Initial testing Multisim + ULTIboard Buglist

I have been testing Multisim and ULTIboard (V10.0.144) for 1 day to see whether it really works and is usable.
I'm still working with Ulticap and Ultiboard V5.7x and consider changing over.
I have found the following problems in the process of Schematic-entry to layout.
Multisim
1. Netnames can not have delimiters like + and -.That is not so nice, specially, since imported schematics allow this and are not checked for this.
2. Once a schematic is transferred to ULTIboard, the router only routes on the top layer. This is caused by an incorrect setting in Multisim (routing layer is set to top by default.
This propagates via the netlist to ULTIboard. Manual routing is not limited.
3. Multisim allows enabling of gate and pin swap. The default is OFF. This should probably be ON.
4. gate swap know On/Off, but ultiboard interprets On as "Internal swaps only". The designed obviously did not know the idea behind this. Ultiboard allows inter-gate swaps if the other (common connections) match with the other package. Thus Ultiboard should interpret ON as "Advanced swapping". 5. After gateswap (in ULTIboard) and backannotation into Multisim, the unused gate list does not represent the new situation. When placing new gates, one can place a gate that is already in use.
6. The Reports "Bill of material, "Netlist report" and "Spare gate report" lack a CSV (comma or tab separated) list. If excell is not available, but OpenOffice or a database is, there is no way to get there. Oddly enough, the spreadsheet view does allow CSV output....., but does not have a BOM.
ULTIboard
1. Slotted holes can be made and show correctly. However in the DRILL file, it is wrong. In my case, a horizontal slot came out vertically. A vertical slot also vertically.
2. A forward annotate to ULTIboard un-places parts that are updated. This is NEVER what you want. Specially if you want to change all resistors and capacitors to a different SMT shape.
3. Gate swapping in Ultiboard does NOT allow to swap to unused gates. This makes the function sort of useless. It must allow to swap to ALL (identical) gates in a package.
4. The pin swap function does not show which pins can be swapped. You now have to rely in Click-and-miss.
3. There should be an option per component, to exclude it from component shoving. Think of a heat sink or RF shielding can, that must be placed over other parts.
Note that I have not done any serious tests on the gerber and drill output.
I know that this is a 'negative' list, but these are not difficult issue to solve and do make the package workable.
Also, I do like a number of important features that do work:
- Multiple instances of a single (hierarchical) sheet
- Automatic sheet symbol creation/update
- Copper in footprints
- drawing on any layer, allowing for proper production preparation.

Hi, first of all, I really want to thank you for taking the time to share your feedback. I went through all the suggestions and I will provide you with the
"where we are at" on each of them.
Before listing each feedback, I wanted to recommend that you use the latest evaluation edition (10.1); which you are also able to update to the latest build(10.1.0.1) if needed. This will ensure that you are working with the most up-to-date evaluation.
I will describe each suggestion with the same number that you had on your posting.
Multisim
For the next update (date TBA) we are allowing delimiters in more parts of the suite (Multisim and Ultiboard) which were previously forbiden. However, specifically for netnames we have not yet implemented the ability to use delimiters. We are currently working to overcome this limitation in the mid-term.
This has been fixed in two phases, one was added to the 10.1 release, and the other phase will be added in our next update (date TBA).
I filed a feature request for R&D so they can change the default settings. Makes a lot of sense to have it enable by default.
I filed a feature request for R&D so they can evaluate changing the current behaviour.
This was hard to reproduce but I was able to see the behaviour once. I filed a defect for R&D. I'm using the latest version (10.1 with update 10.1.0.1). Part of the fix for this is in the works, is in a mid-term improvement project for Forward and Back Annotation procedures.
I filed a feature request for R&D so they can add this ability to the reports.
Ultiboard
This is fixed. Is working correctly in the latest version.
The fix for this is in the works, is in a mid-term improvement project for Forward and Back Annotation procedures.
I filed a defect for this manner. Unused gates should be available to be swapped from Ultiboard, agreed.
I filed a feature request for this one. The pins that belong to the same PINGROUP for swapping should show a guide like the Gate Swap.
I filed a feature request for R&D so they can review this request.
Thank you for passing this information to us, I'm glad to see that a couple of the issues are already fixed in the current versions, other fixes are already in the works, and new features proposed will be recommended for future releases. This feedback helps us improve our product on every release.
Nestor
National Instruments

Similar Messages

CFolders System initial testing

I am very new in KM and cFolders area.
Currently we have already installed EP+EPC on Netweaver04s and trying to apply
business package Buyers.
The installation guide of Business package said that we need to have SM59 RFC
connection to cFolder system.
Anyway, as I have little knowledge about cFolder system. I don't know how
I can navigate to that and do the initial testing.
Kindly advise.

hi Erika,
for maintaining the RFC destination, logon to ur backend cFolder system. then goto transaction SM59 and maintain the destination. for more detail..plz refer this
<a href="https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/3947">blog</a>
regards
Amit
P.S. reward points if helpful

Mapping debbuging error:DBG1006: Error while initializing test data

Hi,
I have created a mapping in which I am trying to delete data from a table based on exisitence of rows in another table with a filter condtion in between them.When i try to run the debbugger, it throws following error:
============
Analyzing map for debug...
Retrieving Control Center connection info...
Connecting to Control Center schema...
Checking character set of Control Center schema...
Configuring sources and targets...
Mapping Debugger Error:
oracle.wh.service.sdk.mapping.debugger.WBMappingDebuggerException: DBG1006: Error while initializing test data for sources and targets:
oracle.wh.repos.sdk.CMPException: Trying to access invalid Object.
Element ID: 110138
Status: 4
Owning FCO: 98409
==================
Any idea what could be the possible cause?
Query which I am trying to simulate is of following type:
Delete from TableA t1
where exits(select 1 from TableB t2 where t1.col1 = t2.col1 and t2.col2 = 'delete')
Thanks
AJ.

Oops..thats weird.
Tell me one thing...then how gud is the code generated in terms of working...if someone has to really test the code pre-hand for expected business logicWhy i am raising this concern is becoz there are many features for which OWB provides support in indirect way(workaround) like exists/not exists.
Do we need to deploy mapping each time and then test through a run from Control centre?
Other thing, As far i understand, the code generated is not in such a format that one can directly copy paste it in any sql/plsql editor and test it...
Regards
AJ.

What's new in Multisim/Ultiboard 13.0

Hi
I just upgraded to Multisim/Ultiboard 13.0, from 12.0. What's new? What should I be looking for?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Over_Nyquest,
Thanks for noticing!
Here are some of my personal favorites for some of the "what's new" in v13 - the entire new feature list and specific use cases on how to use these features will be rolled out over the next several weeks...
1. Circuit Parameters - For modeling, you can set 'global' style variables and have component and model values be expressions that are dependent on these values. There is a circuit parameters dialog for adjusting the values and they can be used in the SPICE analyses (such as parameter sweep).
2. More components - Maxim has been added as a supported manufacturer (+1300 parts) and many updates to our other supported manufacturers (+1500 new parts/updates from various mfrs). We've added several new power models for thermal analysis (also included are some new eGAN FETs from EPC - these are new, small, highly efficient FETs).
3. Updated the Component Wizard - makes it easier to do the symbol pin mapping for models.
4. The LabVIEW API is now part of the installer (so if you have LabVIEW, it will automatically install for use in automating your simulations).
5. PCB templates for reusing designs. Also new/better dialog for multisection parts in heirarchical designs (which helps to better ensure synchronized hierarchical schematics/layouts).
...various others... you can open the Examples folder for some good examples some of the newest features...and you can look at the documentation for some additional details (All Programs -> National Instruments -> Circuit Design Suite 13.0 -> Documentation -> Circuit Design Suite 13.0 Readme).
- Pat Noonan
National Instruments

Initial tests in BSP

Hi,
I'm initializing in BSP Application and I'd like know what are the basics data or customizing to execute some BSP Application of test (ex. tutorial_1).
I tried execute but I had problem with URL and I have some doubts about the process.
Thanks,
[email protected]

What does your URL look like?
http://myserver:8080/.....
If so you are missing the full domain name.
See this topic on how to activate that: Cannot start BSP application from browser
Does the browser give an error about the service? If so check under SICF again to be sure the service is active.

My brand new printer LaserJet Pro MPF M127fn won't print after initial test print worked fine

Just installed this printer. USB connection to my PC. Test prints worked fine. Suddenly has stop printing from Word or emails.

On your Mac, open:
System preferences > Network > (whatever your connection) and examine the IPv4 Address.
Wired routers most often use local addresses in the 192.168.xxx.yyy range
Wireless Routers most often use local addresses in the 10.10.xxx.yyy range.
These ranges (along with a few others) are reserved for sets of "private" addresses, that are not visible on the Internet.
The Router will usually be located at kkk.lll.mmm.01
Whatever the range you are using, all the devices with similar addresses can talk freely to each other without any intervention. Any devices with sharply different addresses (such as the entirety of the Internet) must use the Router as their "agent" to communicate.
You want your printers to have addresses in the same range as everything else. If you find you have two non-overlapping ranges active, you will need to demote one of your Routers to be only a wireless access point, not a full Router.

Importing design changes from Multisim to Ultiboard

Hi. I have designed a schematic in Multisim and exported the design to Ultiboard for making the PCB. Once I have placed the elements in their location in ultiboard, I would like to do a minor modification to the design. But when i apply the change to schematic in multisim and export it again to Ultiboard, the parts locations will turn back to their original placing and I have to place them again from the beginning. Is their anyway to make ultiboard understand that just import the changes from Multisim ?

Hello,
What you need to do is Forward Annotate (Transfer menu) the design from Multisim to Ultiboard. This action will only update the changes you make in the schematic.
For your reference here are some tutorials on Multisim/Ultiboard:
NI Ultiboard Best Practices Guides
Give it a try and let us know this works.
Regards,
Fernando D.
National Instruments

I am sick of running into MultiSim's bugs

I was introduced to MultiSim many years ago via Electronics Workbench. I had the opportunity to get in on the ground floor, so to speak, as, because I was a student (and through my professor), I was able to purchase the instructor's (not education/student!) edition of the MultiSim/Ultiboard package for a reasonable price. Since then it's been one bug after another.
Now, I'm years out of school, can afford the huge pricetag, have the lastest version via grandfathering, but I don't want it, because I don't trust it any further than I can throw it. (I swear I'd buy the professional if it worked, as expensive as it is.) I've bought the service agreement, now that National Instruments got involved, but I don't believe I'll ever get anything but the latest bug-ridden kluge.
I've had a bug under investigation for two weeks now and, yeah, maybe it'll be resolved, but, honestly, it won't matter. Why? Because I'll just turn up another one and go through this mess again. Why? Because I've been doing this for years, nearly a decade. You get what you pay for. If you want something that works, you have to pay for it, and MultiSim isn't it. I just feel for those who actually shelled out the money for this latest version that I got for pennies. But I swear I'd buy the thing if it worked. It just doesn't work.
Sorry, no time for proof read.

I have had some experience with handholding Multisim to get it to work.
Initial conditons seem to be a problem (and seem to be a problem
you have with a circuit you posted about involving flip-flops). I
have read something about how to set initial conditions in multisim,
but it seems to be much more work than some other simulators I have
used (Microsim, I think). Usually in the circuits I have used,
the best method I have found is jury-rigging the circuit to cause
Multisim to choose useful initial conditions (Phase shift and other
positive-feedback oscillators in my case).
The other problem I have seen, is that, since Multisim uses very
general numerical methods, circuits which require a more specific
approach (say, switch-mode power, or amplifiers involving choppers)
tend to perform very poorly. This is a problem I am working
on. I expect success for methods custom-designed for a single
circuit. I think I can make some of these methods adapt to a
certain range of circuits, in fact my eventual plan is a wizard
permitting design of a certain family of circuits, which desings the
simulation method in tandem with the circuit.
To take a "random" (not of a limited family) circuit, and recognize
that general methods fail, is already a difficult pattern recognition
problem (for a computer, the operator usually recognizes the "freeze"
easily enough). An attempt at an automated fix is harder yet,
even for a small subclass of problems.

Is MultiSim a fraudulent product?

I'm thinking it is. I'm thinking that way back when there was Electronics Workbench (EWB), a simple simulator that worked, but too simple for it to catch on any where but in schools, as students could afford it, but engineers couldn't use it. Then, losing money, as graduating students can't use EWB for real engineering, so minimal return customers, the management of EWB decided to revamp things, via MultiSim, grab the schools' guaranteed cash flow on the coattails of EWB, but the original designers were no longer available to do it again as MultiSim. But, going in the hole on the MultiSim planning, the product was released anyway, knowing it didn't work and was wall to wall bugs. Now, years and years later, National Instruments has bought into the money pit that is the MultiSim design, once again seeing dollar signs through schools and the potential for persons such as myself to take MultiSim into engineering. The problem is it still doesn't work enough to do that. True, it's easier to use, but it doesn't work, so it can't be used. The real testing and troubleshooting to fix it has not happened, even as of today. The turnover rate over the years with EWB-MultiSim is high. Few remain. Anyone I've worked with is no longer there; I've gone through many names as I've been turning up these MultiSim bugs for all these years. I look at it all and the "f" word looks more and more appropriate when it comes to MultiSim (and you pick the version, any version.) They've jacked up the price fourfold on a product that has never worked enough to take it out of a school classroom. Likewise, this is also why, as I've cruised around this forum, I've found loads of unanswered questions, students asking for help and getting little. MultiSim works enough for unknowing students to buy what the teacher is selling, but in reality it's just smoke and mirrors full of industry-supplied parts fudged into somewhat working within the MultiSim kluge. The bugs will keep coming up until MultiSim is actually troubleshot by knowledgeable people and fixed, but they won't remain with the company long enough. Why? Because MultiSim Inc can't pay enough for knowledgeable people to remain AND deal with the, no doubt, tons of bureaucracy that must develop from selling a bad product for this long.
But I started this thread to more hear your thoughts. I'm so disgusted with MultiSim that I thought I'd just actually say what I've been thinking about the product, partially as a catalyst to hear people who know this product defend it. However, that's not to say that if you tend to agree with my take above that you can't say something also. As I see it, the worst that could happen is NI (the latest MultiSim owners) will kick me/us out and delete the thread. But that won't hurt me a bit. This forum has done me zero good, and, from the looks of it, NI doesn't even know what's said here. (They may after my last correspondence with them though, but I doubt it.) So, though it may be forum suicide, I don't fear such a death. However, I do see some potential good coming in doing this. Maybe, just maybe, I am right, that there is still a slight bit of hope for MultiSim.

Hello Euler’s Identity:
I’d like to address some of the frustrations you present in your above post (in addition to the email responses you’ve received from our AEs and myself). I’m very sorry to hear that you’ve had a negative experience with the software. As always, our Applications Engineers would be very happy to assist you with any specific technical issues you might be having (I didn’t see any in the original post, and I believe the issue with the LM311 was addressed earlier today.):
I’d like to provide some of the recent history of the Electronics Workbench line of software (Multisim, Ultiboard, Multisim MCU Module). Electronics Workbench was acquired by National Instruments (NI) in February of 2005 for two primary reasons:
1.)     Provide a World-Class Software and Hardware Solution for Teaching Electronics Education
With NI graphical system design tools such as NI Multisim (industry-standard SPICE simulation) and NI LabVIEW and prototyping environments such as NI Educational Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation Suite (NI ELVIS), it is now possible to design, prototype, and compare the characteristics of simulated circuits with real-world measurements in a single electronics education platform. This complete integration across the design cycle gives students a deeper understanding of the circuit theory they are studying, and ultimately prepares them for more productive careers as design professionals
2.)     Enhance Professional Electronics Design with Tight Integration of Measurement and Analysis Technology
The Multisim SPICE simulation environment integrates tightly with NI measurement technology such as LabVIEW to provide a seamless transfer of simulation and real-world test data. Professional engineers can now more easily validate designs using simulation data as a benchmark and even create more accurate simulations using real-world data as stimuli.
Additionally, as part of the acquisition, NI committed to develop Multisim and Ultiboard with the same strict focus on quality as the balance of the NI platform – it is one of the key focus areas for new releases. Version 10, released in January 2007, was the first edition of the software released fully under NI standard software development practices (post-acquisition) and has received very positive feedback from existing users. Of course, there is always room for improvement and innovation, and you can expect to see continued quality enhancements with each new release of Multisim and Ultiboard.
The NI Electronics Workbench Group team is passionate about making world-class capture, simulation, and layout products both for education and for professional design. As always, we welcome your constructive feedback to continue to improve these products over time, and we will do everything we can to ensure that you have a good experience with the product.
Best regards,
Nicole McGarry
Director of Sales & Marketing
NI Electronics Workbench Group

Error Message: Number is not in external Interval (Testing Schedule)

Hii ,
Iam working on Stability study process. I have maintained stabity test with materiial (QS) & performed my test upto Initial test of Inspection lot. But when i click create Testing Scheudle in the Notification (QM02) , system asks for testing schedule data for
Maintenane strategy, scheduling period.
On clciking create testing schedule , system throws error message "Number is not in external interval". I have maintained all the prerequite setting on number range in following spro path stability study>testing schedule for stability study> Category--> no range.
For Group ST 600000000- 6999999999 for Intenal & 70000000-7999999999 for external. But still iam facing with error message ""Number is not in external interval". It throws message no "IP324" . Even I had cross checked with maintenance setting, but error message remains . How to resolve this issue?
with regards,
K.Lokesh.
Edited by: Lokesh K on Mar 11, 2010 1:13 PM
Edited by: Lokesh K on Mar 12, 2010 5:55 AM

Hi Lokesh,
did you actually enter a number ( i.e. 70000001)?
Usually Stability studies are created using the external number range so that ringing names can be used for the studies:
Example:
Material: 000000000000000001 acetylsalicylic acid
Stability study: ASA1
I hope that this information proves usefull.
Regards
Isabelle

Need to install Visual C++ 2010 in MDT before performance testing.

Hi all,
I'm in a situation in which I'm deploying a laptop over MDT, and the display driver is captured by MDT fine. However, upon initial boot after installing the OS, I come across this error when running WINSAT.exe; "The program can't start because MSVCR100.dll
is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix the problem." This isn't the first report I've seen of ATI drivers triggering this, but I'm stuck with it regardless.
This is attributed to a component of Visual C++ 2010 not being installed. (It's not preinstalled in our capture, and I'm trying to avoid having to do that again.)
Being that we're a 0-touch organization when imaging, I need a way to remedy this. I'm currently trying to run the install, 'vcredist_x86.exe /q:a' from "run a command line" (sourced on the server's C:\ drive) before the performance tests,
but I can't find a proper place to put this command at in the task sequence. Is this even a viable method? Is there a method to skip WINSAT.exe pre-boot? My initial tests with this aren't working.
Any advice or pointers appreciated!

Hi,
Normally I think WinSAT is only relevant when deploying the image to your targeted computers (hardware). So why not integrate Visual C++ components into your reference image?
At the customer I'm currently working for we also put all our Visual C++ installations in the so called Build image.
I have provided a list with the install commands for the various programs.
Visual C++ 2005 SP1 ATL Security Update x64
msiexec /i "vcredist.msi" /qb
Visual C++ 2005 SP1 ATL Security Update x86
msiexec /i "vcredist.msi" /qb
Visual C++ 2005 SP1 MFC Security Update x64
msiexec /i "vcredist.msi" /qb
Visual C++ 2005 SP1 MFC Security Update x86
msiexec /i "vcredist.msi" /qb
Visual C++ 2008 SP1 ATL Security Update x64
install.exe /q
Visual C++ 2008 SP1 ATL Security Update x86
install.exe /q
Visual C++ 2008 SP1 MFC Security Update x64
install.exe /q
Visual C++ 2008 SP1 MFC Security Update x86
install.exe /q
Visual_C_2005_SP1_x64_8_0_56336_EN_M1
msiexec /i "vcredist.msi" /qb
Visual_C_2005_SP1_x64_8_0_59192_EN_M1
msiexec /i "vcredist.msi" /qb
Visual_C_2005_SP1_x86_8_0_50727_42_EN_M1
msiexec /i "vcredist.msi" /qb
Visual_C_2005_SP1_x86_8_0_59193_EN_M1
msiexec /i "vcredist.msi" /qb
Visual_C_2008_SP1_x64_9_0_30729_17_EN_M1
msiexec /i "vc_red.msi" /qb
Visual_C_2008_SP1_x64_9_0_30729_4148_EN_M1
msiexec /i "vc_red.msi" /qb
Visual_C_2008_SP1_x86_9_0_210022_EN_M1
install.exe /q
Visual_C_2008_SP1_x86_9_0_30729_17_EN_M1
msiexec /i "vc_red.msi" /qb
Visual_C_2008_SP1_x86_9_0_30729_4148_EN_M1
msiexec /i "vc_red.msi" /qb
Visual_C_2010_x64_10_0_40219_EN_M1
msiexec.exe /i "vc_red.msi" /qb
Visual_C_2010_x86_10_0_40219_EN_M1
msiexec.exe /i "vc_red.msi" /qb
Trying to install Visual C++ and than run WinSAT post OS installation will not work.
If this post is helpful please click "Mark for answer", thanks! Kind regards

On what computer configuration is Ultiboard running at its best?

Hi,
I will soon upgrade to the latest Multisim Ultiboar Power pro version 10.1
And I wondered if I'd better upgrade my PC as well, it is 4 years old now, and the current Ultiboar version (10.0, full edition) blocks from time to time, even crashes a few times a day.
I allready switched off the realtime DRC check... I always happens when laying traces in 'follow' mode (CTRL-T) but never in Line mode (CTRL-SHIFT-L).
I could upgrade to a dual core PC, or add some memory in the current PC,
I just want to be sure that I can run with this PC for the next five years.
What configuartion, what operating system , should I use for the future?
Best regards
Johan

Hi Johan
The minimum system requirements for the Circuit Design Suite are stated in the release notes which you can find here:
http://www.ni.com/pdf/manuals/374478d.pdf
These requirements are the minimum requirements necessary to get a good experience when using multisim/ultiboard. To get the most out of it, it is strongly advised to have a more powerfull pc.
Since your computer is about 4 years old, I suspect you will be somewhere in the range just above the minimum requirements. As computer hardware evolves this fast, it might be more interesting to get a complete new pc, rather then upgrading.
In general: The faster your system is, the better it will run, the better your experience with the program will be, but also the more expensive the system will become. As long as you stay above the minimum requirements however, you should be fine.
Considering the OS: At the moment, companies are not really tending to upgrade to Vista, so you should be fine with XP for now. It will probably depend on the succes of windows 7 what the future will bring on this behalf.
Best Regards
Michiel
Applications Engineer
NI Belgium
http://www.ni.com/ask

Test Plan template

Hi
I'm new to ABAP development. I have completed few objects in ABAP environment. I would like to have a test plan template to maintain documentation.
Could anyone provide the same?
Thanks
sapien

Hai
Check the following
Test Plan
Prepared By           Preparation Date
Project          Initial Testing Date
Object:          Last Changed Date
Object Type     Report
Predecessors     None
Successors      None
Sno     Particulars     Y/N
1     Is the functionality of the object in accordance with Technical specification provided?     Y
2     If there are changes in functionality suggested by onsite thru mail / phone till the completion of coding for the object. (Deferring the Tech spec) mention the changes clearly as below.     N
S. No     Date     Mail/Phone     Change description
3     Please mention the final functionality of the object to be tested after final changes.
Test Cases
Test Case No.     Test Case Description     Expected Results     If Not Applicable Specify Date
1.     Check for the data population in the internal tables     As per the spec     Applicable
2.     Check for the input validations     As per the spec     Applicable
3.     Check whether the required fields are selected from the tables     As per the spec     Applicable
4.     Check whether the output format is according to the required format     As per the spec     Applicable
Y2K Test     Check for date handling for compliance with year 2000. Ensure that test cases are prepared to handle date validation and manipulation of dates.
Check whether 4 digits variable is used for YEAR in case YEAR is taken as separate variable. Emphasize on declaring date variable referring to SY-DATUM
Time spent for preparing Test Plan (Hrs.)     1 hr
Total Number of Test Cases Applicable     4
Regards
Sreeni

SNC 2007 - Create test Releases in SNC without using XI

Hello,
I am trying to test the "Release Process" functionality of SNC. And I would like to do this initial testing without going through XI processing. Is there any way to either,
a) Send releases from R/3 to SNC without going through XI
or
b) Create releases manually in SNC
Thanks for your help ..
Mahesh

Hi Mahesh,
Sending Releases from R/3 to XI will be possible only with the help of a middleware (like XI). There is way to fake the SNC system with XML messages fed to the interface in the SNC system.
To do that you will have to go to SPROXY transaction, identify the correct interface which feeds the releases, there generate template XML data, fill the template data with yours (like date, qty, material,etc) & upload, click test interface so the template details are fed in the SNC system. Then when you load the collaboration screen you will get the release as normal. This is to just test / fake / validation purposes only.
Regards,
Vasudevan

I m new to multisim, i need pcb layout of a cicuit. can anyone make it? i m attaching the circuit diagram.

I m new to multisim, i need pcb layout of a cicuit. can anyone make it? i m attaching the circuit diagram. plzzzzzz, its urgent. i have to submit the project in my college. plz try to make it single layer.
sad.hussain9136

Hello,
Multisim is not the right software for PCB layout design. That would be Ultiboard. With the integration between the 2 you can create your circuit in Multisim and transfer it to Ultiboard to easily design your one layer board. There are a lot of tutorials online that can help you do this. If you feel you need instruction, you can always book a class (online or on-site) to learn Multisim/Ultiboard.
Kind Regards,
Miguel V
National Instruments

Initial testing Multisim + ULTIboard Buglist

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for