pcb

Bug #1695534
Comment #5

Comment 5 for bug 1695534

Revision history for this message

Mike Crowe (mcrowe) wrote on 2017-06-21: Re: [Pcb-bugs] [Bug 1695534] Re: patch to enchance features of NELMA

On 06/19/2017 10:29 PM, Dan McMahill wrote:
> On 6/19/2017 6:11 PM, Chad Parker wrote:
>> I don't know really anything about NELMA. I'll have to do some research.
>> Could you prepare some test cases to demonstrate that the exporter is
>> working properly?
>>
>> Is there any documentation on this format anywhere?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Chad
>>
>
> If the changes are going to break Nelma then perhaps it makes more sense
> to create a new HID for the new tool? Or at least have a flag that puts
> the HID in nelma mode or gsvit mode.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing an example for how the flow is to work on a
> real example.
>
Thanks for taking the time to look at my patch! I am still working on
code to integrate data from PCB into gsvit.

Rational for changes
The developer of gsvit suggested that I import the geometry information
of a design to a gsvit specific binary format. I started with the NELMA
export tool, but soon saw that I needed to add additional outputs, and
modify the existing .png outputs. The intermediate software package
https://github.com/mpcrowe/pcb2gsvit takes the modified nelma output and
converts it into this binary format.

Current state of NELMA
The code for NELMA is located here https://www.tablix.org/~avian/nelma/
According to this website a new version of NELMA hasn't been released in
7 years. It is not clear to me how many people are using it. The major
change that might affect nelma is that traces are now assigned a color
based on the net name.

My Opinion
I am an avid user of PCB. It's a great package to use. As an active
user, I feel that adding another HID for the tool adds yet another
feature that users have to think about( cluttering up the export
options). Rather than adding another tool, I would rather add another
flag to implement my patch.

What I am willing to do
I will be happy to resubmit my patch in whatever manner you decide, as a
separate tool, or as a flag option of the existing tool. Please let me
know how you would like to proceed.

Thanks again for considering these changes. I've always wanted to be
able to put my RF pcb designs in to a full blown FDTD simulation. I
think adding this capability will enhance the reputation of what I
already consider to be a great product, PCB.

Cheers
Mike

On 06/19/2017 10:29 PM, Dan McMahill wrote:
> On 6/19/2017 6:11 PM, Chad Parker wrote:
>> I don't know really anything about NELMA. I'll have to do some research.
>> Could you prepare some test cases to demonstrate that the exporter is
>> working properly?
>>
>> Is there any documentation on this format anywhere?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Chad
>>
>
> If the changes are going to break Nelma then perhaps it makes more sense
> to create a new HID for the new tool?  Or at least have a flag that puts
> the HID in nelma mode or gsvit mode.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing an example for how the flow is to work on a
> real example.
>
Thanks for taking the time to look at my patch!  I am still working on 
code to integrate data from PCB into gsvit.

Rational for changes
The developer of gsvit suggested that I import the geometry information 
of a design to a gsvit specific binary format.  I started with the NELMA 
export tool, but soon saw that I needed to add additional outputs, and 
modify the existing .png outputs.  The intermediate software package 
https://github.com/mpcrowe/pcb2gsvit takes the modified nelma output and 
converts it into this binary format.

Current state of NELMA
The code for NELMA is located here https://www.tablix.org/~avian/nelma/ 
According to this website a new version of NELMA hasn't been released in 
7 years.  It is not clear to me how many people are using it.  The major 
change that might affect nelma is that traces are now assigned a color 
based on the net name.

My Opinion
I am an avid user of PCB.  It's a great package to use.  As an active 
user, I feel that adding another HID for the tool adds yet another 
feature that users have to think about( cluttering up the export 
options).  Rather than adding another tool, I would rather add another 
flag to implement my patch.

What I am willing to do
I will be happy to resubmit my patch in whatever manner you decide, as a 
separate tool, or as a flag option of the existing tool.  Please let me 
know how you would like to proceed.

Thanks again for considering these changes.  I've always wanted to be 
able to put my RF pcb designs in to a full blown FDTD simulation. I 
think adding this capability will enhance the reputation of what I 
already consider to be a great product, PCB.

Cheers
Mike