Sorry, no French for me. From what I saw at the page things are far from simple words.
Have a look at Diptrace, easy to use, big library andbit t can be had for free for small projects 
It is schematic first, then layout, but easy to get started with and with a good and helpfull user forum.
I use Mentor expedition/extreme at work but do most of my hobby stuff in Diptrace.
BR,
Anders
It is schematic first, then layout, but easy to get started with and with a good and helpfull user forum.
I use Mentor expedition/extreme at work but do most of my hobby stuff in Diptrace.
BR,
Anders
I never really liked the interface, but PCAD is a competent program. I designed boards for automated assembly with PCAD.
All you other guys are just wasting energy dripping about the tools. The tools are designed for people who want to make PCBs. They offer the features that people who make PCBs need. They survive in a marketplace with competition. When you have experience of 3 or 4 programs, then you can criticise the user interface. The longer you spend mooning about commiserating with each other is just that much longer before you knuckle down and learn what you need to know.
If you wanted to colour correct, edit and otherwise post-process your digital photos, you'd have to learn to use Photoshop, or something like it. If you no longer have sufficient enthusiasm for the result to see the learning process as part of the adventure, perhaps DIY is not your thing, and you should seek the services of a professional.
No we are not. It is not about the tools, it is about the outcome and the qualitative result. You could say that some don't like to loose time over the tools but merely on the design itself. "They survive a marketplace with competition" is a way of thinking that destroys quite a lot of creativity in some fields. Just have a look at MS Office to see what you end up with. This is a hobby website and thus we are talking mostly simple designs in low production numbers, contrary to industrial design. Hence the wish for simple software with an adequate library to draw a simple board just as Carlmart indicated.
Some use software that is not supposed to be used for their goal too:
http://www.subzeroblue.com/archives/2005/05/ms_paint_venice_mast.html
Last edited:
....Diptrace exists in an OS X version....
Thanks. I see the "schematic first" methodology is unavoidable.
Not true. You can start Diptrace from board design level.
That's quite common with a few packages, you can just create a board and add pads, footprints and tracks. But if you decide at a later stage to draw a schematic, e.g. so you can post screenshots on here, it can be a lot of work and may even be impossible to back-annotate from the layout, which defeats the purpose to a degree, because we can't depend on the correspondence in the same way as when the layout is built on the netlist and subject to rules checking.
It's like a paperhanger tying one hand behind his back.
Calmart:
Sprint Layout is what you need.
I would continue using it myself for my home projects except I've decided I wanted schematic capture for many of my projects now (so I use DIPTrace).
And you cannot beat the price!
mlloyd1
Sprint Layout is what you need.
I would continue using it myself for my home projects except I've decided I wanted schematic capture for many of my projects now (so I use DIPTrace).
And you cannot beat the price!
mlloyd1
Obviously everybody is free to adopt whatever approach they want. I just felt an atmosphere was developing where schematic capture as a prelude to layout was being viewed solely as an impediment and an irritation and I wanted to set up a strong antithesis.
I understand the desire to shortcut the process. Sometimes you can feel that you are already only retaining a grip on the design process by your fingernails. You have a lot of other design decisions to make and the damn thing wants you to draw a schematic. What's the payoff? I'm just saying that that there is one, even if it doesn't feel like that. More than one. Once you experience ratsnest assistance to placement and routing, you will never go back.
I simply encourage people to create their PCBs from schematics in a PCB CAD package. This facilitates some kinds of rule-checking, highlighting of nets, connection of pours. And of course when somebody asks you for a schematic, you can post a legible screenshot.
A schematic is much easier to read than a pcb (if done properly).
With the schematic you can search for single ended nets.
You can add tags to lines so you know what the line does in the schematic.
Its also easier to update the schematic then forward annotate to the pcb.
Forward annotation ensures the nets are connected correctly and it also adds in any missing components.
Designing a pcb with more than a few components can become unmanageable without a schematic.
I designed my first pcb last year using kikad... the learning curve was steep, but I don't think I would want something that didn't have the schematic linked to the pcb. It catches so many errors (that a newbie to pcb design like me makes) that I think for myself that aspect is invaluable.
I did not use auto routing, I did have to make custom footprints for the components to get the right sizes, but in the end the board worked (except for one issue that would have been picked up if I'd run the error check before creating the final gerbers) and everything fitted, something I doubt would have happened without the schematic function.
That's what it is there for, to try and eliminate user errors. It is a CAD (computer aided design) program these features are the CA bit
Tony.
I did not use auto routing, I did have to make custom footprints for the components to get the right sizes, but in the end the board worked (except for one issue that would have been picked up if I'd run the error check before creating the final gerbers) and everything fitted, something I doubt would have happened without the schematic function.
That's what it is there for, to try and eliminate user errors. It is a CAD (computer aided design) program these features are the CA bit
Tony.
EasyEDA - Web-Based EDA, schematic capture, spice circuit simulation and PCB layout Online
No need to enter a schematic, PCB can be created in-situ.
Disclaimer - the developer of this is a friend.
No need to enter a schematic, PCB can be created in-situ.
Disclaimer - the developer of this is a friend.
If you are doing a design then I would imagine you would start of with a schematic, even if it is hand drawn. Drawing the schematic in the package is not arduous and you remove any translation problems or errors added by humans, and the PCB will always match the schematic.
Most schematic packages are pretty easy to use fro drawing the circuit diagram, you just put down the symbols and join the dots....
Creating the symbols and parts libraries is a bit more complex but shouldn't be that hard to master, it is basic drawing and usually some text in a certain format.
The system I use I can do simple designs and mega complex designs using the same basic workflow...
Schematic-transfer to PCB-placement-routing- DRC-manufactures output.
The one advantage of schematic capture based circuit diagrams is they are easy to change and then reflect these changes in the PCB design by some form of update.
You can also place the footprints manually on the PCB and add connections manually without a schematic, though I wouldn't personally recommend this way it is to prone to human error.
Most schematic packages are pretty easy to use fro drawing the circuit diagram, you just put down the symbols and join the dots....
Creating the symbols and parts libraries is a bit more complex but shouldn't be that hard to master, it is basic drawing and usually some text in a certain format.
The system I use I can do simple designs and mega complex designs using the same basic workflow...
Schematic-transfer to PCB-placement-routing- DRC-manufactures output.
The one advantage of schematic capture based circuit diagrams is they are easy to change and then reflect these changes in the PCB design by some form of update.
You can also place the footprints manually on the PCB and add connections manually without a schematic, though I wouldn't personally recommend this way it is to prone to human error.
Thinking further, even though this is a DIY site, where we strive for the best quality sound reproduction, wouldn't creating PCBs by the best most error free way (schematic capture direct to layout) be more in keeping with this philosophy?
With regards to autorouting that I have seen mentioned a couple of times....DONT USE IT. Do use the rubber banding feature of connections though, this is what guides your component placement, and a good design is 90% placement, this is the most important skill you develop as a PCB designer.
With regards to autorouting that I have seen mentioned a couple of times....DONT USE IT. Do use the rubber banding feature of connections though, this is what guides your component placement, and a good design is 90% placement, this is the most important skill you develop as a PCB designer.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.