0
\$\begingroup\$

I am using 16.6V Allegro.Is there any option on OrCAD Capture CIS for beautifying Schematic?

For example, say,

I have entered a schematic with irregular wires and used long wires. Is there any option that can be used to select the entered schematic and modify the drawn wires to look cleaner?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ That would be nice. But I don't think so. We'll see if anyone answers definitively. \$\endgroup\$ – mkeith Feb 18 '20 at 10:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's unclear what you want to happen with the "option". \$\endgroup\$ – Andy aka Feb 18 '20 at 10:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Please try and think critically about how a program is supposed to objectively determine whether a schematic us clean or not. \$\endgroup\$ – DKNguyen Feb 18 '20 at 14:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DKNguyen There are always parts of schematics that can be drawn the same way, again and again, from one project to the other. Example: vertical wire length to power or ground port. You could determine a fixed length and that script can find the port and the vertical wire, check the vertical wire length then update it along with the position of the port \$\endgroup\$ – eeintech Feb 18 '20 at 18:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @DKNguyen I understand that it is a long shot but if you think about it, there are algorithms for "push and shove" of traces on PCB layout tools, and there are other tools such as LabVIEW which, even though it isn't for schematics, does a lot of interesting stuff with automatic wire routing that is much nicer than schematic tools. So it is not totally outside of possibility that there could be a cleanup tool. \$\endgroup\$ – mkeith Feb 20 '20 at 9:11
2
\$\begingroup\$

OrCAD itself doesn’t have such a ‘beautifier’ function. (My pet peeve: having to deal with schematics that use half-grid or off-grid lines.)

Some things could probably could be fixed with a tcl script, but that’s more work than... just redrawing it.

Why? I will redraw stuff if it’s that messy, has poor structure, or poor reusability. I will redo them to use a modular approach with clearly defined interfaces on ports. I think as if each module were an RTL block, and draw accordingly. I also think hierarchically, but tend to use flat drawings (I’ve done both, and find that for boards the flat approach is better for other users.)

Again, why? Redrawing helps me understand the design better. Also, I have to monkey with the imported design anyway because I add attributes that are specific to my workflow (part numbers for example).

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ I will agree and disagree. Agree in the scope of "beautifying" a whole schematic, it will certainly lead to more clean-up than actual redraw work in the first place, especially if it was "messy" as you mentioned. Disagree because a neat little script to clean-up specific components wiring connection could be super helpful in some cases. Let's say you have an IC with dozens of wires connected to off-page connectors with arbitrary length, then you realize those wires are taking too much space. Here comes your neat little script to redraw the wires to your pre-defined/favorite length, job done. \$\endgroup\$ – eeintech Feb 18 '20 at 17:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ Long wires and general messiness (lack of structure) on a schematic usually happens due to two things: a fixation on an old rule that ports need to be at the schematic edge, or, the designer doesn’t like to type labels. These are habits of inexperienced designers, or very old-school draftspeople / engineers who have not done structured design and feel that their drawings need to look like SAMS Photofact for example. \$\endgroup\$ – hacktastical Feb 18 '20 at 18:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure I get your point. Why would you NOT recommend someone to use scripts to manipulate their schematics, assuming this person knows what he/she is doing? Sure we can ramble on and on about many types of people doing such and such but I don't think this is a good reason to recommend redrawing schematics based on, what I think is, a subjective opinion (quoting: "I would", "I will", "I have"). In my opinion, it is best to explain the pros and cons of manually redrawing vs automating the workflow in certain ways. That approach seems more constructive. \$\endgroup\$ – eeintech Feb 18 '20 at 18:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ In my experience (about 40 years and counting) of dealing with other people's work, there is enough 'creativity' in making bad schematics (and I cited a couple of examples and the reasons why) that it would be difficult to make a single cleanup tool that would yield a reasonable result to one's own liking. If you feel you understand tcl and the OrCAD API well enough to do that automation idea, by all means go for it. But as a practical matter, such a tool doesn't exist for OrCAD, which was the OP's question. \$\endgroup\$ – hacktastical Feb 18 '20 at 19:24
0
\$\begingroup\$

There is no such option in OrCAD Capture because "beauty" is very subjective. You could take a look if you could find an app that meets your need: http://www.orcadmarketplace.com/StoreHome.aspx

Or guess what, you can make your own!

With writing a TCL script, you can implement a menu option that can manipulate any type of objects (and therefore wires) and modify their properties.

Although the documentation is limited, here's a good guide to start with: https://www.ema-eda.com/sites/ema/files/resources/files/OrCAD_Capture_TclTk_Extensions.pdf

There should be also a bunch of scripts in your Cadence install folder you can inspire yourself from (eg. C:/Cadence/SPB_16.6/tools/capture/tclscripts/).

Good luck!

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.