What is your favorite PCB software?

On Apr 20, 9:53 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
> In article <2c0987d9-e17d-4797-9adf-4960fd3f3b6b@
> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, rickman says...
>
> > On Apr 10, 9:49 pm, James Morrison <sp...@stratforddigital.ca> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> > Is it an open database?  Can I write tools to pull data out of it and
> > to update it without using Eagle?  For example, if I design in a part
> > and in procurement the part is substituted, do I have to go into Eagle
> > to make the change or can I change the database externally?
>
> I don't follow Rick.  If the part is form and function compatible then
> there is no need to update the PCB or schematic.  If they are not then
> you need to go into the programs to changes the schematic and/or PCB.
> Surely you're not thinking of keeping approved source in the
> PCB/Schematic? (I know people who object to keeping resistor values in
> the schematic, preferring to keep them separately for configuration
> flexibility)

I put part numbers in my schematic.  I then generate a BOM from the
schematic using those part numbers.  I don't have any sort of data
base to track component changes, so I update the schematic when I
change components.  Not including resistor values would certainly make
reading a schematic difficult without the lookup table for the
values.

It has occurred to me that this is a good reason to use company part
numbers.  A company part number can be equated to multiple qualified
parts for that socket.  But this is another level of complexity that I
am not currently prepared to support.

There are still plenty of situations where I would want to edit the
parts information in the schematic like it was a spread sheet or
externally update it.  Orcad actually provides this capability and
would only be better if they did a more complete job of it.

It doesn't even matter if you agree with my example.  The point is
that open formats are better for many reasons.  I don't want to work
with closes proprietary design files anymore and I won't.  For my next
design I will not use Orcad any more and I won't be using Eagle if
their file formats are closed.

rickman wrote:

>The point is that open formats are better for many reasons.
>I don't want to work with closes proprietary design files 
>anymore and I won't.  For my next design I will not use Orcad 
>any more and I won't be using Eagle if their file formats 
>are closed.

Here are two such reasons from my personal experience.

Example #1
A major aerospace company has over thirty thousand documents 
in WordPerfect for MS-DOS format -- remember when that was 
THE standard?  The document have all been part of bids on 
military contracts, and edited versions have to look the 
same when printed out on new printers that had not been
invented yet when WordPerfect Corp. went belly up.  And, 
of course, the new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system 
chokes on the files, so a parallel set of text versions
needs to be maintained. 

Example #2
A small company has a product line that has been in production 
for many years and is still quite profitable.  All the PWBs 
were created with the 1992 version  of AutoCAD for Apple Macintosh 
Release 12.  So when a change is made they hand-edit the Gerber.

So, what are you happy FreePCB users using for schematic capture?


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

On Apr 21, 3:46 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> >The point is that open formats are better for many reasons.
> >I don't want to work with closes proprietary design files
> >anymore and I won't.  For my next design I will not use Orcad
> >any more and I won't be using Eagle if their file formats
> >are closed.
>
> Here are two such reasons from my personal experience.
>
> Example #1
> A major aerospace company has over thirty thousand documents
> in WordPerfect for MS-DOS format -- remember when that was
> THE standard?  The document have all been part of bids on
> military contracts, and edited versions have to look the
> same when printed out on new printers that had not been
> invented yet when WordPerfect Corp. went belly up.  And,
> of course, the new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system
> chokes on the files, so a parallel set of text versions
> needs to be maintained.
>
> Example #2
> A small company has a product line that has been in production
> for many years and is still quite profitable.  All the PWBs
> were created with the 1992 version  of AutoCAD for Apple Macintosh
> Release 12.  So when a change is made they hand-edit the Gerber.
>
> So, what are you happy FreePCB users using for schematic capture?

I still have Orcad which I don't care for.  Many of the "hobbyist"
users are using TinyCad.  I took a quick look at it and I don't care
for it, but may be I just need to look harder.  Some use a variety of
tools such as gEDA.  There certainly does not seem to be a consensus,
but TinyCad is likely the single most popular.

I am just surprised at how useful the FreePCB program is and that it
is written by *one* person!  No team, no business plan, no venture
capital.  Just one guy who likes using and writing CAD software.
Doesn't that say something about how businesses write programs?!!  All
of the source is available, so you can even make your own
customizations if you want.

In article <36270c91-22f2-4be2-8324-5d613ab1d0a1
@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, rickman says...
> On Apr 20, 9:53 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
> > In article <2c0987d9-e17d-4797-9adf-4960fd3f3b6b@
> > 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, rickman says...
> >
> > > On Apr 10, 9:49 pm, James Morrison <sp...@stratforddigital.ca> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > > Is it an open database?  Can I write tools to pull data out of it and
> > > to update it without using Eagle?  For example, if I design in a part
> > > and in procurement the part is substituted, do I have to go into Eagle
> > > to make the change or can I change the database externally?
> >
> > I don't follow Rick.  If the part is form and function compatible then
> > there is no need to update the PCB or schematic.  If they are not then
> > you need to go into the programs to changes the schematic and/or PCB.
> > Surely you're not thinking of keeping approved source in the
> > PCB/Schematic? (I know people who object to keeping resistor values in
> > the schematic, preferring to keep them separately for configuration
> > flexibility)
> 
> I put part numbers in my schematic.  I then generate a BOM from the
> schematic using those part numbers.  I don't have any sort of data
> base to track component changes, so I update the schematic when I
> change components.  Not including resistor values would certainly make
> reading a schematic difficult without the lookup table for the
> values.
> 
> It has occurred to me that this is a good reason to use company part
> numbers.  A company part number can be equated to multiple qualified
> parts for that socket.  But this is another level of complexity that I
> am not currently prepared to support.

I'd bet you don't put resistor part numbers on your schematic (just 
resistance values) so you are already part way there :)  

And how do you deal with variant stuffing?

Seriously, if you are producing more than one or two boards just for 
yourself you need to do this, it'll keep you sane as part supplies vary. 
Part specs can be as simple as listing approved manufacturers and their 
associated part number up to a full set of critical to quality 
parameters to make it easier for a contract manufacturer to suggest 
alternates.  Something like Parts and Vendors helps a lot with the 
first.

> There are still plenty of situations where I would want to edit the
> parts information in the schematic like it was a spread sheet or
> externally update it.  Orcad actually provides this capability and
> would only be better if they did a more complete job of it.
> 
> It doesn't even matter if you agree with my example.  The point is
> that open formats are better for many reasons.  

That I won't disagree with.

> I don't want to work
> with closes proprietary design files anymore and I won't.  For my next
> design I will not use Orcad any more and I won't be using Eagle if
> their file formats are closed.

For myself, I find copy protection far more disagreeable and potential 
dangerous.  Eagle does have that drawback as well even if it is one of 
the lighter forms.  Eagle does have provision for getting at their 
database programmatically and writing it out so it's not fully closed. 

OTOH, I wouldn't want to give up the tight coupling between schematic 
capture and layout that Eagle provides.  It's not impossible to get the 
schematic and PCB out of sync but you have to work at it a bit.

The last time I checked the open alternatives they were pretty much in 
their infancy, little coupling between PCB and layout, and difficult to 
install.

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

rickman wrote:
> On Apr 12, 1:48 pm, James Morrison <sp...@stratforddigital.ca> wrote:
>> On 2008/Apr/12 11:29 AM, in article
>> 209e6958-dcc3-4f8f-a76a-014f11522...@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, "rickman"
>>
>>> 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.
[ ... ]
> I don't recall and that is the problem.  I *have* to remember how
> Eagle works vs other tools that just plain work like most other
> packages that are even vaguely related to drawing anything.  One thing
> that I think Allan got very right when he wrote FreePCB is the scroll
> button zoom.  He not only centers the screen on the cursor when you
> turn the wheel, he *only* centers it on the first click and doesn't
> start zooming until the second click.  I don't recall what Eagle does,

AFAIK, Eagle zooms using the scroll wheel, centered on the cursor 
position.  You can move the schematic within the screen by zooming out 
on one center and zooming in on another.  Once upon a time I was 
getting along quite well with Eagle, and the secret seemed to be to 
get familiar with the text commands; there were manipulations of nets 
and what not that couldn't be done any other way.  I stopped using it 
for a couple of years and now I can't remember what it was I used to do.

	Mel.