KiCad Proving Not So Hard to Learn

I am not a fan of most learning materials. They dole out the information s lowly and in an sequence I have trouble following. Too much detail on clic k this button, drag that wire sort of thing. So I skimmed an intro and sta rted in.

I had a few missteps. Saving your symbols is not as clear as saving a sche matic which is a traditional file thing. But I got there. So it took me a day to get enough up to speed that I have a completed schematic.

It is a PITA switching between KiCad and LTspice. The controls are fundame ntally different so it is hard to use instinct and every action has to be c onsidered consciously. One thing they both have in common is twitchy zoom controls with the mouse wheel. A couple of weeks ago I found LTspice has a setting to reverse the sense of the wheel so it can match how the rest of the world operates. So at least that worked ok.

So there are some things to be added to the design, but otherwise I'm ready to start layout. We'll see how easy that is to master. I recall years ag o trying to use layout in Orcad and it was in no way obvious. I use FreePC B which is a very lightweight program that is *very* easy to pick up. I wa nt to use KiCad for this project though as it's open source and my well be picked up by others. Not many people want to bother with a small time layo ut program even if it is easy to use.

--
  Rick C. 

  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ricketty C
Loading thread data ...

mandag den 1. juni 2020 kl. 21.46.38 UTC+2 skrev Ricketty C:

slowly and in an sequence I have trouble following. Too much detail on cl ick this button, drag that wire sort of thing. So I skimmed an intro and s tarted in.

hematic which is a traditional file thing. But I got there. So it took me a day to get enough up to speed that I have a completed schematic.

mentally different so it is hard to use instinct and every action has to be considered consciously. One thing they both have in common is twitchy zoo m controls with the mouse wheel. A couple of weeks ago I found LTspice has a setting to reverse the sense of the wheel so it can match how the rest o f the world operates. So at least that worked ok.

dy to start layout. We'll see how easy that is to master. I recall years ago trying to use layout in Orcad and it was in no way obvious. I use Free PCB which is a very lightweight program that is *very* easy to pick up. I want to use KiCad for this project though as it's open source and my well b e picked up by others. Not many people want to bother with a small time la yout program even if it is easy to use.

Kicad works quite well and has a really nice 3d viewer, with the right scri pt kicad spits out bom and placement files that works with jlcpcb, all that is needed is adding the lcsc partnumbers to the schematic

I just made a did a pcb with a mcu and various dothats and had the pcb made and assembled by jlcpcb, I think it cost ~$15 + components to have 5 pcbs made and assembled in 5 days,

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 4:34:10 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wro te:

on slowly and in an sequence I have trouble following. Too much detail on click this button, drag that wire sort of thing. So I skimmed an intro and started in.

schematic which is a traditional file thing. But I got there. So it took me a day to get enough up to speed that I have a completed schematic.

damentally different so it is hard to use instinct and every action has to be considered consciously. One thing they both have in common is twitchy z oom controls with the mouse wheel. A couple of weeks ago I found LTspice h as a setting to reverse the sense of the wheel so it can match how the rest of the world operates. So at least that worked ok.

eady to start layout. We'll see how easy that is to master. I recall year s ago trying to use layout in Orcad and it was in no way obvious. I use Fr eePCB which is a very lightweight program that is *very* easy to pick up. I want to use KiCad for this project though as it's open source and my well be picked up by others. Not many people want to bother with a small time layout program even if it is easy to use.

ript kicad spits out bom and placement files that works with jlcpcb, all th at is needed is adding the lcsc partnumbers to the schematic

de and assembled by jlcpcb, I think it cost ~$15 + components to have 5 pcb s made and assembled in 5 days,

I might have asked this before, but does it support ODB++? One of the fab housed talked like they expected their customers to provide that. Apparent ly it provides named nets and pad locations, the sort of stuff that is very useful if you are debugging. Much better than Gerbers and a schematic PDF .

With FreePCB I can give them the source file and the program, but people ar e funny about foreign software. They had a cow about running Forth on MY t est fixtures because we needed to connect to the LAN and they did a virus s can and got a false positive.

--
  Rick C. 

  + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ricketty C

mandag den 1. juni 2020 kl. 22.43.45 UTC+2 skrev Ricketty C:

rote:

tion slowly and in an sequence I have trouble following. Too much detail o n click this button, drag that wire sort of thing. So I skimmed an intro a nd started in.

a schematic which is a traditional file thing. But I got there. So it too k me a day to get enough up to speed that I have a completed schematic.

undamentally different so it is hard to use instinct and every action has t o be considered consciously. One thing they both have in common is twitchy zoom controls with the mouse wheel. A couple of weeks ago I found LTspice has a setting to reverse the sense of the wheel so it can match how the re st of the world operates. So at least that worked ok.

ready to start layout. We'll see how easy that is to master. I recall ye ars ago trying to use layout in Orcad and it was in no way obvious. I use FreePCB which is a very lightweight program that is *very* easy to pick up. I want to use KiCad for this project though as it's open source and my we ll be picked up by others. Not many people want to bother with a small tim e layout program even if it is easy to use.

script kicad spits out bom and placement files that works with jlcpcb, all that is needed is adding the lcsc partnumbers to the schematic

made and assembled by jlcpcb, I think it cost ~$15 + components to have 5 p cbs made and assembled in 5 days,

b housed talked like they expected their customers to provide that. Appare ntly it provides named nets and pad locations, the sort of stuff that is ve ry useful if you are debugging. Much better than Gerbers and a schematic P DF.

are funny about foreign software. They had a cow about running Forth on MY test fixtures because we needed to connect to the LAN and they did a virus scan and got a false positive.

I think someone has it on the wish list for version 6, which will be probab ly be years from now

afaiu odb++ is a proprietary standard owned by Mentor and just to see the specs you to prove a customer need and sign an NDA ...

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

As far as I can tell, it does not.

It does support the Gerber extended attributes (a.k.a. Gerber X2), which provide a similar sort of attribute-based labeling for the nets and pads. You can enable these when creating the Gerbers, and the KiCAD Gerber viewer will then let you select traces and pad-sets by net name. I tried enabling that for the set of test Gerbers for the second spin of a PCB I'm about to sent out for for fabbing, and it seemed to work as intended.

The ODB++ vs. Gerber X2 debate seems to have been going on since at least 2014. It hasn't quite outdone the Emacs vs. vi slugfest, but we'll have to check back in a few years to see whether it could... :-)

Reply to
Dave Platt

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 5:02:50 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wro te:

mation slowly and in an sequence I have trouble following. Too much detail on click this button, drag that wire sort of thing. So I skimmed an intro and started in.

g a schematic which is a traditional file thing. But I got there. So it t ook me a day to get enough up to speed that I have a completed schematic.

fundamentally different so it is hard to use instinct and every action has to be considered consciously. One thing they both have in common is twitc hy zoom controls with the mouse wheel. A couple of weeks ago I found LTspi ce has a setting to reverse the sense of the wheel so it can match how the rest of the world operates. So at least that worked ok.

'm ready to start layout. We'll see how easy that is to master. I recall years ago trying to use layout in Orcad and it was in no way obvious. I us e FreePCB which is a very lightweight program that is *very* easy to pick u p. I want to use KiCad for this project though as it's open source and my well be picked up by others. Not many people want to bother with a small t ime layout program even if it is easy to use.

t script kicad spits out bom and placement files that works with jlcpcb, al l that is needed is adding the lcsc partnumbers to the schematic

b made and assembled by jlcpcb, I think it cost ~$15 + components to have 5 pcbs made and assembled in 5 days,

fab housed talked like they expected their customers to provide that. Appa rently it provides named nets and pad locations, the sort of stuff that is very useful if you are debugging. Much better than Gerbers and a schematic PDF.

e are funny about foreign software. They had a cow about running Forth on MY test fixtures because we needed to connect to the LAN and they did a vir us scan and got a false positive.

ably

I think there is a version that is part of an open standard (still a fee fo r the doc though), I forget the name of the industry standards outfit, IPC maybe? They publish standards for quality in PCB manufacturing and assembl y. They've been working on a Gerber replacement superset for a long time, at least a decade. Seems like slow going. For being so high tech it is a fairly conservative industry. No one in a position to impact adoption of a new standard seems to care enough to make a conversion. But the many impa cted sure do like the result when they can use it.

The Gerber file format sucks in many ways. When people misuse it such as c reating pours by drawing many, many, many lines across an area it's no wond er there are problems. The drill file isn't even a part of it, that's anot her standard that isn't a standard.

I just realized none of the jellybean parts I used have footprints. I gues s that's going to be some work. I asked a question in the forums about dra wing the text on the schematic with a thicker stroke and got a reply asking me what version of Windows I'm running. The version of the software sure, seems they've made a lot of changes since 4.x. But the OS?

--
  Rick C. 

  -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ricketty C

Really! Can you believe anyone is still not squarely in the Emacs camp? Actually I have a slight preference for butterflies.

formatting link

C-x M-c M-butterfly

--
  Rick C. 

  -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ricketty C

Butterflies? Why, when I was programming in the days of my youth, we used to _dream_ of having butterflies.

We had to persuade the cockroaches and silverfish to edit for us, by eating holes in the used punch-cards which were all we could afford.

:-)

Reply to
Dave Platt

Actually I have a slight preference for butterflies.

I was only a junior when I was learning programming with punched cards. We were not allowed cockroaches. The TAs said they were concerned the cockro aches would find the bugs for us... lol

It's a bit funny that when they taught us a programming language, they neve r taught us how to debug. When I entered EE the instructors told us that w hile we draw nice pretty waveforms on the board, they are never that clean in the real world, but no real explanation. It's as if the practical aspec ts of engineering and science were beneath them to even discuss. I was luc ky in that I was working in a job at the time and the cross fertilization w as enormous. I got to see a lot of the "real" issues of electronics. One of them had to do with static zapping a board with mixed TTL and CMOS. Eve ry CMOS part on the board was damaged.

--
  Rick C. 

  +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ricketty C

slowly and in an sequence I have trouble following. Too much detail on cl ick this button, drag that wire sort of thing. So I skimmed an intro and s tarted in.

hematic which is a traditional file thing. But I got there. So it took me a day to get enough up to speed that I have a completed schematic.

mentally different so it is hard to use instinct and every action has to be considered consciously. One thing they both have in common is twitchy zoo m controls with the mouse wheel. A couple of weeks ago I found LTspice has a setting to reverse the sense of the wheel so it can match how the rest o f the world operates. So at least that worked ok.

dy to start layout. We'll see how easy that is to master. I recall years ago trying to use layout in Orcad and it was in no way obvious. I use Free PCB which is a very lightweight program that is *very* easy to pick up. I want to use KiCad for this project though as it's open source and my well b e picked up by others. Not many people want to bother with a small time la yout program even if it is easy to use.

I've dabbled in using various design tools. Back in the day, I used OrCAD a nd the tool from Mentor Graphics. I then tried the EDA tool set and after much annoyance, I switched to KiCAD a number of years ago. I have not gott en to the point of actually shipping my layout to a board house. The curren t version (5.x) is much better than pre 5 versions. If you are using KiCAD , use the current version. In my opinion, the component libraries vary in detail depending who made th em. I view their use philosophy for them as 'use at your own risk' and I ha ve seen stated that the philosophy for libraries is that the user is expect ed develop their own component libraries and footprints. The file organizat ion and the edit process takes some getting used to, and it is easy to 'los e your modified components.' Point is, you will (probably) spend a lot of t ime developing your own component libraries. If you use theirs as starting points, it is strongly suggested that you double-check them. I (and other s) have found errors. I found the DRC was fairly good. Dave on EEVblog did a ~40min+ 'review' of KiCAD that you may find useful (w ithin the last year. There are older ones you should probably ignore.) Good luck J

Reply to
three_jeeps

tirsdag den 2. juni 2020 kl. 01.04.18 UTC+2 skrev Ricketty C:

rote:

ormation slowly and in an sequence I have trouble following. Too much deta il on click this button, drag that wire sort of thing. So I skimmed an int ro and started in.

ing a schematic which is a traditional file thing. But I got there. So it took me a day to get enough up to speed that I have a completed schematic.

re fundamentally different so it is hard to use instinct and every action h as to be considered consciously. One thing they both have in common is twi tchy zoom controls with the mouse wheel. A couple of weeks ago I found LTs pice has a setting to reverse the sense of the wheel so it can match how th e rest of the world operates. So at least that worked ok.

I'm ready to start layout. We'll see how easy that is to master. I recal l years ago trying to use layout in Orcad and it was in no way obvious. I use FreePCB which is a very lightweight program that is *very* easy to pick up. I want to use KiCad for this project though as it's open source and m y well be picked up by others. Not many people want to bother with a small time layout program even if it is easy to use.

ght script kicad spits out bom and placement files that works with jlcpcb, all that is needed is adding the lcsc partnumbers to the schematic

pcb made and assembled by jlcpcb, I think it cost ~$15 + components to have 5 pcbs made and assembled in 5 days,

e fab housed talked like they expected their customers to provide that. Ap parently it provides named nets and pad locations, the sort of stuff that i s very useful if you are debugging. Much better than Gerbers and a schemat ic PDF.

ple are funny about foreign software. They had a cow about running Forth o n MY test fixtures because we needed to connect to the LAN and they did a v irus scan and got a false positive.

obably

he

for the doc though), I forget the name of the industry standards outfit, IP C maybe? They publish standards for quality in PCB manufacturing and assem bly. They've been working on a Gerber replacement superset for a long time , at least a decade. Seems like slow going. For being so high tech it is a fairly conservative industry. No one in a position to impact adoption of a new standard seems to care enough to make a conversion. But the many im pacted sure do like the result when they can use it.

creating pours by drawing many, many, many lines across an area it's no wo nder there are problems.

most graphic formats are arrays of pixels, that works just fine

The drill file isn't even a part of it, that's another standard that isn't a standard.

in kicad the schematic parts often don't have a footprint until you chose o ne

i.e a resistor is just a resistor until you edit the properties (or use the assign footprint gui) to say a 0603 footprint

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

on slowly and in an sequence I have trouble following. Too much detail on click this button, drag that wire sort of thing. So I skimmed an intro and started in.

schematic which is a traditional file thing. But I got there. So it took me a day to get enough up to speed that I have a completed schematic.

damentally different so it is hard to use instinct and every action has to be considered consciously. One thing they both have in common is twitchy z oom controls with the mouse wheel. A couple of weeks ago I found LTspice h as a setting to reverse the sense of the wheel so it can match how the rest of the world operates. So at least that worked ok.

eady to start layout. We'll see how easy that is to master. I recall year s ago trying to use layout in Orcad and it was in no way obvious. I use Fr eePCB which is a very lightweight program that is *very* easy to pick up. I want to use KiCad for this project though as it's open source and my well be picked up by others. Not many people want to bother with a small time layout program even if it is easy to use.

and the tool from Mentor Graphics. I then tried the EDA tool set and afte r much annoyance, I switched to KiCAD a number of years ago. I have not go tten to the point of actually shipping my layout to a board house. The curr ent version (5.x) is much better than pre 5 versions. If you are using KiC AD, use the current version.

them. I view their use philosophy for them as 'use at your own risk' and I have seen stated that the philosophy for libraries is that the user is expe cted develop their own component libraries and footprints. The file organiz ation and the edit process takes some getting used to, and it is easy to 'l ose your modified components.' Point is, you will (probably) spend a lot of time developing your own component libraries. If you use theirs as starti ng points, it is strongly suggested that you double-check them. I (and oth ers) have found errors.

(within the last year. There are older ones you should probably ignore.)

Yeah, I had the same problem with LTspice. Anything with any age on it is worthless because so much has changed. Or I should say "something" has cha nged. When you are learning it doesn't take much. LTspice can be a bear w ith much undocumented and what is documented is hard to find. The digital components are very nonintuitive and the docs are just wrong in some cases.

The KiCad schematic capture and library use is not complex. I did lose the first symbol I created because I couldn't figure out how to save it. Afte r that it was pretty smooth sailing... relatively speaking. I did manage t o find a bug! lol

I expect layout to be a bit more difficult.

--
  Rick C. 

  ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ricketty C

Gerber is sort of vectors, actually aperature shapes flashed or painted here and there. Originally a photoplotter used a wheel of shapes, one selected at a time in a light box, and X-Y stepper drivers moved to paint the shapes onto film. Copper pours are usually drawn as a sort of raster scan of circles.

The file format resembles the G-code files that a milling machine uses.

Goto X1 Y1 Select aperature 12 light on goto X2 Y2 light off

something like that.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

Science teaches us to doubt. 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
jlarkin

Yes, the original Gerber plotters literally had apertures that projected li ght onto a negative. Because of that the original way of drawing copper po urs was to draw the zig-zag pattern taking a lot of time to scan an area. That was also a time when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Since then they have learned this creates large files. Since the drawing i s all done in memory and converted to a raster scan they have added command s to the Gerber format that specify both positive and negative areas. Defi ne an outline and that area will be covered with copper... or that area wil l be devoid of copper. Positive and negative can even be combined on a sin gle layer... positive fills for floods and run negative traces to define th e isolation for traces running through the fill.

Very simple, very clean and files that aren't into the many MB.

But there are people using software designed in the previous century and th ey are still supported. That's no small reason why the PCB industry isn't eager to join us in the 21st century. They don't want any growing pains... at all.

They aren't the ones to deal with the impact of never modernizing the forma ts and capabilities of the interchange format.

--
  Rick C. 

  --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ricketty C

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.