• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 37 subscribers
  • Views 552 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

THS4631 ERROR

Neil Albaugh
Genius 5430 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TINA-TI, THS4631, OPA320, OPA211

Is anyone paying attention to the TINA program at TI?

The op amp symbol that has been traditionally used  for TINA circuits has been ignored completely in the "THS4631 TINA-TI Reference Circuit" posted on the TI website. The symbol is UPSIDE DOWN AND BACKWARDS. To compound the problem, the symbol that is provided in the TINA-TI v9.1 library is the traditional symbol but the connections of the macro are for the non-standard symbol.

I've provided a file that shows the difference.

Symbol TINA.pdf
  • 0
    TI__Genius 17905 points

    Hi Neil,

    The symbol can be mirrored and rotated in TINA by right-clicking on the symbol (or the symbol name if it is difficult to select the symbol) and selecting the 'Mirror' or 'Rotate' options. Yes, you will find that different reference circuits for different op amps may deviate from the 'traditional' model in that they are in a different orientation/color, but these differences are purely cosmetic, for example, the precision OPA211 ref circuit is also mirrored/flipped and the OPA320 model is clear instead of yellow. The simulations do run correctly.

    I did check on the built-in THS4631 model in TINA-TI v9 and encountered a netlist error when I tried to simulate a simple circuit with the model. I contacted DesignSoft yesterday (the makers of TINA) and they will fix the model in a future update.

    Thank you for your feedback.

  • 0 in reply to Kris F
    Genius 5430 points

    Kristoffer;

    "The symbol can be mirrored and rotated in TINA by right-clicking on the symbol (or the symbol name if it is difficult to select the symbol) and selecting the 'Mirror' or 'Rotate' options. "

    A user should NOT have to rotate and mirror a TI TINA symbol. There is NO excuse for such shoddy workmanship on these TINA symbols and "Reference Circuits".

  • 0 in reply to Neil Albaugh
    TI__Expert 5515 points

    Really, Neil? I have to rotate and mirror symbols all the time in virtually any CAD program I use. And I personally don't like having the positive supply on the bottom of my op amp symbols, which is the convention *you* established for the TINA symbols.

    So, it's a matter of preference. In general, we've tried to stick with the convention you established, but there are apparently some exceptions.

  • 0 in reply to Rick Downs - WEBENCH Design Center
    Genius 5430 points

    Rick, no user should ever need to rotate & mirror vendor-supplied symbols to be compatible with the rest of the vendor-supplied graphics. If he does, it implies that the vendor is not paying attention or is not being "user friendly".

    The op amp symbols that I "created" were those used by Design Soft for most of their TINA op amp symbols; I simply adopted their standard and changed the colors to a blue outline and a yellow background. The reason for that was to identify the symbols in a schematic as TI- provided symbols with TI-macros. The last set of printed data books that I saw were yellow & blue, so it was continuing the corporate graphics.

    There is a good reason for drawing the op amp symbols with the + supply on the bottom-- the standard TINA battery symbol has the + terminal on the top and the - terminal on the bottom. Thus the power can be connected without a need to rotate the symbol for a positive and/or negative power supply.

    Some TI symbols created in Dallas had the inputs reversed; noninverting on the top and inverting on the bottom. Who wants to draw an op amp with the feedback resistor placed below the symbol?

    It does not seem like there is anyone taking responsibility for making sure that the TINA program at TI achieves the quality that it deserves.

  • 0 in reply to Neil Albaugh
    TI__Expert 5515 points

    Neil,

    No disagreement from me that the noninverting terminal should be on the bottom. One of my first tasks when joining the eLab in 2010 was going through the libraries and deciding which symbol conventions we would use going forward. The Analog eLab team is committed to ensuring the quality of models placed into TINA.

    And yes, despite my personal dislike for where the power supply pins are, I stayed with the convention. I understand the reason for why they are placed where they are, even if I don't like it.

    With that said, this model/symbol is from 2008 and clearly slipped through. It will be corrected.

    What I took issue with in your original post is the assertion that you should NEVER have to mirror or rotate - you know that isn't true. Stated as you stated it in this last post makes more sense - consistency is important.

    TINA-TI is our simulator solution, and the Analog eLab team is quite committed to making sure that the user experience with it is the best it can be. You're being a little hard on some good folks by saying no one is taking responsibility - we're working very hard to make all this work.

    Thanks for keeping us on our toes - 

    Rick

     

  • 0 in reply to Rick Downs - WEBENCH Design Center
    Genius 5430 points

    Rick;

    I think you perhaps missed my point when I said" ...a user should NEVER have to mirror or rotate ..." The operative words here are "have to".

    Sometimes it is desirable to rotate or mirror a symbol but that should not be necessary to make it useful. One could publish an op amp symbol with the output (pointed end) oriented down; you could rotate it to be in the standard orientation, of course, but would it make sense and reflect credit on whoever created it?

    Books are proof-read before being published and errors still slip through. The question is how many errors are reasonable? ...a philosophical question, no doubt. :)