Re: Boardmaker
Well, Layo started life as an electronic replacement of the then usual backlighted tape table, and that showed. Peter Baas developed it for in-house use, he ran a PCB manufacturing shop. He once told me he was quite surprised that people started to throw money at him for the privelege to get a copy of the program... If you wanted to precisely do your own routing on analog boards it was quite good.
Jan
Elso Kwak said:Hi Jan,
[snip]I had a copy of Layo without manual but threw it away......Not my piece of cake.
Well, Layo started life as an electronic replacement of the then usual backlighted tape table, and that showed. Peter Baas developed it for in-house use, he ran a PCB manufacturing shop. He once told me he was quite surprised that people started to throw money at him for the privelege to get a copy of the program... If you wanted to precisely do your own routing on analog boards it was quite good.
Jan
i worked with ultimate 5.72 and its a exelent program very easy to learn and very fast, now i use ultiboard2001 its almost the same program only with more options and bugs, very unstable crashes very often it reminds me of Orcad9.1 terible program i even think that they used the same programing code it feels so similar.
My first program i learn was Layo1 Dos based, very simple with bad resolution i am kinda hapy i dont used it animore.
Ultiboard2001 is not that expensive has a very good value for the bucks.
My first program i learn was Layo1 Dos based, very simple with bad resolution i am kinda hapy i dont used it animore.
Ultiboard2001 is not that expensive has a very good value for the bucks.
"Gerber" is the name given to the file format that is used to describe the track detail. Normally there is one file per track layer, etch resist, and silk screen. Sometimes there is an outline layer if a complex board shape is specified. The hole positions are described by separate files called "nc drill"
These are the files that your PCB house needs to produce the PCB's.
Here is an extract from a gerber:
*
X33Y6208D02*
X83D01*
Y7208*
X33*
Y6208*
X333*
Y7208*
X33*
Y6208*
X70Y7248D02*
X73Y7245D01*
the file is headed with descriptor info.
And an extract from an ht-drill:
X00158Y05108
X00333Y05108
X00483Y04908
X00583Y05283
X00808Y05558
X00833Y02458
X01083Y05633
X01158Y02733
X01158Y05558
X01308Y03108
X01333Y03833
X01333Y06383
X01483Y05483
X01583Y05558
The drill file also comes will a separate tools descriptor like:
Tool sizes are in mm
Tool Size
---------------------
T001 3.30
T002 0.89
T003 1.14
T004 0.81
T005 1.00
T006 1.07
T007 0.76
T008 1.57
T009 1.80
T010 0.61
---------------------
Format 2.3 absolute in inches.
No zero suppression.
End Of Report.
These are the files that your PCB house needs to produce the PCB's.
Here is an extract from a gerber:
*
X33Y6208D02*
X83D01*
Y7208*
X33*
Y6208*
X333*
Y7208*
X33*
Y6208*
X70Y7248D02*
X73Y7245D01*
the file is headed with descriptor info.
And an extract from an ht-drill:
X00158Y05108
X00333Y05108
X00483Y04908
X00583Y05283
X00808Y05558
X00833Y02458
X01083Y05633
X01158Y02733
X01158Y05558
X01308Y03108
X01333Y03833
X01333Y06383
X01483Y05483
X01583Y05558
The drill file also comes will a separate tools descriptor like:
Tool sizes are in mm
Tool Size
---------------------
T001 3.30
T002 0.89
T003 1.14
T004 0.81
T005 1.00
T006 1.07
T007 0.76
T008 1.57
T009 1.80
T010 0.61
---------------------
Format 2.3 absolute in inches.
No zero suppression.
End Of Report.
Well Jan,
Ultiboard is not that bad. I’m using Ultiboard 2000 under NT4 and W2K. The only crashes I experience are when I try to edit vertices of copper plane polygons, but it crashes not always Another nasty thing is that it sometimes does not display dialog windows properly (stays hidden behind another window) and the program waits for user input. It seems that it hangs but it does not really. You can still save your work by pressing Ctr-s. But killing the program and restarting is sometimes necessary if Alt-Tab does not work to bring up the hidden dialog.
After all it is not more masochistic to use than most other PCB design programs on the PC.
One nice thing is that I can send my Ultiboard .ddf file as a single file to my PCB manufacturer and I don’t need to bother if the Gerber and drill files are correct. That is usually also a time consuming task.
The accompanying Ulticap schematic entry program is cumbersome to use and almost useless IMHO. For that I use DesignWorks which is still unsurpassed and miles ahead of nearly all other schematic entry programs, ok the schematic entry of MicroCap7 comes close by and now supports parts and net lists of some PCB programs.
Cheers
Ultiboard is not that bad. I’m using Ultiboard 2000 under NT4 and W2K. The only crashes I experience are when I try to edit vertices of copper plane polygons, but it crashes not always
Another nasty thing is that it sometimes does not display dialog windows properly (stays hidden behind another window) and the program waits for user input. It seems that it hangs but it does not really. You can still save your work by pressing Ctr-s. But killing the program and restarting is sometimes necessary if Alt-Tab does not work to bring up the hidden dialog.After all it is not more masochistic to use than most other PCB design programs on the PC.
One nice thing is that I can send my Ultiboard .ddf file as a single file to my PCB manufacturer and I don’t need to bother if the Gerber and drill files are correct. That is usually also a time consuming task.
The accompanying Ulticap schematic entry program is cumbersome to use and almost useless IMHO. For that I use DesignWorks which is still unsurpassed and miles ahead of nearly all other schematic entry programs, ok the schematic entry of MicroCap7 comes close by and now supports parts and net lists of some PCB programs.
Cheers
Yeah, I'm sure it is not totally junk, but I was amused at the statement: I use product xyz, good value, it is crap and crashes all the time. The logic of that escaped me.
We always complain about Windoze, but compared with your average CAD program W is a haven of stabiliy ..
My Proteus solves it the quick-and-dirty way: It regularly saves the files, if you look in the design folder you find backups numbered from 1 to 10, representing the last 10 states backwards in time. So you can ALWAYS recover, if not up to the last minute.
Jan Didden
We always complain about Windoze, but compared with your average CAD program W is a haven of stabiliy
..My Proteus solves it the quick-and-dirty way: It regularly saves the files, if you look in the design folder you find backups numbered from 1 to 10, representing the last 10 states backwards in time. So you can ALWAYS recover, if not up to the last minute.
Jan Didden
Yes, I'm still using Vutrax. With practice it gets easier. I think one problem is that actually using it is often easier than the tutorials. For instance, creating Gerber and drill files is quite simple, but you would not get that impression from the documentation.
Much of the documentation (other than the tuttorial) refers to the old text based inerface rather than the GUI so you often have to "interpret" what is being said.
My working patern is generally to do an idea first in LT-Spice, then re-enter it in Vutrax. This is where I make the most mistakes, just re-entering the schematic. The second biggest problem is keeping the LT_Spice version and the Vutrax version consistent when I make modifications.
Much of the documentation (other than the tuttorial) refers to the old text based inerface rather than the GUI so you often have to "interpret" what is being said.
My working patern is generally to do an idea first in LT-Spice, then re-enter it in Vutrax. This is where I make the most mistakes, just re-entering the schematic. The second biggest problem is keeping the LT_Spice version and the Vutrax version consistent when I make modifications.
I could, but with reluctance. It smacks too much of the workman who becomes more involved with his tools for their own sake than the object to which they are applied.
In the past (the Win 3.1 era), I wrote some windows applets because I wanteed to do something for which there was no other means. While the effort was successful, it took far too much time away from the actual objective. Sometimes, one has no choice but to build one's own tools but I would rather not if I can help it.
In the past (the Win 3.1 era), I wrote some windows applets because I wanteed to do something for which there was no other means. While the effort was successful, it took far too much time away from the actual objective. Sometimes, one has no choice but to build one's own tools but I would rather not if I can help it.
Proteus
I have been trying out Orcad recently, but to me it seems like there are an some bugs in their software. For example, creating new parts (escpecially when spice-models are included) has been a nightmare.
As some of you seem to rate Proteus from Labcenter very high, I've decided to try it out. Obviously, I just wonder what you think about the "Part creation"-process. Does it work well, and is it intuitive how to do it?
I have been trying out Orcad recently, but to me it seems like there are an some bugs in their software. For example, creating new parts (escpecially when spice-models are included) has been a nightmare.
As some of you seem to rate Proteus from Labcenter very high, I've decided to try it out. Obviously, I just wonder what you think about the "Part creation"-process. Does it work well, and is it intuitive how to do it?
zuken cadstar express (free version) limitations have apparently been eased to the level of usability
http://www.cadstarworld.com/press_200411express.asp
anyone try this or the full product? worth any effort?
http://www.cadstarworld.com/press_200411express.asp
anyone try this or the full product? worth any effort?
Indeed! I have a couple of parts made like that. I have caps with 6 holes and pads for instance.
My software can handle one connection in the schematc and multiple connections in the layout but if I want it to be more clear in the schematic I can have exactly the same amount connections both in schematic and the layout.
Check the T15, T16 in the schematic below.
http://www.sjostromaudio.com/hifi_files/qrv/qrv05r0schema_p1.pdf
Those transistors have two pins for the collector. I could have made only one connection in the schematic but this way it's more clear.
My software can handle one connection in the schematc and multiple connections in the layout but if I want it to be more clear in the schematic I can have exactly the same amount connections both in schematic and the layout.
Check the T15, T16 in the schematic below.
http://www.sjostromaudio.com/hifi_files/qrv/qrv05r0schema_p1.pdf
Those transistors have two pins for the collector. I could have made only one connection in the schematic but this way it's more clear.
For Andrau - Proteus
Proteus has a steep learning curve, but it's very powerful, and there are some really excellent Help files.
There are a large number of devices in the libraries - both schematic and case outlines/connections, and there are full instructions in the help files for how to make your own. However, it's a complex procedure, and I usually manage by modifying an existing library device, which is very easy.
The autorouter I don't like very much - it works well enough, but is too keen to take tracks round the outside of the component cluster(s), even with the rip-up and retry facility in the Pro version, so I do my own component placement and track layout.
Print facilities and output options are excellent, and you can get a Gerber add-on for both Lite and Pro versions. You can also add virtual test instruments to the Lite version, but not Spice simulations.
I looked at several CAD packages before opting for Proteus, and none of them were anything like as good. I've been using the Lite version for 5 or 6 years now, and cannot recommend it too highly.
JohnT
Proteus has a steep learning curve, but it's very powerful, and there are some really excellent Help files.
There are a large number of devices in the libraries - both schematic and case outlines/connections, and there are full instructions in the help files for how to make your own. However, it's a complex procedure, and I usually manage by modifying an existing library device, which is very easy.
The autorouter I don't like very much - it works well enough, but is too keen to take tracks round the outside of the component cluster(s), even with the rip-up and retry facility in the Pro version, so I do my own component placement and track layout.
Print facilities and output options are excellent, and you can get a Gerber add-on for both Lite and Pro versions. You can also add virtual test instruments to the Lite version, but not Spice simulations.
I looked at several CAD packages before opting for Proteus, and none of them were anything like as good. I've been using the Lite version for 5 or 6 years now, and cannot recommend it too highly.
JohnT
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.