Low cost PCB layout software

emanuel stiebler wrote:
> 
> Lewin A.R.W. Edwards wrote:
> 
>   > New software always feels this way, and CAD software is never going to
> > be as instant-gratification as, say, MS-Word.
> 
> You forgot the smiley here ;-)
> 
> > If you used Visio to
> > draw a PCB layout then you clearly have the tenacity and masochism
> > required to accomplish almost anything, so persevere and I'm sure
> > you'll get accustomed to EAGLE :)
> >
> >>Anyone know of other sources of info on how to use this tool?  The
> >>manuals just don't cut it.
> 
> Yup, could be better, but the online help is a good thing, if you know
> what you're looking for ;-)
> 
> > Peer support is the best way to get running with EAGLE. I never even
> > read the manuals (they're in my attic somewhere), although I do
> > frequently refer to the on-line help.
> 
> And don't forget the pretty active newsgroup for EAGLE. Got a lot of
> (sometimes) stupid question solved there. And a lot of the EAGLE
> developers hang out there too, so if you need a nice trick, you probably
> get it there.

Oh, I didn't realize.  What is the newsgroup name?

In article <3FF11B94.93E2A3E5@yahoo.com>, noone@yahoo.com says...
> But now that I have tried to use Eagle, I do not find it an easy to use
> tool.  One of the first tasks I have is to make a foot print for a
> TSSOP20 package.  I can find various commands to add the SMD pads, but
> it is *extremely* tedious since I have to calculate the X,Y of every pad
> and then go though a process of creating each one and moving it to the
> right location using the mouse.  Since the X,Y coordinate shown depends
> on where the pad is picked up using the mouse, I have to use the info
> command to find the current location, make sure I pick it up by that
> location and then move it to the correct location.  I tired using typed
> commands for this, but the editor complains saying the move command can
> only be used on "boards".  
The commands to place pads for packages will take coordinates from the 
keyboard (I prefer that to the mouse for this kind of work anyway).  You 
can also script this.

Definitely peruse Cadsoft's support newsgroups.  This kind of question is 
dealt with nicely there.  Be sure to read older postings since these 
kinds of questions have often been addressed before.

> 
> I can't seem to find a way to pour copper on this part, which it needs
> to create a large pad under the body for heat conduction.  I suppose I
> could add an extra pin to the schematic and use the SMD command, but
> that seems like an odd way to do it.  
See polygon.

Robert
-- 
" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,
be they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to
chew a radio signal. "

                        Kelvin Throop, III

Ralph Malph wrote:
> emanuel stiebler wrote:
> > And don't forget the pretty active newsgroup for
> > EAGLE. Got a lot of (sometimes) stupid question
> > solved there. And a lot of the EAGLE developers
> > hang out there too, so if you need a nice trick,
> > you probably get it there.
> 
> Oh, I didn't realize.  What is the newsgroup name?

From my prior posting...

Cadsoft hosts newsgroups for product support, and I've been pleased with
the user community as well.  Before I bought, I scoured both to look for
the chronic complaints and found there were no serious issues, and a lot
of compliments - a nice side-effect of an open support forum.  Here are
their English newsgroups:
news://news.cadsoft.de/eagle.userchat.eng
news://news.cadsoft.de/eagle.support.eng


It does take quite a bit of patience to get familiar with Eagle, but it
pays off.  Once I got a complete board (incl. new devices) through the
process, I began to appreciate its features much more.  (They could do a
lot to help the learning curve, not the least of which is better
tutorials.)

For precision package layout, check out the export feature - it's
excellent for this purpose.  Create the package, export it (to a text
script format), edit the coordinates to give the exact precision you
require, then run it as a script to import the revised package.

Also, there is a tutorial specifically on creating devices, IIRC.  If
you haven't found it already, it's very enlightening.

I just wanted to let people know where I ended up.  As I posted before,
many of these packages are limited enough that I was not going to spend
time to evaluate them without being able to do useful work.  So the only
package I actually tried is Eagle from Cadsoft.  I am finding that it is
very hard to learn, at least compared to what I expected.  I can
normally pick up tools very easily, but I find Eagle to be very, very
counter intuitive and the "tutorial" is very limited.  

On the other hand, I have been getting some work done with this tool.  I
am finding that even though this is a very tiny board (.5" x .6")
perhaps this was not such a simple task.  The board is double sided with
a very high component density.  I also need to provide as much ground
plane as possible to help spread the heat to use what little board area
there is.  So I am having to learn how to cover areas of the board with
copper fill.  In fact that is where I am currently stuck.  

The support newsgroups for this tool seem pretty good.  One actually has
Cadsoft people posting.  So by reading what others have had trouble with
and using a lot of patience, I expect I will get this design done after
a while.  

Thanks to all who posted.  If anyone knows of a tool that is more
intuative, please let me know.  Since board layout will be an occasional
task for me, I expect I will have to relearn some of the tricker aspects
of Eagle every time I use it.  :)

Ralph Malph wrote:
> I just wanted to let people know where I ended up.  As I posted before,
> many of these packages are limited enough that I was not going to spend
> time to evaluate them without being able to do useful work.  So the only
> package I actually tried is Eagle from Cadsoft.  I am finding that it is
> very hard to learn, at least compared to what I expected.  I can
> normally pick up tools very easily, but I find Eagle to be very, very
> counter intuitive and the "tutorial" is very limited.  
> 
> On the other hand, I have been getting some work done with this tool.  I
> am finding that even though this is a very tiny board (.5" x .6")
> perhaps this was not such a simple task.  The board is double sided with
> a very high component density.  I also need to provide as much ground
> plane as possible to help spread the heat to use what little board area
> there is.  So I am having to learn how to cover areas of the board with
> copper fill.  In fact that is where I am currently stuck.  
> 
> The support newsgroups for this tool seem pretty good.  One actually has
> Cadsoft people posting.  So by reading what others have had trouble with
> and using a lot of patience, I expect I will get this design done after
> a while.  
> 
> Thanks to all who posted.  If anyone knows of a tool that is more
> intuative, please let me know.  Since board layout will be an occasional
> task for me, I expect I will have to relearn some of the tricker aspects
> of Eagle every time I use it.  :)

EasyPC is *very* much easier to use than Eagle (it's a proper Windows 
application), has fewer bugs and is cheaper. Pulsonix (out of the same 
stable) is better for professional work.

Leon
-- 
Leon Heller, G1HSM
Email: aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com
My low-cost Philips LPC210x ARM development system:
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller/lpc2104.html

Leon Heller <aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com> writes:

> EasyPC is *very* much easier to use than Eagle (it's a proper Windows
> application), has fewer bugs and is cheaper.

I've been using Eagle for several medium-complexity designs
(two layers, TQFP/MLF chips, around 100 components), and have
not found many bugs. There were some GUI crashes (not data-corrupting)
in earlier versions, but haven't seen them in 4.11.

Eagle is not perfect. But it seems that it gets most jobs done.
There are a few complaints I have:

- making new components is clumsy, as copy&pasting from
  one library to another requires opening the libraries several
  times. Separating the component layouts and symbols to different
  places would simplify the process significantly.

- the cut&paste method works is different from the "standard"
  cut&paste.

- only the vector font can be used on silkscreen layers. Not a
  very beautiful one.

- the tutorial is not a good one. Most of the learning process
  needs to be done through trial and error, especially with
  libraries.

Other than these, I have been rather satisfied.

- Ville

-- 
Ville Voipio, Dr.Tech., M.Sc. (EE)

Ville Voipio wrote:
> Leon Heller <aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>EasyPC is *very* much easier to use than Eagle (it's a proper Windows
>>application), has fewer bugs and is cheaper.
> 
> 
> I've been using Eagle for several medium-complexity designs
> (two layers, TQFP/MLF chips, around 100 components), and have
> not found many bugs. There were some GUI crashes (not data-corrupting)
> in earlier versions, but haven't seen them in 4.11.
> 
> Eagle is not perfect. But it seems that it gets most jobs done.
> There are a few complaints I have:
> 
> - making new components is clumsy, as copy&pasting from
>   one library to another requires opening the libraries several
>   times. Separating the component layouts and symbols to different
>   places would simplify the process significantly.

Very easy and intuitive in EasyPC and Pulsonix.

> 
> - the cut&paste method works is different from the "standard"
>   cut&paste.


Very easy and intuitive in EasyPC and Pulsonix.

> 
> - only the vector font can be used on silkscreen layers. Not a
>   very beautiful one.

EasyPC and Pulsonix can use any Windows fonts.

> 
> - the tutorial is not a good one. Most of the learning process
>   needs to be done through trial and error, especially with
>   libraries.

EasyPC and Pulsonix are so easy to use that a tutorial isn't really needed.

Leon
-- 
Leon Heller, G1HSM
Email: aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com
My low-cost Philips LPC210x ARM development system:
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller/lpc2104.html

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:13:40 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I just wanted to let people know where I ended up.  As I posted before,
>many of these packages are limited enough that I was not going to spend
>time to evaluate them without being able to do useful work.  So the only
>package I actually tried is Eagle from Cadsoft.  I am finding that it is
>very hard to learn, at least compared to what I expected.  I can
>normally pick up tools very easily, but I find Eagle to be very, very
>counter intuitive and the "tutorial" is very limited.  
>
>On the other hand, I have been getting some work done with this tool.  I
>am finding that even though this is a very tiny board (.5" x .6")
>perhaps this was not such a simple task.  The board is double sided with
>a very high component density.  I also need to provide as much ground
>plane as possible to help spread the heat to use what little board area
>there is.  So I am having to learn how to cover areas of the board with
>copper fill.  In fact that is where I am currently stuck.  
>
>The support newsgroups for this tool seem pretty good.  One actually has
>Cadsoft people posting.  So by reading what others have had trouble with
>and using a lot of patience, I expect I will get this design done after
>a while.  
>
>Thanks to all who posted.  If anyone knows of a tool that is more
>intuative, please let me know.  Since board layout will be an occasional
>task for me, I expect I will have to relearn some of the tricker aspects
>of Eagle every time I use it.  :)

Ralph,
I tried to email you but it bounced. Please contact me at:
ahorne1 AT comcast dot net.  Or call me at (909) 461-8373.  I can help
you with Eagle.  I was a beta tester for the OS2 version.

In article <3FF63364.2268660D@yahoo.com>, Ralph Malph  <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I also need to provide as much ground
>plane as possible to help spread the heat to use what little board area
>there is.  So I am having to learn how to cover areas of the board with
>copper fill.  In fact that is where I am currently stuck.  

You have to make polygons in the board layers.  You could change the
trace widths of the net classes but that will apply everywhere, not just
where there's extra space.  As of the latest version the autorouter seems
smart enough to avoid manually placed items in the copper planes (eg as
a test I re-routed a board that already had some text).  The README even
claimed you could assign these things to nets and have them used properly.

-- 
Ben Jackson
<ben@ben.com>
http://www.ben.com/

Leon Heller wrote:
> 
> Ville Voipio wrote:
> > Leon Heller <aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>EasyPC is *very* much easier to use than Eagle (it's a proper Windows
> >>application), has fewer bugs and is cheaper.
> >
> >
> > I've been using Eagle for several medium-complexity designs
> > (two layers, TQFP/MLF chips, around 100 components), and have
> > not found many bugs. There were some GUI crashes (not data-corrupting)
> > in earlier versions, but haven't seen them in 4.11.
> >
> > Eagle is not perfect. But it seems that it gets most jobs done.
> > There are a few complaints I have:
> >
> > - making new components is clumsy, as copy&pasting from
> >   one library to another requires opening the libraries several
> >   times. Separating the component layouts and symbols to different
> >   places would simplify the process significantly.
> 
> Very easy and intuitive in EasyPC and Pulsonix.
> 
> >
> > - the cut&paste method works is different from the "standard"
> >   cut&paste.
> 
> Very easy and intuitive in EasyPC and Pulsonix.
> 
> >
> > - only the vector font can be used on silkscreen layers. Not a
> >   very beautiful one.
> 
> EasyPC and Pulsonix can use any Windows fonts.
> 
> >
> > - the tutorial is not a good one. Most of the learning process
> >   needs to be done through trial and error, especially with
> >   libraries.
> 
> EasyPC and Pulsonix are so easy to use that a tutorial isn't really needed.

That would all be great if I knew that the entire program was easy to
use and to do all the things I need.  But their eval program is useless
for doing even the simplest job or even for evaluation since you can't
save any work.  That means you have to start from scratch every time you
run the program.  I have tried to evaluate similar tools before and
found this limitation to be impossible to work with, not to mention that
I would have to take time away from real work to evaluate the tool.  At
least with Eagle I can get work done while I learn the tool.  I think
they have an *excellent* evaluation process even if the tool is not easy
to learn.  This way I can see for myself just how easy or hard it is to
use.  With EasyPC I have to take the word of others.