3 ms·

> Test Rev. 5: This should take no longer than two weeks. Ah yes, the famous last words of expecting testing to take less than two weeks, and that all tests wi

• bsder 1y ago
  "We do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they were easy."
• Mbwagava 1y ago
  Planning for and expecting are not the same thing. This is just a bad-faith interpretation.
• LeonM 1y ago
  My post is being downvoted, but it was serious advice though. Especially in RF hardware design, you will have to plan for the hardware revision to inevitably have problems. And in hardware design, a new revision will take at least another week for a new prototype to arrive. OP is on rev 5, so I'm assuming that the schematics itself will have been validated already, if the schematics haven't changed between v4 and v5 then it's not unrealistic to subtract the schematic validation part from the planning. However, OP does also mention having made many routing / placement changes, and trying to move components under a heatsink and such. This is where all sorts of unforseen problems can arise. Especially with high-speed, RF, impedance matched design you can run into so many unforeseen RF black-magic problems. Trust me, I've been there. In hardware, especially when RF is involved, it's not about how long the testing/validation itself takes, but the turnaround time to get a new prototype produced.
  • datadrivenangel 1y ago
    I also had the same thought when I read that. It does seem like the schedule question here is not if testing takes two weeks, it's if rev 5.1 actually fixes the issues, and how long testing revs 5.2 and 5.3 will inevitably take.