advice on selecting new PCB design package

[Leon]

Dax,

I'm impressed by your broad experience with these difference CAD programs,
even if I don't agree with all of your opinions!

OrCAD Capture is simply the best in it's class. It looks great and
works great.

As you say, "oh, come on!" Here's a short list of things that are
annoying in OrCAD capture:

-- Tab-click works to select one of multiple overlapping objects, but this
doesn't work in conjunction with multiple select (ctrl+click)
-- The highest zoom level is artificially low
-- No means to set the "pick" radius
-- Pins for schematic symbols must be placed strictly around a rectangular
bounding box.
-- Pin styles are limited (there's a canned number of selections -- e.g.,
"short" and "long" for general purpose pin; no independent adjustment of pin
length)
-- Pin names can't be turned off on a pin-by-pin basis (it's all or
nothing! -- so you end up turning them all off and using text to display what
you want)
-- No ability to add or change keyboard mapping (!! -- this is, what, 2006?)
-- Macro language is half-baked; many functions you'd like to use (e.g., "zoom
area" with mouse input providing the bounding box) don't exist
-- No "area de-select" option
-- No polygon shape select
-- No way to toggle area select from "everything wholly within the selected
area" to "everything touching the selected area" from the keyboard
-- No tool-tips/status bar display/whatever of a net's name, class, etc. when
you select it (must double-click to bring up a modal dialog to obtain this
information)
-- Busses can only contain homogenous items, e.g., Data[0:7] -- you can't
create a "mixed" bus that also bundles in, e.g., CS, Rd, Wr!
-- No tabbed window view

I realize that many people aren's used to these features and therefore just
don't know what they're missing, but I find the biggest annoyance when using
multiple CAD programs is that you really start to miss nice features from one
in another. Better programs (e.g., those with full macros and keyboard
re-assignment) often let you emulate the other programs' functionality to a
large extent; such is not the case with OrCAD.

Compare that to the Cadence website where everything related to
support is under lock and key with a password unless you have a support
contract.

Did you mean Mentor? Mentor won't even let you access their web site
knowledge base for, e.g., PADS without a support contract. (I've mentioned
before that I really tend to think that PADS is somewhat like Oracle -- it's
really not that much better than the competition, but information about it is
purposely kept somewhat obscure so that there's an entire artificial industry
in training, support contracts, etc.)

I rated Electronics Workbench v9, the Frankenstein of EDA packages,
above Proteus and Eagle because EW is solidly in the professional
class.

Just curious -- what *does't* Proteus do that you'd like it to? I've never
used it, but on paper it looks pretty good. I certainly don't downgrade a
package because it also happens to cater to hobbyists (e.g., printing out
drill hole targets for manual PCB fabrication, as you mention).

A friend of mine uses Proteus where I used to work. It's full of bugs,
but he manages to get round them and produce decent designs with a
great deal of work. Sometimes he even has to get the PCB supplier to
pre-process the Gerbers (expensive) , because he can't get it to
produce the right shapes. Support is non-existent from the UK supplier.
I tried using it once to modify a board while he was on holiday - just
altering a few vias and tracks was a nightmare.

They got Eagle for everyone else but I refused to use it, and they let
me use my own copy of Pulsonix after a big row with management. Doing
anything in Eagle required about twice as many keystrokes and mouse
operations as with Pulsonix, agravating my RSI problems. I got them to
give in on Health and Safety grounds. It also kept crashing on me.
One of the engineers who knew Eagle well spent two weeks laying out a
PCB, I could have done it in one day with Pulsonix.

Leon

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Hi Leon,

They got Eagle for everyone else but I refused to use it, and they let
me use my own copy of Pulsonix after a big row with management. Doing
anything in Eagle required about twice as many keystrokes and mouse
operations as with Pulsonix, agravating my RSI problems.

So wouldn't you also like to see a Pulsonix option whereby "auto weld" worked
(1) when multiple components where being pasted and (2) for connecting pins to
the middle of nets (rather than just the ends or other component pins as it
does now)? I spend a noticeable amount of time in Pulsonix copying and
pasting something and then drawing a bunch of short wire segments hooking
everything up; none of Protel, PCAD, and OrCAD require this.

Another nice time saver from OrCAD is "repeat paste" where it repeats the last
paste command at the offset between the original component and where you first
pasted it. Pulsonix does have the somewhat similar option to "copy matrix,"
but when you just need to repeat pasting a component some, say, 3-4 times it's
more effort to set up than just manually pasting.

---Joel

 

[RST Engineering \(jw\)]

I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.

Eagle is German
Pulsonix & EZPC are UK
Rimu is NZ
Protel is OZ

I'm just curious why?

Jim

 

[Joel Kolstad]

I'm just curious why?

It might have something to do with the labor market. Labor rates in the US
are quite high, so in a market where there isn't a whole lot of volume,
product prices end up high as well. It is surprising to me that in a country
like NZ -- which is a lot closer to China than the US is -- material goods
such as PCs, power tools, etc. cost noticeably more than in the US, yet labor
is a lot cheaper.

At this point, to some degree it's probably self-perpetuating... if you're in
the US and think you're going to write some EDA software, you're probably
immediately struck that your closest market (the US) is dominated by the
high-end, high-cost package, and that's very difficult to compete with. The
Internet has negated this to some extent, however.

Finally... there are a few low-end US vendors out there... or at least there
were! Ivex (Winboard) was US, no? And there's AMS down in Florida... I used
their software once, and it had some incredible limitations such as only
allowing 10 different pad shapes (!), but it did get the job done at the time
(a decade back -- these days freeware alternatives are far better).

 

[DJ Delorie]

I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.

gEDA is done primarily in the USA.

 

[Christian HOSTELET]

I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.

Eagle is German
Pulsonix & EZPC are UK
Rimu is NZ
Protel is OZ

I'm just curious why?

Why what?

Why those non-US citizens are able to design and produce some good pieces of
software without the help of the great USA?
Are you suggesting this is not a "normal" situation? If yes, please think
twice.

 

[RST Engineering \(jw\)]

Hey, I didn't mean to start a fight. I simply noted that almost all of the
medium to low range software was not only written outside the US, but sold
from outside the US. The only exception that I know about was
Circuitmaker/Traxmaker in Utah, but they were bought and killed off by
Protel.

And AMS may have had an office in Florida, but I think I can safely assure
you that the real main office was not in Florida.

It just seemed odd, that's all. No offense intended.

Jim

 

[Brad Velander]

Joel,
Ivex has moved around a lot, originally they were just a few miles away
from me in the Vancouver, B.C., area. Then I had heard that they moved to
the States. However if it must be known, the original software was
originally written and designed in India by an Indian Telecom company (a
state company?). I heard a rumor at one point that the owners of Ivex had
moved the progamming/development to Korea but I never confirmed that.

 

[Brad Velander]

Jim,
What about PADs, PCAD, OrCAD just to name a few? While these days it may
be hard to tell where they are actually programmed, I have heard rumors that
Cadence has shifted OrCAD support./maintanence to India. Altium may be doing
the PCAD development and support either from their San Diego digs or in Oz.
PADs, even back when they were their own company (US) , some modules were
being programmed in Russia and I believe some in Bulgaria by what I was told
by various insiders.

As for your question why? Economics 101, specialized programs with a
limited market to be done for a competive price point. And at that there are
probably more cracked/stolen versions around than paid for legal versions.
So Economics, economics, economics. Why are stereos made in Malaysia,
Thailand, India, China?

 

[Paul Burke]

It is surprising to me that EasyPC seems to have very little marketing (not
even its own web site!?)...

<http://www.numberone.com/index.asp>

Typically, the url doesn't even mention EasyPC.

EasyPC, even in its stripped down forms (e.g., the 1000 pin version) is still
spendy enough that you have a solid point.

They really are daft. They used to do a 98UKP version, which was at
least within hobbyist/ microbusiness range. They've dropped that. The
free demo version is utterly unusable, as it can't load or save. It's as
though they really don't want to sell it. Rather typically British I'm
afraid.

Paul Burke

 

[Paul Burke]

I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.

Business culture, if you select Protel and it's no good, it's Protel's
fault, but if you select Eagle and it's no good, it's your fault?

The attitude that "you get what you pay for" stronger in the USA?

Tax regime?

Paul Burke

 

[[email protected]]

My thanks to everyone for giving this subject its best airing for a
long time.

Do people have strong opinions on which of the budget packages produce
the highest quality actual pcb, bugs and bad user interfaces not
withstanding. I need 6 layers in total with good control over split
planes and DRC and I need it to look good! I only need to use it once
as if on the off chance I made any money out of it I would probably buy
ORCAD simply because I have used it a lot over the last ten years or
so.

Colin

 

[[email protected]]

Some budget packages are not really useable for anything above the
hobbyist level boards. The problem they have is charge only a hundred
dollars or so for the product and have little or no money for support.
A good example is the AutoTRAX product from a one man operation in the
UK. You wouldn't risk a serious design to such a package.

Despite what the previous guy says, Easy-PC packs a big punch for the
money. Why should he be hung-up on there not being a free version or
that the Easy-PC website says Number One Systems....? If I search for
Windows, Excel, Powerpoint I get directed to a website that says
Microsoft.... If I seach for PADs I get directed to Mentor..... so
what's it got to do with being 'British'....?

OrCAD looks to be on the slippery slope. The schematics is still good
but the OrCAD layout product is from the stone age. It looks DOS to
me......! What little dev that remains is now coming from India - the
US OrCAD dev group is long gone. Cadence don't even sell it
nowadays..... all sales are through Distributors.

Prescott

 

[JeffM]

which of the budget packages produce the highest quality actual pcb

Colin (colin_toogood @ yahoo.com)

Terry Porter used to post links
to photos of his output from gschem / pcb / gEDA
but he has switched servers so often
that none of those links are still valid.
They looked good, apparantly he was making a good living,
and the cost of gEDA is ZERO.

I figure that choosing an ECAD is like selecting a car.
All posts in this thread should conclude with a YMMV.
..
..

I need...good control over split planes

Ever done that before? Are you quite sure you want to?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci....kes-sense+c-shaped-*-*+zzz+wrong-reason&fwc=1
The thread is indexed to specifics
(in Courier so you can see Ken Smith's diagram);
Larkin and Joerg give the overview near the beginning of the thread.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

<http://www.numberone.com/index.asp>
Typically, the url doesn't even mention EasyPC.

Ah, thanks. I was thinking Number One's web site was for a distributor
selling both Pulsonix and EasyPC, but I was clearly mistaken.

It's as though they really don't want to sell it. Rather typically British
I'm afraid.

Haha...

 

[[email protected]]

Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a product
to handle 6 layers for nothing.
You can buy good quality CAD for a reasonable amount nowadays so why
mess with a free product like gEDA?

In general, such products are created by enthusiasts for the use of
other enthusiasts. It's just like saying "I'm not going to use any
commercial level wordprocessing, spreadsheet, presentation, publishing
tools, only what I can get free on the internet". Yep, you will
undoubtedly find such products but would you find anyone who relies on
software tools for their livelihood wasting time with them........ No,
of course not.

Rule of thumb: if you're a hobbyist, a technofreak, and/or design small
and very simple two sided boards with just a few standard components
then give the freebes a try. If you're doing any kind of commercial
level boards of any size above small and simple then expect to pay at
least $500 and upwards for something decent and reliable.

Prescott

 

[Paul Burke]

Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a product
to handle 6 layers for nothing.

You can. It's called KiCAD, and it's similar to most low- end CADs. I
don't like its interface, but people who have tried it say it works well.

In general, such products are created by enthusiasts for the use of
other enthusiasts. It's just like saying "I'm not going to use any
commercial level wordprocessing, spreadsheet, presentation, publishing
tools, only what I can get free on the internet".

KiCAD was developed by academic programmers, hardly amateurs. You can
get full commercial grade wordprocessing, spreadsheet etc. totally free-
look up Open Office.

The free products are often as well, or better supported than the
equivalent commercial one. People may well be doing it for geekish fun
in many cases, but is a geek likely to make a worse job than a bored
hourly-paid programmer with a boss desperate to release product and a
support department concerned mainly with saving face?

Paul Burke

 

[Ales Hvezda]

Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a product
to handle 6 layers for nothing.
You can buy good quality CAD for a reasonable amount nowadays so why
mess with a free product like gEDA?

Because products like gEDA aren't just about being free (although
that is nice). They are about giving you _full_ control over your
design. Common sense says that commercial entities are
interested in making money (right?) so they will do as much as
possible to retain control over your designs that you created using
their product (that is, lock you into using their product exclusively)
and make it as hard as possible to use a competitor's product. I
like to control the software I use.

Here's a good list of reasons why somebody would want to use
gEDA (or any free software/OSS for that matter):

http://geda.seul.org/dokuwiki/doku...._makes_geda_so_different_from_other_eda_tools
(sorry about the long link)

[snip]

Rule of thumb: if you're a hobbyist, a technofreak, and/or design small
and very simple two sided boards with just a few standard components
then give the freebes a try. If you're doing any kind of commercial
level boards of any size above small and simple then expect to pay at
least $500 and upwards for something decent and reliable.

Here's a list of successful projects on the 'net (there are more out
there; I just haven't found them and some are commercial people
obviously do not post their designs ) that use gEDA:

http://geda.seul.org/links.html#projects

I would say that some of them are fairly non-trivial. It becoming
more and more evident that free software/OSS tools are capable
of being used to create complex designs.

-Ales

 

[DJ Delorie]

Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a
product to handle 6 layers for nothing.

PCB (part of the gEDA project) handles 8 layers by default, for no
cost. Minimum board size is, as I posted before, about a third of a
mile square in the development version (the latest released version is
"limited" to 32x32 inches, just for you convenience, you can change it
if you want). You can easily rebuild it for more layers if you need
to (I've built it for 50+ layers before). Did I mention it's no cost?

So, your common sense needs adjusting.

And if it doesn't happen to do what you want, you have options that
the commercial vendors can't offer you:

* You can change it yourself.

* You can get a friend to change it.

* You can pay a contractor (your choice!) to change it.

* You can pay (or bribe) one of the PCB developers to change it.

* You can ask nicely and someone may change it for you for fun.

* You can complain that it doesn't do what you like (ok, the
commercial vendors offer this one as well

 

[David Brown]

Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a product
to handle 6 layers for nothing.
You can buy good quality CAD for a reasonable amount nowadays so why
mess with a free product like gEDA?

In general, such products are created by enthusiasts for the use of
other enthusiasts. It's just like saying "I'm not going to use any
commercial level wordprocessing, spreadsheet, presentation, publishing
tools, only what I can get free on the internet". Yep, you will
undoubtedly find such products but would you find anyone who relies on
software tools for their livelihood wasting time with them........ No,
of course not.

Have you been hiding under a rock for the last ten years? There are a
number of reasons why free and open source software is popular, only one
of which is the cost. Assuming you are talking about desktop software
(since no one but a fully paid astroturfer would suggest free and open
source software is not suitable for server and infrastructure
applications), a steadily increasing proportion of users rely on more
and more free and open source software. Personally, I have not used
commercial "office" applications in a professional context since a brief
spell with Word 2 around 12 years ago. I specifically choose LaTeX for
documentation, because it is a far more professional and capable system
for technical writing than any commercial word processor. For simpler
documents I actively choose Open Office - leaving an unopened, unwanted
copy of Word lying on a shelf. For my programming work (my main job), I
choose to use free gcc ports rather than commercial toolkits whenever I
can. I do so because I get higher quality software, better control of
the software, and better control of the work produced using the
software. For some types of software I am even more extreme - in my
role as IT manager for our company, I dictate that Internet Explorer, a
popular commercial browser, is not to be used for security reasons,
while open source FireFox and free (but not open source) Opera are suitable.

EDA software is a special case. The market is much smaller than for,
say, a word processor, and writing EDA software is specialist work
requiring a lot of effort to develop. This has meant the rise of free
and open source EDA software has been a lot slower than in many other
areas. Software like KiCAD is fine for small or hobby projects, but
does not have the professional features for bigger projects. gEDA is
capable of large projects, but suffers badly from its appearance and
usability (or lack thereof). Quite frankly, the schematic and pcb
screenshots look like something from an early 1990's DOS program. I'm
sure it works well in use, but it's hardly going to attract new users
without a major facelift (and a native windows port - cross-platform
programming is not *that* hard, as long as you use toolkits like GTK or
wxWidgets rather than XAW). What the open source tools do have, though,
is open file formats - something that is sorely missed in this branch,
and a major source of vendor lock-in.

So if you want to say there are no open source EDA tools that are ready
for mainstream professional use, then I (unfortunately) have to agree.
But that's not because of problems with open source as such - it is lack
of money, time, motivation and direction that currently stops gEDA from
being a match for Protel, OrCAD, etc. In other software branches where
time, money, motivation and direction are available, then open source
software is often superior to any available commercial equivalent.