MK scrobe on the papyrus:
. .
Another vote for Easy PC. I've been using it since the original DOS version and the price for the new Windoze version 13 is not much higher.
-- John B
Last time I done it could be generated for all layers, idents, masks, drill aperture in one go using correct wheel file. That was about three years ago in V4.08 .. =20
--=20 Paul Carpenter | snipped-for-privacy@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk PC Services Timing Diagram Font GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny For those web sites you hate
Likewise, hell I can remember working in engineering departments where they had VAX, several special vector graphics workstations and tablets with proper crosshair tracing mice. The ones with the mouse was actually a puck with clear plastic centre marked with crosshair, moving over effectively a tablet.
They were happy that the software could cope with four tracks between standard 0.1inch pads, these days much higher resolutions are expected and the norm.
...
I saw that and beleive their 'vision' was to long term create a package for mechanical and PCB in 3D so moving a mounting hole would move the tracks. They had no idea about what could be safety issues or signal routing problems, even if you could do that effectively the amount of data required to be entered for every pin/part/area of board/signal/bus/etc.. would be horrendous.
...
Worst bug I remeber was an area fill in one Orcad version that could create ground plane with a disconnected island of ground. Passed DRC every time, failed on the bench.
What WAS true of their 'suite' is that it started as separate packages, and got amalgamated through buyouts, but the user interface for some time was noticeably different in each part.
That sounds like the off grid issues that existed in versions I used but disliked. The age old metric/imperial pitch mix along with low granularity caused issues like that.
...
Well I certainly will look at again Kicad and gEDA.
That is one thing I like about Eagle people have made available scripts for import/export and other functions. Some of them I use and at least one I need to review as to modify to stop some annoying quirks.
At least I can modify or automate some behaviours.
That is true of ANY software tool even Microsoft Word.
See also if you can easily change standard libraries supplied to your house style, examples be> > The high end is of course Orcad, for $10,000.
Even full version should be within the original person's budget.
Add - Do you want single platform or possibly multi-platform. ....
Generate auto-inserter/placement files ...
Odd shaped vias, and max via size. These could be for mains, audio and DC power connectors or even board mounting screws for ground connectivity.
I even had one requirement that few packages can cope with a 2 contact component that had contact areas of a central via and a concentric ring. Getting many pacakegs to do an concentric ring surface mount pad is difficult.
For that matter what are largest/smallest drill or voa holes supported.
....
What flexibility on circles/arcs, in some making some bulb, motor, inductor, transformer symbols can be complex.
Do you share files with others (customers, project team in other locations or companies), is an important question.
--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
PC Services
Timing Diagram Font
GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
For those web sites you hate
Building the gEDA suite on Mac OS X is pretty much impossible. I have wasted several nights trying to get it to work and finally just gave up. Too many problems with dependencies of dependencies.
-a
Drill _aperture_? It's an Excellon file, not a gerber. The steps are: run drillcfg.ulp to generate tool list, then run a processor step for each gerber (top silk, top mask, top Cu, bottom Cu, bottom mask, bottom silk - and you have to know which layers to switch on for each gerber), plus another one for the drill control file.
All of that except the first step can be batched in the CAM processor and saved, but it's not quite simple because there are hardcoded paths in the CAM processor dialog. So you can't just cut and paste .cam files from one project to the next.
Hi Paul,
[much elided]Paul Carpenter wrote:
I recall a workstation where the "mouse" was essentially an
*arm* (that went into the bowels of the machine) whose "endpoint" was the pointing device. Clumsy and bulky to move but it was "slicker'n snot" at the time :-/Yup. Not to mention things like blind/buried vias, elaborate pad-stacks, etc. A huge difference from the days of black tape and rubilyth (sp?) on mylar :-/
Exactly. Its as if they thought "schematic drawing" was just like "architectural drawing", etc.
Ha! I've always manually done flood fills for power/ground planes. Especially if you have to put several power planes on a single layer (let *me* decide how to do this, Mr Tool, I really *do* know more about this particular design than you do!)
I think this is true of many of the current tools. :< There is no unified vision as to how it *should* all fit together. Rather, a bunch of kludges that try to make things look like they are "integrated".
No, this was a thru-hole design with a 0.010 grid. When I would complete the route, it would decide there was a BETTER way to run it and would rip it up. Then, choke when the route it wanted to take didn't work. I ended up having to route *almost* all of it (to reserve the real estate) and then manually add foils when the board was "almost done". It was just annoying.
Some older tools also had problems where certain relationships were expected to exist between your padstack definitions, layout grid and the DRC's. But, these weren't *documented*. So, if you happened to "try something funny (unusual)" with any of these, you could end up with DRC violations that the software wouldn't detect. IIRC, this was particularly true of diagonal traces near pads (as if the tool didn't actually compute the "closest distance" metric for that trace/padstack but, instead, *assumed* some value based on its ideas of where the track *could* be (based on grid settings). Not fatal but really annoying if you didn't know what to watch for.
If I was starting out *today* and didn't have any time crunches, I would invest in gEDA as it would give me more control over
*my* toolchain. But, now it just doesn't offer enough to force me to abandon everything I have done to date...Well, I wouldn't go so far as to make that sweeping generalization. E.g., I can port a PostgreSQL database from version X of the software to version X+n (for sizable values of n) without a problem (of course, backporting is a different issue as many features in X+n might not be supported in X).
MS is notoriously bad about supporting older versions of their software. You are often better served using a third party's tool to import an old version into a newer version of that third party tool; then, import *that* to the newer MS product.
(Of course, you are usually BEST served by just avoiding MS altogether! :< )
As well as supporting different pad sizes/shapes within a padstack. It's annoying when folks (vendors) "decide FOR you" on these issues where there really is nothing for them to gain by restricting/eliminating your choice!
Good point! Though for a "small startup", it may be easier to just say "This is the PCB layout computer" and forget about everything else.
I had a problem with one package that wouldn't let me add some foils (free form) that weren't in the netlist. (e.g., putting a guard around the board). Usually, you can find ways around these sorts of SNAFUs -- but, they take time (and usually you don't have lots of EXTRA time )
Usually you can have the tool fan out all of the pads to vias (like doing a high density BGA)
DASH/STRIDES had trouble making things like filled arrows (e.g., the emitter on a Q). When I rebuilt the symbols (using their ATROCIOUS symbol editor), I ended up drawing a set of closely spaced *dots* in the form of the arrow I wanted. Looked great on the screen. And, on paper. But, when the poor pen plotter was drawing the things, it would go into "woodpecker mode" (which, I am sure, beat the hell out of the pens!)
At least we don't have to wait for penplots anymore! :>
Le Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:02:13 -0700, Alfred a écrit:
You might been well advised to take a look on KiCad. I'm using it for years for pretty complex designs. There are many examples that comes with and tutorials are quite good.
Habib
Comma missing should have been "drill, aperture" aperture format is a=20 Gerber file.
There are even some prepared ones for single, double and four layer board with the package.=20
--=20 Paul Carpenter | snipped-for-privacy@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk PC Services Timing Diagram Font GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny For those web sites you hate
....
One annoting quirk in a few is not ecognising that Text etched in copper does not need the same min width requirements as tracks, needs same clearances. Sometimes it is easier to etch board numbers as no ident layer is planned. Sometimes it is good to etch it to stop some fool scratching or removing it.
....
Some small startups have to cooperate with customers etc. on having files readable on their systems. ...
This literally was a via with a ring pad completely encompassing the via. I.e. draw a circle (via) draw a circle using same centre as via spaced about 4mm from via, make sure no mask on ring so it could be used as a ring pad.
--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
PC Services
Timing Diagram Font
GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
For those web sites you hate
Though I have no professional experience with KiCad, only hobby, I second this advice. As with other programs there is a learning curve here as well and the manual is not perfect but everything is very usable. One advantage is that this is an OS program (like gEDA) and You could participate in making it better, e.g. report bugs or think of features that might improve the program. Of course You could also make improvements Yourself if that is what You like. I do think that gEDA offers more but as my demands are not that high, I prefer the learning curve of KiCad which is less steep. Off course no one will keep You from trying both of them.
Whichever one You choose, I wish You good luck with Your startup!
Yours sincerely, Rene
At least they have a binary :) It's a shame nobody has built a Win32 version though.
Yes. Been there, done that: "Often, the tool was something I *had* to use for a particular client and my exposure to it was limited *to* that client's needs." E.g., I keep legacy copies of various tools around for those older contracts that I expect might need more work in the future (clients get annoyed when you tell them you have to redo an entire board just to make a "simple change" -- because the new software doesn't read the old file format, etc.). I've found a SunPCi (in an Ultra 60) to be an excellent way of doing this as I can run several versions of windows and several "instances" of a particular version of windows on the board just by selecting which "virtual disk image" to use. Like "dual booting" a machine except having 2, 5, 20, etc. different choices! :>
I'm visualizing a pad with a "circle" around it (like a simplified bullseye). So, why can't the inner pad be a via (or have a via stitched in it) that feeds out beyond the outer "circle" on an inner/buried board layer? And, if the outer circle is only present on the top layer, then there should be no (?) problem?
Or, am I missing some other detail?
E.g., a high density BGA is a nightmare to connect all of the inner pads to signals outside the array so you just stitch them all to inner layers and drag them out "under" the pads.
Regardless, I think we both agree the point being make sure the tool doesn't enforce its expectations about just what constitutes a legitimate "package". The tool should warn you if you are doing something that *looks* wrong (unusual) but, like I said in my original reply, the tool shouldn't think it is smarter than the user! (and, thus, PREVENT the user from doing somthing that *it* can't comprehend).
'course, I got bit by just this sort of cooperation: I added a "jumper in foil" between two pads that directly shorted another signal and the software let me do this "in my infinite wisdom". I was quite annoyed when I got the first boards back and saw the short staring me in the face! :< (since it was just a "default jumper", it was easy enough to cut out and add "by hand"; but, embarassing!)
It builds fine under Fink, though. .
A lot of packages do not allow creating the outer ring as an SMD pad, and DRC gets confused. Let alone setting up the mask restrictions on a component footprint that contains a track and not a pad.
Agreed..
--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
PC Services
Timing Diagram Font
GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
For those web sites you hate
gEDA builds under Cygwin, and PCB has a windows installer package in the downloads area.
larwe wrote:
At previous points in time, Ales Hvezda and Dan McMahill
*HAVE* each build distributable Windoze-compatible binaries. Before they did that, however, it appears that no one considered the nature of the typical Windoze user. Here's the thinking on this topic now:
To be fair, that's the thinking from three years ago.
Eagle isn't free, unless you do all development on two layers with one schematic sheet.
There are two good free tools you should look at, gEDA and KiCAD. KiCAD suppports exporting Spectra fomat design files which allow autorouting with either free or non-free third party autorouters. Both gEDA and KiCAD are active open-source projects with lots of users - try to stay away from older software that's not being developed anymore.
Low cost options include DipTrace (a VERY good tool with autorouting, easy to learn interface, etc.) Eagle appears to have made their interface better on v5.0, but I havn't used it.
If you can get Fink to work. Maybe it's because I never upgraded from
10.4, but I've not been able to get Fink working properly.
Even then it's only free (gratis) for hobby/educational use. The two layer, one sheet version is $49 for commercial use.
For something a bit more comparable to other commercial packages you'll spend $750-1500 for schematic, layout, and autorouter.
That's still inexpensive by commercial standards and you've got to give CadSoft credit for fully supporting both OS-X and Linux.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Vote for ME -- I'm
at well-tapered, half-cocked,
visi.com ill-conceived and
TAX-DEFERRED!
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.