advice on selecting new PCB design package

You would find ORCAD adequate for all these tasks, as it is designed as a full, commercial package. However, if you really need to do good RF design, add Microwave Office to your list.

Charlie

Is anyone using Agilent ADS?

"megoodsen" a écrit dans le message de news: snipped-for-privacy@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Hi,

I have right now exactly the same problem, looking for a new CAD tool, for nearly exactly the same kind of designs (mainly RF).

On my side I added one constraint : budget under 2-3K$. That reduced my list to the following : PADS (but without any autorouter for this budget), Eagle (but may be a little limited for difficult RF designs), and Proteus (Isis/Ares). CADSTAR seems great but a little over budget for me, Orcad, Pulsonix and Protel are significantly more expensive as far as I've found.

So I am tempted to give a try to Proteus, I've just downloaded the demo and the tool seems quite well done and full of features, even if the user interface seems not really windows-standard. Any experiences from Proteus users, especially doing RF designs ?

Cheers, Robert

[snip]

I wrote some Foundry tools in that when I was doing support for folks like Ericsson and Nokia. Though Nokia preferred Aplac.

Robert

ist

le

nd

They bought Proteus where I used to work. It was usable (a friend of mine did lots of designs with it, including some complex 6-layer ones), but had lots of bugs and shortcomings. Support (in the UK) was non-existent. I used it once when he was on holiday, just to modify a couple of tracks, and it was *very* hard work. Perhaps I am spoiled, I've used Pulsonix since it first came out.

Leon

Hi Leon,

Speaking of modifying tracks...

In my experience Protel is better than Pulsonix when it comes to the "automatic loop removal" feature that's quite useful while re-routing tracks. (Pulsonix seems as after as not to think you're drawing a new track rather the re-routing.) How about you?

I've never really used Protel. I tried it a couple of years ago, just out of curiosity, but didn't like it all. I found it very difficult to use.

Leon

Hi, Our Company has been using ORCAD for years and we are now switching over to PADS due to a lot of problems with ORCAD. PADS has a good link to Hyperlinx in case you want to simulate your PCB's performance. ORCAD claims to have .HYP generation capability but it does not work correctly. PADS layout is extremely good, supports interactive and autorouting, handles impedance pairs easily -even when autorouting!- and easy to use. Of the many packages I have used so far, PADS is the best!

Regards, Telep

Telep,

Could you tell me what kind of problems you had with OrCAD?

On paper, EASYPC does a lot of what we want, but in reality, it too gives us too many problems and loses a lot of time as a result...

thanks

Listed from trash to gold:

Proteus v6.9 Hobbyist-grade capture and layout. Their claim to fame for hobbyists is their interactive microcontroller simulation integrated in the capture package. Capture is OK, layout "works", is all I'll say.

Eagle v4.16 Very nice little hobbyist-grade package. The interface is a little odd but it gets the job done and the price is very reasonable. No frills, just works good doing basic boards.

Electronics Workbench (MultiSim) v9 with UltiBoard & UltiRoute I loved Electronics Workbench when I was a student and I still like MultiSim but using it for capture and layout is just wrong. It's moved out of the hobbyist-grade ranks but the layout section, called UtilBoard, is a mess. The router is a joke. I have to say that I really like the user interface for UltiBoard but the program is slow even on a faster machine and...well, it's just a mess. They have a downloadable v9 demo, try it for a laugh.

Pulsonix A decent package with a fair price. The autorouter is acceptable. Not bad at all. Suspect the software company has one principle programmer/owner. Also comes with a one-man promoter and cheerleader called Leon. Don't know his relationship with Pulsonix but the guy pops up everywhere on the net with a good word for Pulsonix. (Google keywords "Pulsonix" & "Leon" on the web and in the groups.)

OrCAD v10.5 Very respectable, professional package with the best autorouter available. You could do a lot worse.

PADS 2005 A very respectable package. The low-end of the high-end packages. A terrific value for the money but not cheap.

If money is not a problem, go with PADS. If it is, check out Orcad or maybe Pulsonix.

Appreciations are always personnal but here I strongly disagree with your ranking : We moved from Electronic Workbench to Proteus for our professionnal designs after a quite exaustive benchmark (including Orcad, Pads and others), and concluded that Proteus was the best value for money, in particular when comparing apples to apples in term of pricing. I mean when comparing high-end Proteus configurations (with mixed mode advanced simulation and the very good Electra autorouter option) with entry level "expensive" packages (usually without autorouting at all nor simulation for the same price). Of course a high level PADS is great, but at what price ?

Proteus's interface is quite unusual, but pleasant and homogeneous after some hours. For our mixed-signal designs it has all the features we were looking at : blind/buried vias, unlimited polygonal ground planes with real time refresh and automatic island removal, backannotation, stacked pads, panellisation, etc. The schematic side has very powerful "macro" features, and is able to export the netlist in all common standards. The Electra autorouter seems *very* good, quite as good for medium complexity designs than the Specctra router we used before (we don't use the internal autorouter). And lastly the technical support was really good the three times we called them. Two drawbacks : the libraries are quite limited, and no dedicated features for the routing of high speed busses.

Friendly yours, Robert Lacoste

"Dax" a écrit dans le message de news: snipped-for-privacy@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

I'm just a user and beta-tester, and have used it since it first came out. Pulsonix has quite a few programmers,each with many years of PCB software design experience. I also run the Pulsonix Yahoo group:

Leon

I don't believe they're *that* small; I get the impression it's probably more like 2-4 programmers and another half dozen admin/sales/support people. Note that they license their SPICE simulation and the auto-router.

I think Leon's just been using Pulsonix almost since it came out, it meets his needs, and he has close enough ties to Pulsonix that a lot of what he'd like to see added to it ends up in up, so he couldn't be happier. :-)

As another Pulsonix user, I'd say that it is a good, "solid" product although its interface is not quite as "seamless" as I'd like it to be. (For instance: I'd prefer panning with the mouse to move the schematic the way the mouse is moved rather than opposite it. I'd prefer to be able to copy & paste a bunch of components and have them electrically connect themselves to what they're dropped on... and this doesn't occur.) Still, these are "little things" that one can learn to live with with only occasional cursing; Pulsonix has a lot of the "fancy" features that the big boys do (support for net classes, "rooms," arbitrary attributes, etc.) that are seem quite uncommon in packages at its price point. For the hobbyist, however, these features often go unneeded, hence my suggestions in the past that people also look at the likes of Rimu PCB, gnuEDA, etc.

Haven't tried it for PCB layout, but for schematics I'd say it's "comfortable" (it does get the job done with a minimal of annoyance) if not outstanding. Hasn't had any significant updates in years; on-going development is now in India. (Which is to say -- most likely by people who are programmers and not PCB layout techs. This criticism is probably valid for many other packages as well.)

I haven't used PADS enough to really get to like it, but I have used it enough to know how annoying it can be. Ever tried the "make re-use" feature? It's borderline worthless, yet it's part of a package that adds thousands of dollars to the price tag.

The main packages you didn't mention were Protel and Accel (now owned by Protel). Back in the Protel 3 days, I used it a lot and really liked it; I don't have any experience with newer versions.

---Joel Kolstad

Missed Protel and P-CAD, sorry.

Protel [16-bit v2.8; v3; 98; 99; 99SE SP6] The multiple lives of Protel. The old 16-bit Advanced Schematic and PCB in their later 2.x existence were solid programs you could get a lot done with. It's a shame they're not available now, they were that good. They're still available on some Chinese EDA warez distrubution sites so if you Google hard enough, you can still ferret out a copy to compare to the modern packages. At v3 Protel switched to the integrated client/server scheme and things started to get buggy. v3, crap. 98, crap. 99, not crap but buggy. Protel 99 SE with SP6, very good with few bugs. This is a program that can handle most any everyday board. Highly recommended. The autorouter is capable and the tight coupling between schematic and layout should be a model for other vendors. The 30-day unlimited demo and the all-important Service Pack 6 are still widely available around the net (wink, hint, nudge, see below). When Protel moved to DXP (2002 release), the product fell on it's face. SP1 helped and SP2 makes it usable. The Situs autorouter was a disappointment. DXP

2004 introduced more problems. The current product is still DXP 2004 but it was renamed Altium Designer 6. The one thing to know about Altium is that they are *always* adding more features before previous problems have been fixed. This is their big, big problem. Altium Designer 6 lets you flip the board and work on it from behind. Great, but how about they get the Situs autorouter to follow its rules correctly, *first*! The hardware requirements of Designer 6 are absolutely ridiculous as is the multiple monitor recommendation. DXP/Designer 6 looks like a hot product but dig deep and you'll see that it comes up short, quickly. Explore the Protel Knowledge Base and see for yourself. The last time I was following their open support forum it sounded like many of the users wanted to sue. Leon, you've commented on the user revolts at the Altium forum more than once, haven't you? I'd really like DXP if it worked right. About Altium: I've personally handled contacts with Altium sales to purchase tens of thousands of dollars worth of licenses for their embedded compiler tool chains and can tell you they really didn't seem to care if they sold a license or not. I'd ask for a quote and it would take *days* to get a response. Inevitably there would be an error on the quote, like if the license was to be node-locked or floating. It would take days and phone call reminders to get an ammended quote. People applying for welfare get treated better than that. I just didn't understand it. Then it would take another 7-10 days for the lady with the fricking license generator to send me the license files after they confirmed payment had cleared! This was in '02.

P-CAD I don't have much experience with this other than evaluation so I can't say anything other than it is a serious tool targeted toward layout people. I'd like to hear from P-CAD users.

Comments have been made comparing the Electra autorouter to Specctra. Electra is a decent router for the money but please, it can't compare to Specctra at any level. It's like comparing a Cessna 170 to a flying saucer. If Electra did better then Specctra on "moderately complex" designs, then someone does not know how to control Specctra. Pushing the "Go" button is not autorouting. It takes a considerable amount of time and knowledge to set a design up for effective autorouting with Specctra but it always pays off. This company sells Specctra training videos. They want $995 USD for the beginner course and another $995 USD for the advanced course. Probably worth every penny.

As a reply to the comments about Proteus, come on, it's

*hobbyist-grade*. In the layout (ARES) manual, instructions are given for individuals how to output CAM data to a printer with drill-holes shown so they can be used as manual drilling targets for people who etch their own boards at home. ARES and ISIS were started well but appear to be several years behind other products *except* for their terrific microcontroller simulation. It's not simply an instruction set simulator, the full microcontroller is modeled along with the A/D SPICE in real time. If you're building a microcontroller widget, this is the platform to develop the firmware on before real hardware exists. I know I'm really bad for saying this but the default color scheme for the schematic capture section of the product has that "circus came to town" look. I load a color template carefully prepared to match Protel 99SE colors (used a color-picker utility) so it looks presentable.

OrCAD Capture is simply the best in it's class. It looks great and works great. OrCAD Layout is not the best but OK and is tightly integrated with Specctra, king of autorouters. There is also a very good public support forum at the Cadence website with some very helpful Elmers. Compare that to the Cadence website where everything related to support is under lock and key with a password unless you have a support contract. I'm I right there or will just a license do to get an access password? Yes, development has slowed and now should be called maintenance. v9.2.3 was where it came of age as long as all the updates are applied. I don't see anything to write home about in v10 and I haven't tried v10.5 yet.

Sorry Leon, I shouldn't have stepped on your tail like that. While researching Pulsonix last year I read just about every word you've written on the net and know you're on the up and up.

I rated Electronics Workbench v9, the Frankenstein of EDA packages, above Proteus and Eagle because EW is solidly in the professional class. MultiSim has been bloated until it functions as a Capture package and UltiBoard & UltiRoute have been bolted on and made to integrate with MultiSim. It's crappy but it works and the feature set puts it above hobbyist-grade. I don't like it there but it has to be. I'd pick Proteus over EW to use for normal PTH designs if I had my choice but overall, EW ranks higher on my scale. Sorry.

Mentor Graphics Expedition I've never seen or studied this but a buddy has been promising for 6 months to give me a copy. It is supposedly the Holy Grail of PCB systems. Exceedingly difficult to learn but all powerful and all knowing. I'd love to hear comments from current users.

Another product I haven't used is Zuken Cadstar. I trialed it at v6 for a couple of hours and wasn't impressed but I hear it is in the PADS class or higher, now.

No-Brainers If a teen hobbyist came to me and wanted to learn PCB design, I'd steer them toward Eagle (free version.) If an Engineering intern wanted the same thing I'd start them with Protel 99 SE SP6 (free, unlimited 30-day trial). Anyone else has to decide for themselves.

Protel 99 SE SP6

Joel, ACCEL was bought by Protel/Altium along with it's bigger brother PCAD in

2000. Shortly after the Altium purchase all ACCEL users were either orphaned or upgraded to PCAD. ACCEL no longer exists unless you are still running a pre-Altium version (version 15 if I remember correctly). It was a pretty respectable package in it's day, somewhat simpler than PCAD and limited in layers/nets/parts when compared to it's big brother but in it's day it met a price/performance point that was quite good and very suitable for a lot of small - medium companies.

Sincerely, Brad Velander.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Joel Kolstad"  wrote in message 
news:121eqjn7jhlqu29@corp.supernews.com...
>
> The main packages you didn\'t mention were Protel and Accel (now owned by 
> Protel).  Back in the Protel 3 days, I used it a lot and really liked it; 
> I don\'t have any experience with newer versions.
>
> ---Joel Kolstad

[deleted]

EasyPC is about the same price as Eagle (no free version, though) and is *much* easier to use:

It's been around for over 20 years, I was one of their earliest customers.

Leon

EasyPC is just the low-end hobbyist version of Pulsonix, isn't it? Didn't Pulsonix grow out of EasyPC or something like that, Leon? I've heard stories that it did. Maybe you can give us whole history?

I'd recommend Eagle over EasyPC because:

1. It's has a free version that is quite usable, see limitations below.
2. Large, active global user base to provide support.
3. There are significant 3rd party tools.
4. It has very few bugs, not something most EDA packages can brag about.

Many hobbyist share their Project designs on the net in Eagle format. Yes, EasyPC is easier to use but Eagle is *free*.

************************************************************************************************ The following limitations apply to the EAGLE Light Edition in general:

• The useable board area is limited to 100 x 80 mm (4 x 3.2 inches). * Only two signal layers can be used (Top and Bottom). * The schematic editor can only create one sheet.

Apart from these three limitiations the EAGLE Light Edition can do anything the Professional Edition can do. You can even load, view and print drawings that exceed these limits!

************************************************************************************************

A 4" x 3.2" board with no pin, net, or component limit and two signal layers. What more does a newbie need?

Dax,

I'm impressed by your broad experience with these difference CAD programs, even if I don't agree with all of your opinions!

As you say, "oh, come on!" :-) Here's a short list of things that are annoying in OrCAD capture:

-- Tab-click works to select one of multiple overlapping objects, but this doesn't work in conjunction with multiple select (ctrl+click)

-- The highest zoom level is artificially low

-- No means to set the "pick" radius

-- Pins for schematic symbols must be placed strictly around a rectangular bounding box.

-- Pin styles are limited (there's a canned number of selections -- e.g., "short" and "long" for general purpose pin; no independent adjustment of pin length)

-- Pin names can't be turned off on a pin-by-pin basis (it's all or nothing! -- so you end up turning them all off and using text to display what you want)

-- No ability to add or change keyboard mapping (!! -- this is, what, 2006?)

-- Macro language is half-baked; many functions you'd like to use (e.g., "zoom area" with mouse input providing the bounding box) don't exist

-- No "area de-select" option

-- No polygon shape select

-- No way to toggle area select from "everything wholly within the selected area" to "everything touching the selected area" from the keyboard

-- No tool-tips/status bar display/whatever of a net's name, class, etc. when you select it (must double-click to bring up a modal dialog to obtain this information)

-- Busses can only contain homogenous items, e.g., Data[0:7] -- you can't create a "mixed" bus that also bundles in, e.g., CS, Rd, Wr!

-- No tabbed window view

I realize that many people aren's used to these features and therefore just don't know what they're missing, but I find the biggest annoyance when using multiple CAD programs is that you really start to miss nice features from one in another. Better programs (e.g., those with full macros and keyboard re-assignment) often let you emulate the other programs' functionality to a large extent; such is not the case with OrCAD.

Did you mean Mentor? Mentor won't even let you access their web site knowledge base for, e.g., PADS without a support contract. (I've mentioned before that I really tend to think that PADS is somewhat like Oracle -- it's really not that much better than the competition, but information about it is purposely kept somewhat obscure so that there's an entire artificial industry in training, support contracts, etc.)

Just curious -- what *does't* Proteus do that you'd like it to? I've never used it, but on paper it looks pretty good. I certainly don't downgrade a package because it also happens to cater to hobbyists (e.g., printing out drill hole targets for manual PCB fabrication, as you mention).

---Joel

Dax,

Not really. My understanding is that EasyPC and Pulsonix started out as two completely different codebases, different companies, different programmers. At some point Pulsonix purchased EasyPC, development is now all done in the same building, and therefore there's lots of sharing of bits of code between the two. (Kinda like how PCAD started getting a lot of Protel features once Protel purchased Altium.) Leon can surely provide more details...

It is surprising to me that EasyPC seems to have very little marketing (not even its own web site!?)...

EasyPC, even in its stripped down forms (e.g., the 1000 pin version) is still spendy enough that you have a solid point. On the other hand, programs such as RimuPCB are so cheap that I think they're still well within a hobbyist's budget... and at least appear to still get you that "easier to use" feature.

---Joel