On 12 Apr, 02:40, jhal...@TheWorld.com (Joseph H Allen) wrote:> In article <pOidnUGOS6oVsGfanZ2dnUVZ_ramn...@giganews.com>, > > Joel <joelben...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Just curious about what everyone uses. =A0I've been using Orcad PCB edito=r.> > PADS Power PCB 3.5.1 (version from around 2000) and started with PADS for > DOS. =A0I would have started with DOS OrCAD PCB tool, but it was more > expensive than PADS at the time. =A0I have the Specctra auto-router for it=> (withdrawn when Cadence bought it). =A0Never tried the Blaze auto-router. =Oh,> I used this with DOS OrCAD and Viewdraw. > > I've since used Cadance tools: Allegro and Concept. =A0They annoy me. > > Actually that brings up another question: do people actually use > auto-routers anymore? =A0I used Specctra successfully on a bunch of PCB > projects. =A0Everyone 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 :-)I sometimes use the Pulsonix autorouter, it does a very good job. I route the critical tracks manually, of course. Leon
What is your favorite PCB software?
Started by ●April 7, 2008
Reply by ●April 12, 20082008-04-12
Reply by ●April 12, 20082008-04-12
Anton Erasmus wrote:> 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 (withdrawn when Cadence bought it).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. >As I understand it, the reason Electra is similar to Specctra is that it is written by the guys that originally wrote Specctra, but didn't move to Cadence. So it works in a similar way, and will give similar results. It is not as flexible as Specctra, but good enough for the great majority of autorouting tasks, much faster, and *much* cheaper. We also have an old Specctra license, but I tested out Electra's demo version - when we look for a second autorouter license, it will be Electra. Electra/specctra (at least, the old Specctra that I have used) have a very rigid autorouting philosophy, running routes on 90 degree paths with alternate layers biased in alternate directions. That works well for quite a lot of boards, but can give poor results for some sorts of cards - it can be difficult to get it to route *round* an area or component, rather than *through* it. And for complex boards, you need to do a fair amount of work setting up your "do" file with commands to get routing to run as you want. But once that's done, run times are fast, and it's very easy to just rip it all up and redo your routing when you change the board, or re-arrange your components. For a completely different type of autorouting, have a look at these two links (I haven't tried them myself yet). http://www.freestyleteam.com/index.php?topic=topor&lang=en http://www.freerouting.net/
Reply by ●April 12, 20082008-04-12
Anton Erasmus <nobody@spam.prevent.net> writes:> 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.Vutrax uses this too. (Not open source but there is a free 256 pin limited version). I don't know for sure if the free pin-limited version works with the autorouter, would have to try it.> > Regards > Anton Erasmus > > >-- John Devereux
Reply by ●April 12, 20082008-04-12
On Apr 11, 3:05 pm, 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. 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=BA, for instance), you can easily program > that. By hand, it would by a hell, not to say impossible. > > Best, > JonI tried Eagle and the oddities of the UI were rather tricky to initially learn. Then I came back to it 6 months later and they were just as tricky to learn the second time! If you don't use a program very often, it is pointless to try to use such an odd bird as Eagle (so to speak). There are much better alternatives. As to the scripting, I have thought scripting could be useful, but I have yet to find a real need for it. Your example can easily be done by using a simple spread sheet table to calculate the coordinates for the 16 LEDs and copying them to the parts. At least you can do this in FreePCB since it lets you directly enter the coordinates if you want. That does give me an idea for a suggestion to the author of FreePCB. I don't know that a scripting capability is needed, but a hierarchical capability might be. That would let you combine say, four LEDs in an arc to be placed four times to form your circle. To be maximally useful, it should also include traces.
Reply by ●April 12, 20082008-04-12
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:38:00 +0200, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote: [snipped]> >For a completely different type of autorouting, have a look at these two >links (I haven't tried them myself yet). > >http://www.freestyleteam.com/index.php?topic=topor&lang=en >http://www.freerouting.net/Thanks, these look very interesting, especially the topor router. It looks like they took the same Protel Demo board that it's router does in 8 layers, and do it in 2 layers using topor, the same number of layers that specctra also manages. The any angle routing should allow it to route "funny" shaped boards which is a problem with specctra. Regards Anton Erasmus
Reply by ●April 12, 20082008-04-12
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.Let me try this again, having some hiccups with my news server... ------------------------ 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 **
Reply by ●April 12, 20082008-04-12
On 2008/Apr/12 11:29 AM, in article 209e6958-dcc3-4f8f-a76a-014f11522b94@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, "rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 11, 3:05 pm, 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. 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�, for instance), you can easily program >> that. By hand, it would by a hell, not to say impossible. >> >> Best, >> Jon > > I tried Eagle and the oddities of the UI were rather tricky to > initially learn. Then I came back to it 6 months later and they were > just as tricky to learn the second time! If you don't use a program > very often, it is pointless to try to use such an odd bird as Eagle > (so to speak). There are much better alternatives.Hi rickman, With version 5.0 of EAGLE (due out soon) some of this is alleviated. You can now right click on an object and pick your function. It is a bit different from other UI's but to be fair, most tools are slightly different. What do you consider "that odd"? I'd be interested to know.> As to the scripting, I have thought scripting could be useful, but I > have yet to find a real need for it. Your example can easily be done > by using a simple spread sheet table to calculate the coordinates for > the 16 LEDs and copying them to the parts. At least you can do this > in FreePCB since it lets you directly enter the coordinates if you > want.There are lots of things you can do. I have tools (for sale, disclaimer) that auto create packages in EAGLE from a small list of IPC7351 parameters, import/export various netlist formats, and others to come. You can also emulate higher level functions that are available on more expensive tools. Or if you have something you need to do in a repeated way his can be useful too, faster and repeatable.> That does give me an idea for a suggestion to the author of FreePCB. > I don't know that a scripting capability is needed, but a hierarchical > capability might be. That would let you combine say, four LEDs in an > arc to be placed four times to form your circle. To be maximally > useful, it should also include traces.Hierarchy is the one big thing that I see EAGLE missing. I'll see what pull I have as a dealer to get this included in the next major version. They have already stated a desire to use XML file structure which is great for a lot of reasons. Of course, their revision cycle is about 2 years or more so don't hold your breathe :) James. -- James Morrison www.eagletoolkit.com EAGLE Design Expert North American Online EAGLE Dealer EAGLE Enterprise Toolkit ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Reply by ●April 12, 20082008-04-12
On 2008/Apr/12 7:15 AM, in article ut5104930skmkole01o1pt2i38dulvrfpv@4ax.com, "Anton Erasmus" <nobody@spam.prevent.net> wrote:> 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.Hello, I'm not sure of the open source ones, but EAGLE can use Specctra. I haven't done it myself but I understand that it does work. James. -- James Morrison www.eagletoolkit.com EAGLE Design Expert North American Online EAGLE Dealer EAGLE Enterprise Toolkit ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Reply by ●April 12, 20082008-04-12
David Brown wrote:>http://www.freestyleteam.com/index.php?topic=topor&lang=enalso see: I just spent 20 minutes trying to find a price for the TopoR topological autorouter, AuTOP automatic component placement, and FSCapture schematic editor, with no luck. Does anyone know roughly how much these cost? -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Reply by ●April 12, 20082008-04-12
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.Let me try this again, it didn't get through the first few attempts.... ----------------------- 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 **
