Cell views & plot in cadence

First of all, there is no tool called "Cadence". That's the name of the company, not the tool. To briefly answer your questions:

1. No idea. It depends on what has been put in the views "schematic" and "schematic_sim". View names can be called whatever you want, and so the contents of these views is entirely dependent upon whoever created them. We have no convention for views called "schematic_sim" - you'd have to ask whoever created them. I suspect that one is the physical representation of the view, and the other has a different model for simulation - but that's just a wild guess based on the names - as I said, you would have to ask whoever provided the two views.
2. spectreS has been obsolete since IC443 (released in about 1999/2000) and has not existed in the tools since IC610 (2006). So it's hardly surprising that spectreS views don't exist. The "spectreS" view and simulator was an old "socket" simulator which used cdsSpice as a pre-processor before running the simulation in spectre; the "spectre" view/simulator in ADE was introduced in IC443 as a direct interface between Virtuoso and the simulator without using cdsSpice as a pre-processor. Given that it's been around for at least 17 years, there really is no good reason to try to use an ancient interface that isn't even available in any release of the software from the last 10 years!
3. Yes. We even have a capability in ADE XL called "MTS" (Multi-technology support) which allows you to simulate devices from two different technologies together (it scopes the models so that they only apply to parts of the design hierarchy, which solves the problem if the model names are the same for two different technologies). That may not be what you want, but simply plotting results from two different simulations is even easier and I assume you could have just tried that yourself.

Regards,

Andrew

thanks Andrew :-)

I used the word 'Cadence' instead of 'spectre', as we are habituated to say likewise in our workplace. I agree and know its not the apt one.

I came to know that, if we are not using any symbol in the layout, that we used in schematic, then we need to use 'schematic_sim' instead of 'schematic', so that the check is done for remaining except that symbol.

It would be very helpful if there is a guide/tutorial for using 'Multi-technology support' in ADE XL. Can you refer me any ?

A search in cdnshelp (via the Help menus in virtuoso) for those keywords "multi technology support" or "MTS" would find it. It's actually in the Virtuoso Analog Design Environment GXL User Guide, and has a chapter to itself. Whilst it's under ADE GXL, it's actually available with just an ADE XL license (or Assembler/Explorer in IC617).

Regards,

Andrew.

thanks Andrew. I tried it. In fact, it isn't elaborate.

Am afraid if you are referring to the process parameters change like temperature, etc. To be very specific, I open Cadence for the following in difference workspaces-

1. Technology A- AMS 0.35um

2. Technology B- UMC 180nm

3. Technology C- ST 130nm

4. Technology D- FDSOI 28nm

Say, I have a simple inverter in all the technologies and they are saved in their respective directories. Now I want to have all the plots (say, Drain current- Id_AMS, Id_UMC, Id_ST & Id_FDSOI for a simple DC sweep of gate voltage) in same graph. Can this be done using 'Multi technology simulation'. If so, can you refer/recommend me any additional references ?

Using MTS would require you to have all four technologies running in the same session. That might be challenging, although if they're different foundries it may not be too bad as they wouldn't be so likely to clash. Even if you did this, I'd recommend creating the schematics for each in an environment that only had one PDK available to avoid the risk of clashes, and then create a schematic with the four inverters present.

The MTS documentation that I pointed you would tell you how to point at the model files for each of the different instances - and you'd have to simulate in ADE XL.

However, since you're really doing this for comparison reasons rather than really needing to simulate them together, wouldn't it be simpler to run your four simulations and then use the ViVA results browser to open the results from each of the four simulation results directories, and then plot them together on the same graph? That's easy enough to do... certainly doesn't need a tutorial to do it (nor does MTS, to be honest).

Regards,

Andrew.