CAD package selection

Heh. For me, "moderate complexity/density" means four layers and 0.5mm pin-pitch, with no BGA. One man's meat...

Personally I use KiCad, but board design is only a small part of my work (and there's that whole "what is complex to me" bit). Based entirely on the experiences of others, I think that if I were in your shoes I'd either suggest Altium or I'd stick with KiCad (but then, I'm known to be a bit of an Open Source nut).

If management complains about the cost of Altium, ask them to consider how much your time is worth, and whether they want you using software that's a constant drain on that time, just so that they can use a cheaper tool. You'll be swimming upstream, but the smaller the company the more likely management is to be sensible (as well as more likely to be absolutely crazy). Altium may be able to help you pitch the tool to management.

--

Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
http://www.wescottdesign.com

If the contractors are doing schematic/layout in Altium they can import the Orcad files (or should be able to). If you only need to do schematic work, not layout, you can get a Altium schematic only license. I do know that a 1 year, single seat, floating license for Schematic is > $1600/yr now. I dont know what the full package would be.

If the contractors are still going to be involved I would stay with Altium. If you are going to take over all the work then pick a tool you like, KiCAD, Eagle and others.

--
Chisolm 
Republic of Texas

I believe the full PCB package is about 3 or 4 times the SCH-only package (but I haven't checked for a while - it may have changed).

Altium has a vast feature set - you will get far better cooperation with your contractors if you are using the same tools. There is a lot of extra information you can include in the schematics if you are using Altium rather than expecting the contractor to import Orcad files (and I'm guessing the same would apply if you used Altium and they used Orcad).

Altium is probably the most popular choice for boards that are more advanced than you can easily do with KiCAD, but are not /so/ specialised that you need something like Mentor (and can afford the price), and where you don't have overriding compatibility concerns.

I have a similar situation at a client- an licensed version of Orcad for legacy stuff and a few licenses for Altium. You can import from Orcad to Altium, but IIRC there are some issues with that.

I think you can download an Orcad thing that lets you look at the stuff but not edit it. Demo version or something like that.

It works okay- not sure about the current Altium licensing costs- they've been fiddling with the business model- it used to be kind of situational.

I don't think you'd have much trouble swtiching from Orcad to Altium, though a bunch of things are quite different.

--Spehro Pefhany

Cadence introduced Orcad PCB Designer Standard a while back at about $2000. It doesn't have the SI, autorouting or advanced routing tools, but it's a fraction of the cost of Altium. They also offer one year licenses for this product at about 1/4 the perpetual license cost.

However, it won't import Altium designs.

16.2 isn't that old?

Altium's jumped up around $12k now. They plan to release a low cost, comparably featured package in the near future (which hopefully won't be mortally crippled). Sadly, it seems now is not the time to buy.

Conversely, Mentor Graphics is offering PADS at discount rates (supposedly $5k-ish for the basic set?). But I wouldn't wish PADS on my enemies...

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs 
Electrical Engineering Consultation 
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

I am less concerned about learning curve (swithcing from ORCAD to XXX) than about long term consequences. Once you start working with the tool ... the more time you invest in it the more difficult it is to switch. ORCAD has a big (personal) plus for me - I know it. Can it import Altium designs? Altium may be beneficial for my employer (and to me as a result) - compatibility with existing designs. Then there is $$$ issue - there is no such a thing as price list. Regarding smaller packages (Eagle, kiCad,etc.), I have couple questions: How complex designs can they handle? 15-20 pages B-size schematics - ? Hierarchical designs - ? We use contractors for most layouts. Do these capture packages generate netlists compatible with "big boys" layout packages?

As far as I know, no. It's a decent package, but I don't think it's been updated that much in the last five years or more. That may or may not be considered an advantage- if you don't need fancy features (mostly associated with flex circuits or controlled impedance).

Yeah, that's how you know it's expensive.

Sooner or later, you'll decide was the WRONG one...

It may sound like an obvious question... but, what is the *reason* for wanting to import the designs? Just to *say* you can manipulate them? To extract portions for use in new products? To make small tweaks? To port the designs to different physical layouts? etc.

I.e., how much do you intend to *do* with each of these designs? (and, why can't the contractors do those things)

To be clear, "your ALTIUM designs"?

Why were the designs "farmed out" to begin with? Are you the *first* EE hired? How much will you *realistically* be expected to do with those tools (i.e., are you going to now be the design AND layout -- and test/verification -- departments?)? How many products do they expect to run *through* you monthly/yearly/etc.?

How long-lived are the existing (Altium) products expected to be? Will future designs (contracted) also be done under Altium? How will you handle a NEW contractor who opts to use a *different* set of tools? (i.e., if you can force that "new" contractor to stick with Altium, why can't you force them to stick with ?)

OrCAD is a competent toolset -- depending on what you expect from it (thermal analysis? packaging assistance? etc.). I had some problems with a very old OrCAD version (9-ish) that balked at trying to import a design from an earlier OrCAD version (7-ish). This has led me to be very careful about changing/upgrading packages -- unless there is some *fatal* flaw that can't be worked-around. (Imagine having to redo your component library, for example...)

Altium is a great package -- but, tends to be a lot richer than others (you may end up "paying" -- in money and learning difficulty/usage complexity -- for more than you really need).

Can you turn the issue around? Change what your contractors use? (even if it means moving -- or threatening to -- the business to other sources?)

Good luck! It would be interesting to hear how the "compatibility/conversion" issue resolves!

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 6:07:21 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

##You wrote: what is the *reason* for wanting to import the designs? I am first and only EE. The company decided to bring know-how in-house. I have been in this position before (15+? years ago). Back then...the contractor clearly recycled some work they had done. The design worked but there was no way to tweak it - I ended up redesigning/simplifying a lot of things. To answer your question: we need to import the designs to tweak them for changing product requirements, simplify/optimize for our needs ##You wrote: How long-lived are the existing (Altium) products expected to be? I do not know (have been with the company one week). Hope long enough to keep tyhe company afloat and me employed :o) ## You wrote: Will future designs (contracted) also be done under Altium? Most likely, but I am not sure (please see above). If some parts of a design are contracted out, we need a tool that is most likely to import designs done with other tools (the one that "speaks the most languages") ##You wrote: in money and learning difficulty/usage complexity -- This is interesting and important point. How intuitive is Altium? Compared with, say ORCAD Capture (which I find fairly intuitive). Actually every tool I have laid my hands on was fairly intuitive/logical except ORCAD PCB Editor. The latter one needs to be used "24/7/365" or not used at all (IMHO) By the way, I need Capture only. We'll probably farm out layout work.

Can I assume that there is always free decent layout viewer so I can review/check layout (ORCAD PCB Editor has one)?

##You wrote: Can you turn the issue around? Change what your contractors use? I do not know , haven't been around long enough You make me feel I came here unprepared. :o) Thanks Michael

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 17:28:14 -0700, Michael wrote: [snip]

I have gone down the path you are looking at with Altium. I had no experience with Altium but picked up capture quickly. Basic capture is simple, not much different than any other package out there. Some of the features take a little time but I found the help was at last somewhat "helpful" (more than I can say for some packages). Altium has training videos. I have not used them so cannot really comment on quality.

I will generally create a part the way I like it and then send the updated library and data sheet link to my contract layout guy. He builds the foot prints and sends me the library back. If more than one package I tell the layout guy the package I want to use, but he generally builds foot prints for all the packages (except any TH stuff).

I'm not a big fan of Altium's sales model. I had direct sales, then a reseller then another reseller and now back to direct sales. Price keeps going up each year and I dont use any of the new stuff. But it works seamlessly with my layout guy so we keep on this road. I think the last capture only license was about $1500/yr. It's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of product design.

--
Chisolm 
Republic of Texas

Hi Michael,

[forgive any re-formatt> ##You wrote: what is the *reason* for wanting to import the designs?

But, does that mean you will also bringing the DESIGN portion in-house? I.e., how do you see these components working, going forward:

- you

- YOUR CAD package

- contractor(s)

- THEIR CAD package(s)

For example, if *you* will be doing the designs going forward, then the contractor's choice of tools will only be a legacy issue: any "support" you end up POSSIBLY doing in the future.

OTOH, if contractor will continue to be doing designs and you end up "tweaking" them, then the compatibility issue becomes more important.

Unless, of course, they have a GREAT severance package that you can live off of for YEARS!! :>

The issue, here, is how *likely* the designs will need to see revision. A design that persists for a decade will typically see more opportunities for tweaks (new features, obsolete components being replaced, etc) than one that will only be around for 12 mos.

OK. This is analagous to clients who farm out a "design" then "redo it" using their in-house tools. E.g., I typically use whatever tool the client uses/prefers (even if it means borrowing a license). OTOH, I've had clients tell me "use whatever you want -- we're going to redo it once we've seen your WORKING implementation".

[So, they can "port" the design to their toolchain, their MRP package, etc. Even go through and make "equivalent" substitutions: "We use *this* as our small signal NPN transistor and it's P/N is 2003456623 instead of the 2N number he's used so we'll just replace *his* choices accordingly..."]

My experience with older OrCAD versions suggests they had some behaviors caused by "bugs" (I can distinctively recall the effort required for me to MANUALLY force one particular signal to take the path *I* knew it had to take -- the PCB editor kept wanting to rip it up *while* I was routing it... despite the fact that *my* routing didn't violate any DRC's while *it's* did!). I haven't seen this in newer versions, though.

Be thankful you've never played with DASH-PCB. :< (OTOH, DASH-STRIDES was a very effective tool, for its day!)

Ah, that greatly simplifies the problem.

Sort of. :>

There, you just need to be able to export a netlist in a form that the PCB folks will be able to import (and, assume consistent naming between your packages and theirs).

But, it means you are then reliant on them to make any changes in the foils, as well (?).

[You can do trivial things with a Gerber editor -- if you are very careful and your layouts aren't terribly challenging]

If you deal with RS274(X), you're probably safe. There are a varieety of products (even third-party) that do this well.

Understandable.

Not at all! Rather, trying to get you to hear yourself address these issues to help you consider the possibilities (in terms of what you really *must* have).

E.g., when I do a design (schematic/PCB), I'm on the other side of that fence (*you* being the client).

Do I use (tool) what is convenient for *me*? But, then how does the client take ownership of the design?

Do I use what is convenient for *him*? But does that mean I have to buy licenses for every CAD package under the Sun?

The discrepancy between the client and myself manifests as dollars. Who bears that cost?? (Sure, I'll buy a copy of your tool. But, you *know* I'm just going to pass that cost onto you, somehow! Or, would you rather I use a tool that I am proficient with, for which I've already built some of the oddball symbols that I might encounter, and have *your* staff port the design to the tool of their choice?)

Remember, it's not just about choice of tools but also, components, documentation requirements, etc.

E.g., one company I worked for years ago showed ALL schematic revisions GRAPHICALLY on the "current" schematic. Sort of like little bubble inserts tagged with Revision letters: "This portion of the circuit used to look like *this*, instead...". This practice impacts how you

*start* a drawing (make sure you leave enough whitespace for all those future "bubbles" to be added!)

Just came across this:

I would never imagine how crowded EDA tools market is... BTW, has anybody heard of Pulsonix?

I think everyone sees the big price tags and *ongoing* support contracts (not necessarily true of other pieces of software, for example) and thinks it a "straightforward" product (to design) -- esp schematic capture. And, that the products inherently "get their users pregnant" (hard to change vendors) due to component libraries, legacy designs, etc.

What they fail to realize is the number of ongoing contracts they need to keep their business afloat (support staff, marketroids, developers, etc.). So, there seems to be a fair bit of "churn" in the market as companies "start to fail" and get "rescued" by another.

For a *personal* investment (i.e., YOUR cash), my approach would be to find something that has a suitable set of features and reasonable workarounds for the bugs you uncover. And just *stick* with it (even ignoring updates which always run the risk of re-bugging the product or, worse, proving to be incompatible with some *old* design and you don't discover it until you've long discarded the version that *worked*!)

except ORCAD PCB Editor. The latter one needs to be used "24/7/365" or not used at all (IMHO)

Wait till you try Mentor Expedition, if you think ORCAD is bad. It is a go ddamned abomination. I could condemn another tool, but will be nice.

I wish I had your problem: OrCAD or Altium. I would go with Altium, althou gh I too am not so sure I like the company as much as I used to. Altium is the flagship for that company. OrCAD is a little sibling in Cadence that they probably wish they could drop off the orphanage.

You wrote: my approach would be to find something that has a suitable ... And just *stick* with it.... Sounds almost like a marriage, especially "stick with it" part ;oP On serious note: do you know anybody who switched the tool after using it for a while because they got tired of the issues that came with it?

In the (very) early 80's, I ran DASH-STRIDES (capture) and DASH-PCB (layout). Strides was actually a very useful product -- I could hammer out a "production quality" schematic in short order... *if* I had symbols for all of the devices that I was using. It used a three button mouse (predated Windows) and had a very intuitive user interface. Simple features like a (right?) click that brought up a screen that listed every command so all you had to do was left click on the command name -- instead of having to memorize all of them (remember, none of the eye candy that is present in a Windows GUI!)

And, blazingly fast -- even on '286 class machines!

[The symbol editor was ABYSMAL! You built a symbol using TEXT commands that were essentially the component PEN PLOTTER commands to draw the symbol: DXY 2,4 ; draw line to point at (2,4) relative to the current position MX -3 ; move to point at (-3,0) relative to the *new* current position BXL ; draw a "bubbled pin" to the left border of the component "cell" ... If you've any familiarity with HPGL, you can see the parallels. Of course, I may have misremembered the mnemonics but this was the sort of "symbol editor" interface. Thankfully, a small rendering of the symbol appeared *above* this scrolling list of "commands" as you typed them!]

Output was via pen plotter (I think later versions may have supported a printer interface). Or, "netlist" -- to interface with their PCB package.

PCB was a dog. Ran on a UN*X "coprocessor" card (full length, ISA) that was actually a pretty zippy little UN*X machine (OpusV 3.2, IIRC) but really drudged along trying to do autorouting (with only 4M of DRAM and a 10? MHz 32016/32032).

At about the same time, SMT was making popular inroads. The PCB product was really designed with thru-hole parts in mind so it was a kludge to get it to handle SMT parts. And, again, the footprint editor was an "afterthought" -- in much the same way it was in their capture product.

When they came up with a Windows port of the capture product, it was so much more sluggish -- and, still left you with this wonky coprocessor card if you wanted to do layouts (which they stopped supporting -- esp when the board vendor stopped offering that UN*X platform).

Of course, my symbol libraries were essentially useless. Even if I wrote a tool to convert them to some other vendor's (unpublished?) format, there were too many other issues that affect a drawing (e.g., pin spacing, text fonts/heights, etc.) that it was just impractical to port them.

Hence my advice to find something that you *think* you can live with. Once you've built a bunch of symbols to *your* standards (most COTS libraries don't seem to have any rhyme/reason to the design of their symbols), it's really painful to find yourself recreating the same symbols in some *other* toolkit!

This is why bigger clients have tended *not* to impose any constraints on the tools I've used: "Just get us some drawings and a working prototype and we'll do it over using OUR tools and standards".

In my last job I would have gladly switched from OrCad. I'd be tickled to switch back to OrCad now. I din't know a worse package was possible.