I'm pasting a screenshot. – John Doe Dec 10 '18 at 17:42
• @JohnDoe: Okay yea i see what you are doing. You are using the secondary sweep also. To be honest im not sure how to read the sweep value then, but if you use "parametric sweep" instead, you can do as i described above. So you use "primary" and "parametric" sweep. – Linkyyy Dec 10 '18 at 17:59
• Thank you! That has been incredibly frustrating in the past. You're the best! – John Doe Dec 10 '18 at 18:06
• @JohnDoe: No problem. This is a rather old question, i thought you had figured something out in the meantime :) – Linkyyy Dec 10 '18 at 18:13
• Nope! My job is not in IC design, but my schooling is. I try to keep up as much as I can, which is not very much. – John Doe Dec 10 '18 at 19:24