AnsweredAssumed Answered

Circuitworks Part Rotations and Naming Conventions

Question asked by Jeff Wilke on Apr 6, 2010
Latest reply on Jan 6, 2011 by Jeff Wilke

Like • Show 1 Like1
Comment • 12

We just switched to Solidworks 2010 from 2009 and I had to lengthen a PCB for our layout team. We have a set of “Circuitworks Approved” connectors we keep locked in our PDMworks vault (approved, because we have tested them through Circuitworks with our PADS layout team for rotation and origins, etc). I sent out the update emn file through 2010, and found that some parts are now named differently and some have 180 degree rotations. I am attaching our emn files from Solidworks 2009 and 2010 (Circuitworks 10 and 11 respectfully).

Can anyone shed some light on what may be causing this issue? It seems to be Circuitworks related. What has changed between the two versions?

Naming convention has changed?

2010

AUD-00002-01-A-R Default R25

201.5 -512.477 0.0 90.0 TOP PLACED

2009

SPKR_TDB03LF-X692N AUD-00002-01-A-R R96

201.5 -512.477 0.45 90.0 TOP PLACED

Rotations have changed on SOME parts?

2010

CON-00349-01-A-R Default R24

210.5 10.273 0.0 180.0 TOP PLACED

2009

CON-00349-01-A-R CON-00349-01-A-R R92

210.5 10.273 0.05 0.0 TOP PLACED

Peter Nichols Apr 7, 2010 3:16 AM

Correct Answer

Jeff,

I have had a quick look at your files and the problem appears to be with the IDF generation (emp file), not CircuitWorks.

For instance, the top left component in the 2009 file is R84 (rotated 0) whereas in the 2010 file it is R6 (rotated 180).

Also, as you mentioned, SPKR... is now AUD...

Hope this points you in the right direction.

See the reply in context

Attachments

IDF Error.zip15.8 KB

No one else had this question

Outcomes

12 Replies

Peter Nichols Apr 6, 2010 2:42 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Jeff,
Its not possible to check out your files as you have not included the library (emp) files.

I have noticed this repertition of the component name but, from memory, we overcame this by setting the following CircuitWorks option.
Models>First part of Filename to ECAD Component Name
Models>Second part of Filename to ECAD Part Number
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Mark Larson @ Peter Nichols on Apr 6, 2010 5:25 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  the first name that appears in the emp file is the footprint, or more precisely in PADS lingo, the PCB Decal
  the second name is the part, or more precisely in PADS lingo, the Part Type
  
  Peter is correct, the Component Name in CircuitWorks is the PCB Decal in PADS (footprint, 1/4 watt res, 14 pin SOIC, SOT123, ....))
  the Part Number is the Part Type (at least in PADS)
  
  this can be confusing because some on the ECAD side give the same name to footprint and part so they only need one generic part(10, 100, 1K, ... ohm 1/8th watt resistor for example, all have the same library part), rather than having each part their own name (a 1 ohm, a ten ohm, a 100 ohm, ...)
  
  further causing confusion, each ECAD software has their own lingo
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
- Jeff Wilke @ Peter Nichols on Apr 6, 2010 5:56 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  Peter,
  
  I posted the two EMN files to show that there is a difference in some of the rotations. SW parts have not changed only the version of circuitworks. The EMP file is only going to show each parts outline shape.
  
  I will post them again with EMP files...
  
  Tried your suggestion on the naming...this seems to fixed it. Thanks...
  Models>First part of Filename to ECAD Component Name
  Models>Second part of Filename to ECAD Part Number
  
  Still cannot figure out the rotation issue though...
  Attachments
  - EMN_SW2009_vs_SW2010.zip16.9 KB
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Peter Nichols @ Jeff Wilke on Apr 7, 2010 3:16 AM
    Unmark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Jeff,
    I have had a quick look at your files and the problem appears to be with the IDF generation (emp file), not CircuitWorks.
    For instance, the top left component in the 2009 file is R84 (rotated 0) whereas in the 2010 file it is R6 (rotated 180).
    Also, as you mentioned, SPKR... is now AUD...
    
    Hope this points you in the right direction.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Jeff Wilke @ Peter Nichols on Apr 7, 2010 11:59 AM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      Ummm...nope. Both EMN/EMP files were created with Circuitworks. One was exported via CW 2009 and the other was 2010.
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
      - Peter Nichols @ Jeff Wilke on Apr 8, 2010 2:16 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Jeff,
        Surely you read the ascii files straight into CircuitWorks and then created the SolidWorks model from there. I read EMN/EMP files (from Orcad) straight into CW but do not output any from CW.
        I, therefore, would take a look at the files that PADS generated, the 'new' parts (AUD etc) could only have started life there. I know this may not solve the rotation problem.
        But, then you appear to have read the same PADS ascii file into both SW2009 & 2010, am I corrrect?
        If all else fails, you may want to get Paul Boswell from SolidWorks involved, he was one of the writers of the program.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Jeff Wilke @ Peter Nichols on Apr 8, 2010 3:39 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Yeah, I cannot seem to get ahold of Paul. The Solidworks email I had for him got bounced back. You know how to reach him?
        
        We create the EMN files here and THEN send them to our layout guys. So both of those EMN/EMP files were created from solidworks based files. We recieve connector 3D parts from our vendors, add the "COMPONENT_OUTLINE" sketches and all the other sketches for the pcb. We only read in files from PADS to compare/overaly them onto our SW models and verify keepouts, etc.
        
        The problem appears to be with the way Circuitworks is looking at the part files and rotations from 2009 to 2010. With the exception of the length of the pcb those two EMN/EMP files were generated with the same files. No changes at all to those components and yet 2009 and 2010 Circuitworks deals with them differently.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Mark Larson @ Jeff Wilke on Apr 8, 2010 4:07 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Jeff,
        
        have you tried outputting a CSV file of the library from both 2009 & 2010 and then compare the results? If what you suspect is true, I would expect to see a difference in the files. There shouldn't be a difference, but if there is, it would show that it is not operator error that you are seeing the different rotations and that something has changed in the software between 2009 & 2010.
        
        for example you could compare the data in the CSV files in a component that is known to give you a difference in rotation between 9 & 10.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Mark Larson @ Mark Larson on Apr 8, 2010 4:17 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        ... one thing you might look at is negative rotations, I was surprised to see that is even possible, a -90 rotation is 180 from a positive 90 rotation. Maybe something got hosed between 9 & 10, sure wouldn't be the first time.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Peter Nichols @ Jeff Wilke on Apr 9, 2010 2:15 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Jeff,
        The email I have fro Paul is pboswell at solidworks.com.
        What do you import into PADS?, as far as I know it cannot read or write IDF files, hence the ascii output. So, therefore, what format are you reading back into CW to create your assemblies?
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Jeff Wilke @ Peter Nichols on Apr 9, 2010 11:22 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Yeah, that is the email address I just tried. It got bounced back by the SW email server.
        
        We have an add-on module in PADS called IDF Interface. This allows the PADS guys to export adn import EMN files. They do not use our EMP file. The EMN calls out the component and then pulls that same name from their library. This is why is is very important to sync our file names, origins, and rotations with them to prevent an error. They then layout the board with respect to our pcb outline, keepouts and components and send us back an EMN & EMP file which we read into Ciruitworks and build the file into SW. We then do a layover of our orignal board to the new layout board and look for any interferences or accidental component shifts (or rotations).
        
        Kind of backwards from how I am hearing most people use CW. Where they get the board FROM the electrical team first, and then make adjustments. We create the board first and then send to the electrical team.
        
        But, this all comes back the original problem where CW2010 is now rotating some of my components 180 degrees different from how CW2009 exported them. Never going into "PADS" world at all. Typically we like to blame PADS, but this one is all in the Circuitworks export.
        
        I have our VAR (Hawkridge) working on this issue now as well. If I get an answer from them I will post here.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Jeff Wilke @ Jeff Wilke on Jan 6, 2011 12:16 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Got an answer from Solidworks...
        
        The following SPR (SolidWorks Performance Report) status has changed to Implemented.
        
        SR# (Service Request): 1-1608720918
        SPR#: 553458
        Description: Export from CircuitWorks 2010 rotates connector 180 degrees from 2009 export
        Status: Implemented.
        Version: 2011 A1
        
        For more information, visit the SolidWorks Customer Portal and select My SPRs.
        
        Best Regards,
        
        Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp. Technical Support
        
        I have not upgraded to 2011 to see if anythign changed, but looks like it was addressed.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions

Circuitworks Part Rotations and Naming Conventions

Attachments

Outcomes

Attachments

Related Content

Recommended Content