Electronics Workbench Components?

[MrSynth]

Hi!

I am / was considering a move to Electronics Workbench, however a colleague has been continually grumbling about the lack of models / components. Having taken a look, I can see what he means. I've looked all around the national instruments website but there doesnt seem to be any central repository or way to automatically update the component database.

I appreciate that there are a lot of components out there, but even some basic components are missing from the component library....

So what Im asking is this:

Is it as bad as it seems? Is there any reasonable or practical way to make up for this serious shortcoming or should I just forget electronics workbench and stick with my current individual packages?

I dont really want to spend out on this software if I have to spend as much time as my colleague has to on building components and trying to convert models....

Any relevant thoughts from experienced users would be appreciated.

[lacy]

I have the Power Pro Version and it has numerous components available in the database. There are times when you want to build a circuit and the part is not in the database, but I do not believe there are any spice packages available out there that has every part that you could possibly need when you need it. This is exactly why there are websites devoted to spice models. The number of components is tied to which tier of the product you buy. The base version has the least, the full verion is intermediate and has more components than the base and the Power Pro has the most components. So your friend may have a lower tier version and that is why there are components not there. Also, there are situations where a spice model just doesn't exist for a component. Under these circumstances your up a creek with any software that you may have.

I like Circuit Design Suite (which is what I have) in the fact that is much easier to use than any other package I have tried. Also you have seamless integration between the schematic, simulation and the PCB layout. 

To say that it doesn't have its issues would be a lie, but those issues are being worked out. Every piece of software I have purchased in the past 5 years seems to have some sort of problem with it (like games, applications. etc) and this is why they issue updates/patches for them.

You can continue your investigation of this software by downloading and trying the evaluation version. You would have something like 30 to 45 days (I can't remember exactly how long it actually is) to see if you like it or not. This way you will know if it will suit your purpose and it won't cost you anything if you don't like it.  I think after you try it you will end up liking it because as soon as it is installed you can go right to wiring and simulating circuits fairly easily. 

I hope this helps some.  

[MrSynth]

Lacy,

no sorry that wasnt really very helpful to be honest.

1) my original question was relating to whether or not there is an effective component database update solution available for circuit design studio  / EWB. Evidently, there is not. As regards 3rd party spice models, I already have a significant library but very few will convert over. Odd that they work in most other packages, but not In N.I's

2) My colleague has the power pro version also as he has been evaluating it in a professional environment.

3) I am actually already halfway through a software evaluation, which is why I was keen to give it a "fair crack of the whip" and try to resolve the things I personally see as issues.

4) Although I think its right to say that no package has _every_ component  available, other packages do have some way of updating the databases regularly or at the very least link in support for professional subscription services. Frankly, to suggest that you wait for a software patch to include a component database update is rather silly. In the top ten list of bad software choices, that would come out at around a 3 or 4 and I dont think I'm wrong to have expected more from N.I

Lastly, Im not bothered about how easy a piece of software is to use. In my experience, ease of use usually comes with a performance / flexibility / power cost which is rarely worth the learning curve reduction. If I wanted easy, I would get a job in a bar.


Thanks for your input, always interested to see alternative perspectives.
My brief encounter with this software will be at an end in a few days, but if they fix this - what I consider to be - issue then perhaps I'll take a look again sometime in the future.

Regards

[lacy]

O.K I think I may have mistook what you were trying to say there. This is already being discussed in other posts on the forum and I am sure this situation has already been seen by NI since they monitor this forum.

One of two things either more frequent database updates or a repository/archive of some nature so users can share models and also possibly where manufacturers can contribute their models to it also. This has been requested by users on this forum so since you present the case for something like this in the manner you have maybe more attention will be paid to it.

Well as far the easy to use issue. It makes sense to have a piece of software that is easy to use as this take some of the load off the designer in terms of not having to jump through hoops to get the simplest things done. I have had some of these like this that I evaluated from other companies and they were so complex in just the user interface that it was just pitiful trying to get something done. So for me at least, the simpler the better.

[RnDMonkey]

My only basis for comparison is EAGLE but from what I've learned, EAGLE is a bit more clunky, but I find things in EAGLE that Multisim just isn't giving me.

Give me one good reason why there wouldn't be a TO-263 footprint in the Ultiboard database? I am just floored sometimes when I try to find something so simple, but it's nowhere to be found.

There is a distinct lack of resources in the Multisim and Ultiboard part libraries, and I'm wondering how much complaining we will have to do to get some relief. Is my company having spent several thousand dollars on NI software enough incentive, or am I going to regret vouching for them? 🙂 In all honesty, I'm directly responsible for NI getting that business, but I'm not above taking it somewhere else if that's what is in my company's best interest.

My suggestion (and I know this has been said before):

Give us a free service where models, symbols, and footprints can be easily obtained. Let the community contribute to it as well as NI staff. This kind of good customer service WILL improve your reputation and thus, business.

Oh, and while I'm talking about EAGLE and Multisim, I noticed an interesting deficiency in Multisim: Why can't we use other ASCII characters for net names and such? I was very unpleasantly surprised to see that you can't have a net named "+12V" and so on. Oddly enough, Ultiboard does let you use them. Doh!

Message Edited by morgol on 05-25-2008 04:04 AM

[Fernando_D]

Hello,

Your feedback is always appreciated and you can be sure that our development team takes into consideration your suggestions. We are committed to improve the customer experience and the product.

Please do not hesitate to contact our Applications Engineering team when you have questions or issues with Component Creation. Your requests can created here.

In the meantime here are two good references for Component Creation; you probably have seen these tutorials before, but just in case:   

Creating a Custom Component in NI Multisim

Creating a Custom Component in NI Ultiboard

Have a nice week,

Message Edited by Fernando DZ on 06-02-2008 09:57 AM

[RnDMonkey]

Thank you, Fernando. It's nice to see that NI is paying some attention.