Author Topic: Burned CPU to get this.  (Read 3692 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline technix

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3216
  • Country: cn
  • From Shanghai With Love
    • My Untitled Blog
Burned CPU to get this.
« on: August 21, 2018, 07:33:24 pm »
I am trying to cook up a permanently installed USB NeoPixel controller. After I got the board layered out I pulled this render. The attached image is actually cropped from the actual output, since the original output, rendered on a 4K monitor, is way too large for the forum software.



The single frame 4K raytracing render is produced on an Intel Xeon E3-1231v3 processor, overclocked to 3.51GHz base clock speed, and it took me 113 seconds.

The hardware itself is a NeoPixel controller based on an Arduino-like platform. The main microcontroller is an ATtiny841 running at 16MHz. The USB interface is implemented using a Holtek HT42B534-1 in SOP-10 package.

KiCad 5.0 on 4K monitor seems a little bit too demanding for the GTX 1060 3GB graphics currently in my machine. I wonder if the AMD RX 580 with its 8GB VRAM, or some new card from nVidia, would help.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2018, 07:37:42 pm by technix »
 

Offline mdszy

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Country: us
  • somehow has an ee degree
    • szy.io
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2018, 07:37:49 pm »
Good stuff! I really love KiCad's new 3D rendering, and I found it incredibly easy to import my own models from CAD files provided by manufacturers (provided you hvae SOLIDWORKS for converting files into a format KiCad likes)
somehow allowed to be a Pixie Wrangler in Training
eBay Store | My site | Hackaday.io Projects | my mastodon.technology profile
 

Offline technix

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3216
  • Country: cn
  • From Shanghai With Love
    • My Untitled Blog
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2018, 07:43:24 pm »
Good stuff! I really love KiCad's new 3D rendering, and I found it incredibly easy to import my own models from CAD files provided by manufacturers (provided you hvae SOLIDWORKS for converting files into a format KiCad likes)
I don't have things like Solidworks - is there anything that runs under macOS that can work as an alternative? (And I don't dare to know how bad those type of software would punish the GTX 1060 3GB graphics card under 4K - I wonder if a GTX 1080 Ti would work smoothly at 60fps even.)
 

Offline mdszy

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Country: us
  • somehow has an ee degree
    • szy.io
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2018, 07:44:25 pm »
I just use solidworks in this instance for converting step files to the files that kicad needs for its own rendering, I'm not sure what software would do that for macos.
somehow allowed to be a Pixie Wrangler in Training
eBay Store | My site | Hackaday.io Projects | my mastodon.technology profile
 

Offline M4x

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 40
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2018, 07:54:25 pm »


[...]
I don't have things like Solidworks - is there anything that runs under macOS that can work as an alternative? [...]

Check out FreeCAD - highly recommended! https://www.freecadweb.org/
 

Online Ranayna

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • Country: de
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2018, 07:56:25 pm »
Nice render :)

I am not a 3D file expert, but Kicad 5 seems to take step files fine. The one you can download for the Molex MagJack 85789 here works withou any kind of conversion:
https://www.molex.com/molex/products/datasheet.jsp?part=active/0857891001_MODULAR_JACKS_PLUG.xml&channel=Products&Lang=en-US

 

Offline mdszy

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Country: us
  • somehow has an ee degree
    • szy.io
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2018, 07:57:34 pm »
Nice render :)

I am not a 3D file expert, but Kicad 5 seems to take step files fine. The one you can download for the Molex MagJack 85789 here works withou any kind of conversion:
https://www.molex.com/molex/products/datasheet.jsp?part=active/0857891001_MODULAR_JACKS_PLUG.xml&channel=Products&Lang=en-US

Oh, huh. Not sure what I was doing and why I needed to convert it. Nice!
somehow allowed to be a Pixie Wrangler in Training
eBay Store | My site | Hackaday.io Projects | my mastodon.technology profile
 

Offline bson

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Country: us
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2018, 11:23:41 pm »
You can probably find STEP or other 3D model files for the other parts, for all major brands.  Under the footprint properties there is 3D tab, pick it.  There you can associate it with the model and gives you arrow controls to scale, rotate, and move it so it's properly aligned.   Sometimes the origin is so weird on a model it's so far away it can be hard to find, but it will be there, somewhere.  I usually add the model files to the project, in a subdirectory, and check them into github with everything else.  When I reuse a part I copy them from an existing project and find its X-Y-Z origin in there so I can enter it directly in the new project.

Here's an example with an Amphenol RJ-45, Hiroso Micro-SD, and two TE-Connect micro USB B connectors (looks the same as yours?)...


 

Offline technix

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3216
  • Country: cn
  • From Shanghai With Love
    • My Untitled Blog
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2018, 09:37:56 am »
You can probably find STEP or other 3D model files for the other parts, for all major brands.  Under the footprint properties there is 3D tab, pick it.  There you can associate it with the model and gives you arrow controls to scale, rotate, and move it so it's properly aligned.   Sometimes the origin is so weird on a model it's so far away it can be hard to find, but it will be there, somewhere.  I usually add the model files to the project, in a subdirectory, and check them into github with everything else.  When I reuse a part I copy them from an existing project and find its X-Y-Z origin in there so I can enter it directly in the new project.

Here's an example with an Amphenol RJ-45, Hiroso Micro-SD, and two TE-Connect micro USB B connectors (looks the same as yours?)...


These connectors look off...
 

Online knapik

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Country: au
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2018, 10:28:35 am »
KiCad 5.0 on 4K monitor seems a little bit too demanding for the GTX 1060 3GB graphics currently in my machine. I wonder if the AMD RX 580 with its 8GB VRAM, or some new card from nVidia, would help.

Huh, weird. KiCAD runs well on a 1440p setup with a Radeon HD 5850 for me. Are you sure you have it in the OpenGL canvas mode, and not the software fallback mode? The ray tracing 3d renders do take a little while, so I usually take a small break to make some tea.
 

Offline Rerouter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4315
  • Country: au
  • Question Everything... Except This Statement
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2018, 10:33:43 am »
In openGL Accelerated canvas it runs just fine on my 4GB HD5850 on 4K, Only large rotations seems to cause visable lag.

Though ray tracing 3D veiw does slow everything down, leaving it on non-raytracing and it works fine.
 

Offline technix

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3216
  • Country: cn
  • From Shanghai With Love
    • My Untitled Blog
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2018, 03:20:38 pm »
KiCad 5.0 on 4K monitor seems a little bit too demanding for the GTX 1060 3GB graphics currently in my machine. I wonder if the AMD RX 580 with its 8GB VRAM, or some new card from nVidia, would help.

Huh, weird. KiCAD runs well on a 1440p setup with a Radeon HD 5850 for me. Are you sure you have it in the OpenGL canvas mode, and not the software fallback mode? The ray tracing 3d renders do take a little while, so I usually take a small break to make some tea.
4K 2160p has 2.25x the pixel count of 1440p.

In openGL Accelerated canvas it runs just fine on my 4GB HD5850 on 4K, Only large rotations seems to cause visable lag.

Though ray tracing 3D veiw does slow everything down, leaving it on non-raytracing and it works fine.
On OpenGL canvas on macOS it was struggling a little bit. (macOS itself requires OpenGL to work properly.)

For raytracing I know it is raw CPU power, and I actually intend to run a render time test using the same scene and the same monitor, but on a few different processors. Currently I have a Xeon E3-1231v3 machine (four hyperthreading Haswell cores overclocked to 3.5/3.9GHz) and a dual Xeon E5-2680 server (16x hyperthreading Sandy Bridge cores across two chips, running at 2.7/3.5GHz) as potential contenders.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2018, 03:22:14 pm by technix »
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9309
  • Country: us
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2018, 05:27:37 pm »
It looks neat, but otherwise what's the point? A simple wireframe render would have been just as effective. I'd much rather development spend their time on features that actually contribute to the end product. Pretty 3D rendered eye candy is a toy.
 

Online blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12343
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2018, 05:45:42 pm »
It looks neat, but otherwise what's the point? A simple wireframe render would have been just as effective. I'd much rather development spend their time on features that actually contribute to the end product. Pretty 3D rendered eye candy is a toy.

As a low cost alternative for marketing materials.
Getting real photos taken and processed to ideal level takes very high level of expertise from soldering to photoshopping.
 

Offline sokoloff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1278
  • Country: us
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2018, 06:07:20 pm »
It looks neat, but otherwise what's the point? A simple wireframe render would have been just as effective. I'd much rather development spend their time on features that actually contribute to the end product. Pretty 3D rendered eye candy is a toy.
This probably misses the point that the volunteer(s) who are willing and able to make the 3D rendering better are unlikely to be the same people who would instead make the auto-router better or parts library management more sane. In a lot of cases of open source with community contributions, the choice is much more between "welcome the contribution and reject the contribution" rather than between "welcome the contribution and ask for an equivalent effort contribution in another area"
 

Offline technix

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3216
  • Country: cn
  • From Shanghai With Love
    • My Untitled Blog
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2018, 06:59:16 pm »
It looks neat, but otherwise what's the point? A simple wireframe render would have been just as effective. I'd much rather development spend their time on features that actually contribute to the end product. Pretty 3D rendered eye candy is a toy.
For me this is a near real world CPU benchmark. For example from those benchmarks I know that KiCad ray tracer scales almost linearly with CPU, since the same 4K render takes about 3x as long on my E3-1231v3 machine as my dual Xeon E5-2680 machine, the latter of which has exactly 4x the core and thread count as the former, while being slightly slower and two generations behind. Now if I want to buy a new computer, I would go to the showroom, launch a portable version of KiCad from my Flash drive, load he same project and run a ray trace.

As a low cost alternative for marketing materials.
Getting real photos taken and processed to ideal level takes very high level of expertise from soldering to photoshopping.
That too. I don't think most technology companies, especially hardware focused ones, would have that qualified a graphics designer or photojournalist, or can afford to contract one for smaller projects. Those ray trace images would make marketing material made by a regular graphics designer look much better.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9309
  • Country: us
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2018, 07:01:48 pm »
Sure, but adding useless features increases the size of the code, increases the likelihood of bugs, increases the space required for installation, increases the hardware requirements, and so on. When I create new parts I can't be bothered to make 3D models of them.
 

Offline LapTop006

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 455
  • Country: au
Re: Burned CPU to get this.
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2018, 12:05:11 pm »
It looks neat, but otherwise what's the point? A simple wireframe render would have been just as effective. I'd much rather development spend their time on features that actually contribute to the end product. Pretty 3D rendered eye candy is a toy.

For my boards simple box components wouldn't be quite enough as (decent) 3D models are really handy to see whether connectors are going to be accessible, crowded out by something, etc.

I don't bother with 3D models for basic components if the footprint doesn't already have them, but connectors, every time.

Sure it's not essential, but if it saves a board respin (or just me *wishing* I could respin as my poor fingers get torn up) it's worth the half hour it takes to find & load models.

I've also found it handy while doing my layout & routing as somehow I get a better feeling of what the progress actually is, versus the simple number of ratsnest wires.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf