enough_ahnaf

haha you just reminded me of a time when AI forgot about the python GIL when doing pytest wrapped around my custom USB endpoint C++ code to talk to my firmware and it completely broke all my host USB because I didn't know how locks would affect my code. this was opus 4.6 though so I forgive em.

haha, now wouldnt want the world to have yet another PLC simulation software would we...

Yes I totally agree claude can write some damn good firmware! but at an enterprise development team scale for testing needs simulation. It has and always will for any critical embedded system. I think its the other way around that the viability will only get greater. Only this year did people start trusting LLMs with firmware so the bet based on what we saw at industry, the better the AI the better you want the simulation it can use for your development.

The other contributing cause is the actual lack of silicon in supply and we are seeing it especially for the automotive industry, which is only spiking demand for better simulations to unblock teams.

If you want to ship with agents at scale you need a good testing pipeline now more than ever. We don't replace the bench setup test, we look to enhance what you bring to it.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that, yes you could just let your LLM continuously loop on some hardware setup, rinse and repeat for weeks. If you have the hardware and the time to spare.

dare I say it has already advanced!

Unfortunately yes, we are limited in the mixed signal domain right now, that is by design. you would need to interact with ICs at a data level or pin level transactions. This would be digital levels nothing analog.

This was kind of part of our original offerings to have a firmware mixed signal co-simulation. Run firmware--> see Spice level simulations happen. But this was a case where the speed to fidelity trade off really didnt make sense... yet. We were spreading ourselves thin on a long horizon project with nothing to show for it during the YC term.

We will come to revisit this problem for sure as we have heard many of our customers ask similiar question for analog IC purposes. Just have to take it one step at a time.

The simulation itself is deterministic. inputs in, same outputs out. But our data collection for the hardware behaviour does naturally have a few things that are probalistic, we don't do any ML based modelling. No really fast LLM under the hood unfortunately

we have thought about it, but its a name we came up ourselves, fits the bill and we have the domain for it. Can't ask for much more. its pretty rare for google to be our inbound and when we get to that point we would probably overtake that in SEO anyway

Thank you! We will have to look into that, but theres actually an even closer to our name that we get auto-corrected to. if you really want to see how crowded naming is... just google "simantic". Our SEO goals truly need to peak to get through

Will be putting this out later today. We have just been updating so much that it became a burden to try to keep our model coverage upto date. But our cloud-sim API itself shows what models it can run: STM32F042/F048, ESP32-C3, RP2040, STM32F072, STm32F446, STm32 F401. We will get this live soon!

Thank you, and for sure market is very fragmented. Which is exactly why we are starting small and modelling deep with stm32 as our workhorse here. The quirks we are finding them everyday! I have seen mcu controller behaviour from neither errata nor datasheet and thats the beauty of field testing.

I think our biggest difference to renode is the silicon validation and our commitment to keeping our simulation honest. I have struggled to find simulators that people actually put the measured differences and that is the direction we will go. We haven’t put our silicon validation benchmarks public yet but we will in the coming months!

As for legacy players, they don’t fill the niche enough. Thats why we exist and as a startup can fill this niche for the people that need it, whether its china, or anywhere else.

We are both! The cloud service is for everyone to try right now. We have a paid local license version too.

But we started as local only however quickly learned thag cloud has a few advantages. we can have seamless github integration setup for people. And quite a few people prefer when things just work with a setup on every commit!

Convenience of the cloud or you can setup yourself with developer license.

Thank you, yes validation is the new bottleneck anywhere we talk to people. However for us in hardware its pretty simple, The board is king! Our setups are simpler now than it will be in the next few months coming as we add in more and more components to a “scenario”.

But, this is a great point because we do think about what is a bench artifact from the dev boards we are testing versus something that would not show up in production pcb.

Amazing to learn on this thread. Does anyone know what they would use to simulate ECU problems like this? Im a firmware engineer in the industry and kind of seeing a problem like this and this thread really opened up my eye to what it looks like under the layers of Media in F1