What is your favorite PCB software?

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:19:52 -0500, "Joel" <joelbenway@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Just curious about what everyone uses.  I've been using Orcad PCB editor.

I've been using Eagle for more than 5 years now. A little tricky to
use it. You don't select an object, and then choose what to do with
it. You first select what you want to do, and then you select objects
to apply that action to. That is a little odd at the beginning, but
once you get used to it, you work faster.

Copy&Paste and Cut&Paste are somewhat odd. Cadsoft should improve
that.

The C scripting language that it includes is very powerful. For
instance, if you need to place pads for LEDs, tracks, etc, with
circular symmetry (every 22.5&#4294967295;, for instance), you can easily program
that. By hand, it would by a hell, not to say impossible.

Best,
Jon

>On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:19:52 -0500, "Joel" <joelbenway@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Just curious about what everyone uses.  I've been using Orcad PCB
editor.
>
>I've been using Eagle for more than 5 years now. A little tricky to
>use it. You don't select an object, and then choose what to do with
>it. You first select what you want to do, and then you select objects
>to apply that action to. That is a little odd at the beginning, but
>once you get used to it, you work faster.
>
>Copy&Paste and Cut&Paste are somewhat odd. Cadsoft should improve
>that.
>
>The C scripting language that it includes is very powerful. For
>instance, if you need to place pads for LEDs, tracks, etc, with
>circular symmetry (every 22.5&#65533;, for instance), you can easily program
>that. By hand, it would by a hell, not to say impossible.
>
>Best,
>Jon
>

Isn't that what grids and snap are for?

On 11 Apr, 20:05, Jon <a...@b.c> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:19:52 -0500, "Joel" <joelben...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Just curious about what everyone uses. =A0I've been using Orcad PCB edito=
r.
>
> I've been using Eagle for more than 5 years now. A little tricky to
> use it. You don't select an object, and then choose what to do with
> it. You first select what you want to do, and then you select objects
> to apply that action to. That is a little odd at the beginning, but
> once you get used to it, you work faster.
>
> Copy&Paste and Cut&Paste are somewhat odd. Cadsoft should improve
> that.
>
> The C scripting language that it includes is very powerful. For
> instance, if you need to place pads for LEDs, tracks, etc, with
> circular symmetry (every 22.5=BA, for instance), you can easily program
> that. By hand, it would by a hell, not to say impossible.
>

With Pulsonix I just use a polar grid, which is even easier!

Leon

On 2008/Apr/07 10:19 AM, in article
pOidnUGOS6oVsGfanZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@giganews.com, "Joel" <joelbenway@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Just curious about what everyone uses.  I've been using Orcad PCB editor.

Disclaimer:  My company sells EAGLE online to customers in North America
(see sig below).  But I'm also an engineer and I use EAGLE for _real_ work
on a daily basis.

I like EAGLE.  Version 4 and previous did take some getting used to the UI.
This is a stumbling block for some people.  The main reason is that EAGLE's
motif was to pick your function, then pick your object.  The idea being that
you typically will perform the same function on multiple objects.  And in
reality I find this to be true, thus this i/f is generally the optimal way
to go.

However, Windows and other modern UI's are all object based:  pick your
object then your function.  Anyone who is used to this will find EAGLE's old
UI a bit obtuse at the start.  But trust me, once you use it a lot you see
the brilliance of it all.

That all said, version 5.0 (due out soon) has the best of both worlds.  You
can use it like 4.1 if you're used to that or want to use it, and you also
right-click on any object and then pick your function.  So this should
satisfy most complaints about the UI.  It is also based on QT4 which means
it runs natively on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X with file compatibility
between all platforms.

The real reason I like it is that the schematic and PCB are coming from the
same database (other s/w has this to, PCB123 from Sunstone is one example).
Thus there is no forward or back annotation--all modifications are applied
to both simultaneously.  This is a big bonus and seriously cuts down on
chaos when things change.

To some degree you can get used to any tool, but I have used pretty much
every major tool out there and when its my money on the line (like it is in
my business) then I'll choose EAGLE every time since it provides the best
value for the dollar that I've ever seen.  This argument is coming from a
professional point of view where things like unlimited, free support forever
and the cost of crashes and other quality issues have a real cost associated
with them.  For hobbyists the value equation is different so using it for
complicated design may not make as much sense if you count your time as
worthless or can make due with something that is completely free.

That all said, I like gEDA from the point of view that it seems to be
getting to the point that it is a viable option for some and as it gets
better it is going to force commercial products to get better too.  That
helps us all.

Cheers,

James.

-- 
James Morrison
www.eagletoolkit.com
EAGLE Design Expert
North American Online EAGLE Dealer
EAGLE Enterprise Toolkit

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On 2008-04-11, Leon <leon355@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 11 Apr, 20:05, Jon <a...@b.c> wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:19:52 -0500, "Joel" <joelben...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Just curious about what everyone uses. &#4294967295;I've been using Orcad PCB editor.
>>
>> I've been using Eagle for more than 5 years now. A little tricky to
>> use it. You don't select an object, and then choose what to do with
>> it. You first select what you want to do, and then you select objects
>> to apply that action to. That is a little odd at the beginning, but
>> once you get used to it, you work faster.
>>
>> Copy&Paste and Cut&Paste are somewhat odd. Cadsoft should improve
>> that.
>>
>> The C scripting language that it includes is very powerful. For
>> instance, if you need to place pads for LEDs, tracks, etc, with
>> circular symmetry (every 22.5&#4294967295;, for instance), you can easily program
>> that. By hand, it would by a hell, not to say impossible.
>>
>
> With Pulsonix I just use a polar grid, which is even easier!

Grids only work for evenly spaced stuff.  If your component has
a list of hole positions that dont line up with a grid, then a
script or command-line interface is the only way to fly.  I
guess you could create a whole set of grids, but that's a lot
more work than just pasting the list of hole positions into a
script.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! You can't hurt me!!
                                  at               I have an ASSUMABLE
                               visi.com            MORTGAGE!!

In article <pOidnUGOS6oVsGfanZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Joel <joelbenway@gmail.com> wrote:
>Just curious about what everyone uses.  I've been using Orcad PCB editor.

PADS Power PCB 3.5.1 (version from around 2000) and started with PADS for
DOS.  I would have started with DOS OrCAD PCB tool, but it was more
expensive than PADS at the time.  I have the Specctra auto-router for it
(withdrawn when Cadence bought it).  Never tried the Blaze auto-router. Oh,
I used this with DOS OrCAD and Viewdraw.

I've since used Cadance tools: Allegro and Concept.  They annoy me.

Actually that brings up another question: do people actually use
auto-routers anymore?  I used Specctra successfully on a bunch of PCB
projects.  Everyone who uses Allegro seems to hand-route everything. 
Perhaps the setup work to use the auto-router for high speed signals is as
much as just hand routing them.

Either that or the PCB contractor wants more billable hours :-)

-- 
/*  jhallen@world.std.com AB1GO */                        /* Joseph H. Allen */
int a[1817];main(z,p,q,r){for(p=80;q+p-80;p-=2*a[p])for(z=9;z--;)q=3&(r=time(0)
+r*57)/7,q=q?q-1?q-2?1-p%79?-1:0:p%79-77?1:0:p<1659?79:0:p>158?-79:0,q?!a[p+q*2
]?a[p+=a[p+=q]=q]=q:0:0;for(;q++-1817;)printf(q%79?"%c":"%c\n"," #"[!a[q-1]]);}

jhallen@TheWorld.com (Joseph H Allen) writes:
> Actually that brings up another question: do people actually use
> auto-routers anymore?

I hand route sensitive traces, then see what the autorouter can do.
Sometimes the autorouter does well enough that I just accept it, other
times it either can't route completely or makes a horrible mess out of
it.  I use those results (er, after undoing) to further hand-route the
problem traces, then autoroute again and see what happens.

Joseph H Allen wrote:

> In article <pOidnUGOS6oVsGfanZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Joel <joelbenway@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Just curious about what everyone uses.  I've been using Orcad PCB editor.
> 
> 
> PADS Power PCB 3.5.1 (version from around 2000) and started with PADS for
> DOS.  I would have started with DOS OrCAD PCB tool, but it was more
> expensive than PADS at the time.  I have the Specctra auto-router for it
> (withdrawn when Cadence bought it).  Never tried the Blaze auto-router. Oh,
> I used this with DOS OrCAD and Viewdraw.
> 
> I've since used Cadance tools: Allegro and Concept.  They annoy me.
> 
> Actually that brings up another question: do people actually use
> auto-routers anymore?  

Yes, and they give quite good results, used correctly.
On large layercounts, they can pull ahead of manual design easily.

They are so fast on modern PCs, they can be used as
a) fast prototype-generation. The SW team (often much larger than the
PCB divn), often cannot start detailed work, until they have a
functional lash-up.
b) as Placement checks. You can trial half a dozen placement
combos, and choose the best one for clean-up, in a morning.

> I used Specctra successfully on a bunch of PCB
> projects.  Everyone who uses Allegro seems to hand-route everything. 
> Perhaps the setup work to use the auto-router for high speed signals is as
> much as just hand routing them.

That can happen, but there are also the Steerable-Shove routers.
Not sure if you call those auto-routers or not ?
They allow  the operator to direct the path, and the router does the 
detail-maths. PADS has two of these.

> 
> Either that or the PCB contractor wants more billable hours :-)

That comes into it as well :)

-jg

Joseph H Allen wrote:

>Actually that brings up another question: do people actually use
>auto-routers anymore?

If you run an autorouter, it puts down many traces exactly as you 
would have; straight runs between pads that are next to each other,
etc.  I run the autorouter, delete all the traces that aren't run
the way I would have run them, and do my manual layout from there.
this cuts the time needed to finish the job in half.

If you do a good job of placing the parts and run the autorouter 
with the right design rules and let it rip-up-and retry overnight,
it gets a surprisingly large percentage right, and even the nets
that need to be routed manually often have the pins already 
swapped the way I would have done it.

-- 
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:40:16 +0000 (UTC), jhallen@TheWorld.com (Joseph
H Allen) wrote:

>In article <pOidnUGOS6oVsGfanZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>Joel <joelbenway@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Just curious about what everyone uses.  I've been using Orcad PCB editor.
>
>PADS Power PCB 3.5.1 (version from around 2000) and started with PADS for
>DOS.  I would have started with DOS OrCAD PCB tool, but it was more
>expensive than PADS at the time.  I have the Specctra auto-router for it
>(withdrawn when Cadence bought it).  Never tried the Blaze auto-router. Oh,
>I used this with DOS OrCAD and Viewdraw.
>
>I've since used Cadance tools: Allegro and Concept.  They annoy me.
>
>Actually that brings up another question: do people actually use
>auto-routers anymore?  I used Specctra successfully on a bunch of PCB
>projects.  Everyone who uses Allegro seems to hand-route everything. 
>Perhaps the setup work to use the auto-router for high speed signals is as
>much as just hand routing them.

I use an old version of specctra. Before Cadence bought them out.
Cadence has priced specctra so that only very big companies can afford
it. The full router is in the order of US$100,000. I have used
specctra with Tango PCB, Protel 98, Protel 99 and have tried it using
the Altium evaluation version. Even the old version of specctra I have
outperforms the latest router in Altium by a huge margin. One of the
demo boards which they use to demonstrate the routing capabilities of
Altium's auto router, routes in 8 layers using their router. This
takes almost 2 hours on quite a fast PC. Specctra routes this board on
8 layers using the same design rules in less than 1 minute. It routes
this same board on 2 layers in something like 8 minutes, still using
the same set of design rules.
The only other router I have seen that comes close to specctra's
capabilities is the Electra router. This can be purchased at a
reasonable cost. There is even a Linux version available. Can any of
the open source packages use this router ? It uses exactely the same
file format as specctra.
AFAIK Pulsonix uses the Electra router.

Regards
  Anton Erasmus