| Bricolo |
| And if someone has a good book or website about PCB design to advice me, I'll be thankfull to him ;) |
|
|
| jackinnj |
Here's just a warning -- I use Ultiboard -- and probably wouldn't buy it again -- the legacy software (WIN98) is incompatible with Win2K -- no matter how many times you uninstall and reinstall it after a few tries it will refuse to open.
I discussed the problem with their techs in Canada -- they are aware of the problem and ARE NOT going to fix it -- their idea of a solution is to purchase the $800 upgrade. Apparently the problem is just now starting to hit Ultiboard users.
If you do have Multisim you can open Ultiboard by importing a dummy circuit using TRANSFER., then open up your circuit using FILE/OPEN
Perhaps I should voice my displeasure to Elektor, Nuts N Volts, AudioXpress and Circuit Cellar, |
|
|
| Immo_G |
Yeah i've played around with Protel 99/ dxp, Eagle 4.11 and Express PCB.
Protel in my opinion is insanely overdone in terms of features. Everything you could ever need is there somewhere, everything you do need is hidden in with the rest. Purely frustrating to use for a beginner, I smashed a keyboard and walked out of a class trying.
Eagle is a nice mix, once you get the basics sorted ie switching between circuit and pcb its quite nice. Tracking down some components in the included library can be time consuming, but I should have compiled my own by now. Seems to have most of the useful features you need, without a lot of unneeded ones.
And finally, Express PCB. With a name like this, i wasn't expecting much, but for a very simple basically PCB draw program, this is it. Pick track size, draw track, pick component footprint, place component.
In my opinion, try Eagle, make ya schematic, switch to board, it places the components, you place the tracks, move stuff around, or let it autoroute, and done. |
|
|
| tschrama |
Hi Bricolo,
I just started to try to design PCBs. I decided against 'Eagle' and choose 'Traxmaker' as being more easy to learn.
you can visit www.circuitmaker2000.com and download a trial, lots of info there and on the web too.
Goodluck,
Thijs |
|
|
| Bricolo |
I remember having tried eagle a year or two ago. Bad experience :( The design I tried to do did use "exotic" parts, and I had to do the eagle myself, that was such a pain especially for a beginner with this software.
Do all the softwares (including eagle) have models for classical DIY audio parts? (like regs, TDA154x DACs...) |
|
|
| jackinnj |
Brico --
I have also used ExpressPCB in the past, switched to PCBExpress to make protos --
I just went to the ExpressPCB site (as I had taken the software off my machine) -- and downloaded the new version -- there is now a schematic editor from which you can transfer your designs to their CAD program.
ExpressPCB is pretty good for prototypes. |
|
|
| tschrama |
oops,
that should be www.circuitmaker.com
I've just downloaded ExpressPCB.. seems very easy to learn. The library seem quiet big, including opamp etc from various manufactures.. also the LM3875 is in the library.. no LM4780 yet...
Regards,
Thijs |
|
|
| cocolino |
Since some years, I use this :
http://homepages.compuserve.de/ingw...DY6/geddy60.htm
Before I owned a CAD-program I was very afraid it`s too complicated for me.
After I tried a trial version (finally), I was surprised how easy this sort of stuff can be - without help of the manual (I`m one of those bad guys who don`t like to "read the ****ing manual" first :D ) I was able to make a very decent drawing and was already familiar with the most important features (after an hour or so) .
It´s comparatively cheap, simple, reliable and very likely more than enough what an Audio-DIYer ever will need.
So I stuck with this one and I´m still happy with it - I don`t need more.
BTW: the manual is good (and thick) but in German only (as far I know). Support is also very good - I had a question two times and always got an answer very promptly.
For this program an optional Post-Script-converter is avaiable (very recommended).
I can store those converted datas on Floppy-disk and bring it to a print shop. They have exposure-machines to print very high-resolution and quality exposure templates from those Postscript-files.
of course should read important not impotent - have fixed it:) |
|
|
| sam9 |
I've been using Vutrax. The advantages are that it is free (the is a component count limit on the free version but it is very high), industrial strength (i.e. you can use it to build a commercial product), does not crash, works as documented.
Disadvantages: user interface is clunky (its a DOS program moved to Windows), while you can do evrthing you need or want, getting there is awkward sometimes., no simulation except SpiceAge in the free version. long learning curve, not many other people use it so it's hard to get advice except from the vendor. |
|
|
| Bricolo |
OK, I've just installed Eagle, and tried to start a PCB layout.
My next project is a NOS DAC with a TDA1543.
But I can't find a model for this IC.
How do you guys do when you haven't the model? You create it for every chip which model doesn't exist?
Or is there a simplier way? (I was thinking about using another chip in the same format, sine it's for PCB design and not for simulation, it won't cause any problem IMO) |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| You made me think I forgot to precise that I'm looking for a free one ;) Or a useable demo |
|
|
| sam9 |
| If you are interested in simulation as well, BeigeBag has an interface specifically with Eagle and offeres some package pricing. BB seems to offer support directly aimed at audio hobbiests - not something I've seen much of elsewhere. |
|
|
| jwb |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bricolo
OK, I've just installed Eagle, and tried to start a PCB layout.
My next project is a NOS DAC with a TDA1543.
But I can't find a model for this IC.
How do you guys do when you haven't the model? You create it for every chip which model doesn't exist?
Or is there a simplier way? (I was thinking about using another chip in the same format, sine it's for PCB design and not for simulation, it won't cause any problem IMO) |
Usually the package you want already exists, but the schematic symbol does not. The TDA1543 is not a standard part like an LM317 or a resistor! So, simply draw the symbol for the new part, then combine the symbol with the existing package. I'm assuming TDA1543 is DIP-28 or SOIC-20 or something along those lines. The packages definitely exist already.
I have gotten to where I can draw a new part in Eagle in a few minutes. Its quite easy once you learn the motions. |
|
|
| audioPT |
Just for the record...
I still use TANGO :D |
|
|
| dhaen |
| quote: | Originally posted by ACD
I am very fond of Easy-PC ;) However it is not free....
www.numberone.com |
Jan, I agree:) At present I still use EPC4W 2.1. I have used EPC since DOS days. Then, I can remember having to go to lunch while it re-rendered (a 300mm x 300mm PCB on a 286):( It's faster now, but still quirky.
The trouble is that it's operational pholosophy is so different from any other PCB program that it makes learning new ones rather difficult.. :xeye:
________________________________________________
To answer the package question: I end up spending as much time making new Schematic and PCB symbols, as for drawing and laying out. It was the same when I used Orcad. These programs are great for digital families, but not for analogue consumer parts. |
|
|
| Petter |
| quote: | Originally posted by tschrama
Hi Bricolo,
I just started to try to design PCBs. I decided against 'Eagle' and choose 'Traxmaker' as being more easy to learn.
you can visit www.circuitmaker2000.com and download a trial, lots of info there and on the web too.
Goodluck,
Thijs |
I learned on Circuitmaker/Traxmaker, but you should be aware that is a dead end. What was just about to become the best software around for hobbyists was stifled when the guys who own Protel purchased it to let it die. This is a terrible shame because the program also had very intuitive simulation built in. Be aware though that the Spice version used seems very difficult to use - I never managed to make the one model I wanted and I tried for weeks.
The one feature you will sorely miss and which makes going to something like Eagle worth it (even though it is very non-windowesque) is the forward/backward linking between PCB layout and schematics.
Protel is probably insanely great and seems to have an insanely good library, but it also appeared to be insanely hard to use.
| quote: | Originally posted by Bricolo
I remember having tried eagle a year or two ago. Bad experience :( The design I tried to do did use "exotic" parts, and I had to do the eagle myself, that was such a pain especially for a beginner with this software.
Do all the softwares (including eagle) have models for classical DIY audio parts? (like regs, TDA154x DACs...) |
Eagle sucks for Audio parts - you typically have to make them yourself. Once you made a couple, you will forgive the manufacturer for making some bad design choices in that arena.
Eagle currently seems to be gaining ground and version 4.11 is supposed to have the ability to copy devices and footprints between libraries. It is unfortunate that the libraries are so incomplete and that your first 2 weeks will be useless for other things than learning. Once you have made your libraries, you will find Eagle powerful and come to love it, especially if you came from Circuitmaker/Traxmaker due mostly to the aforementioned forward/reverse linking between schematic and PCB.
At some point we should probably consider making parts available here on DIY Audio for Eagle.
Petter |
|
|
| jwb |
| One problem with that scheme, Petter. Unfortunately Eagle cannot import one part from a file into a library. You have to exchange and reexchange the library file, which is tedious. |
|
|
| zx3chris |
howdy,
my first program i ever learned was protel dxp -- learned it for a project for school, and yes it does take a long long time to learn, but the options are endless and i have had great results with it -- the library is huge, and even if you need to make your own parts (schematic wise), the footprint is there..
-chris |
|
|
| AMT-freak |
What I don't like in Eagle 4.09 (haven't tried the newer versions) is the strange way of handling power signals. All nets with the same name will be connected and you cannot change it. If two opamps are defined in a library with Vpp and Vdd, they will be connected once added to the schematic no matter what you do. You'll have to re-define the part if you want an individual R-C lowpass for each supply pin (the program will still generate warnings anyway). Also, there is no native way for defining signal links to a different sheet of the schematic, only q&d work-arounds. Postscript output only works with vector fonts, so you cannot make good looking silk screens.
There are many more flaws which do matter to me and considering this I think the program is somewhat pricey.
Many people have been complaining about these issues in the Eagle forum, but the programmers refuse to work on them. (Copying parts from library to library and even deleting parts from a library was only added to the latest version and hasn't been available before!) To me it seems that the underlying structure of the software wasn't thought out well, and that new features had been added quick and dirty. I guess the source code must be a mess and the company is hesitating to re-work it from scratch. Just speculating, though. |
|
|
| Joe Berry |
| quote: | Originally posted by dhaen
Jan, I agree:) At present I still use EPC4W 2.1. I have used EPC since DOS days. . . . The trouble is that it's operational pholosophy is so different from any other PCB program that it makes learning new ones rather difficult.. :xeye: |
I also use Easy-PC (Version 7 currently) and like it very much. It may be a little idiosyncratic, but I've seen *much* worse. Except for printing, I find it pretty intuitive (as an experienced Windows user). |
|
|
| sam9 |
| After trying out several products one generalized conclusion is that none of them have libraries that are not very useful exept for a 1\standard 1/4W resistors and a few caps. So one criteria I suggest for making a selection is a user friendly way to make/manage schematic symbols and footprints. Check also how easy you can change the footprint assopciated with a given symbol. |
|
|
| Bricolo |
I reied Eagle and ExpressPCB yesterday evening.
For the TDA1543, I used the DIL8 model. That works.
Now, there are a few things I didn't manage to do:
On Eagle and ExpressPCB, how can I add a groundplane? In fact, not really a groundplane but more a groundfill, to use every unused space as ground.
And on eagle, the PCB is 2 layers per default, I want 1 layer. How can I change it? |
|
|
| CheffDeGaar |
I must be a dinosaur, but I use PCB for Linux (or any Unix). Quite a fast and small software, but no routing, no schematic import :)
Free software, 8 layers, connections check, Postscript and Gerber ouputs, no limitations in number of elements, max board size 20" x 20" (modifying the source files allows to go up to 32" x 32")
The nicest feature so far is the possibility to make your own elements library. Just draw them, and tell the soft you want them to be a new element or part. Very useful for exotic parts.
Just my :2c:
Cheff |
|
|
| Circlotron |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bricolo
You made me think I forgot to precise that I'm looking for a free one ;) |
Easytrax (simpler) or Autotrax. (Both DOS). They used to be commercial products by Protel (now Altium) before being put out to pasture as freeware.
http://www.protel.com.au/resources/downloads/index.html bottom of page. |
|
|
| Bricolo |
OK.
And how can I put a "groundfill" on a 1 layer PCB? |
|
|
| Jan-Peter |
Hi,
I have very good experience with: PCB Elegance , www.merco.nl .
Very good for Audio!
Regards,
Jan-Peter |
|
|
| jackinnj |
| quote: | Originally posted by AMT-freak
Many people have been complaining about these issues in the Eagle forum, but the programmers refuse to work on them. (Copying parts from library to library and even deleting parts from a library was only added to the latest version and hasn't been available before!) To me it seems that the underlying structure of the software wasn't thought out well, and that new features had been added quick and dirty. I guess the source code must be a mess and the company is hesitating to re-work it from scratch. Just speculating, though. |
You make a good point -- this is a pretty common problem in software design -- at least as I see it from the periphery -- things are just cobbled together, tweaked. |
|
|
| HBarske |
| quote: | | Unfortunately Eagle cannot import one part from a file into a library |
This is not quite true. There is a script called "Make project library" includued, which will do a nice useable library with all parts from the board. |
|
|
| Hi Speed |
Hi all
I recomended Protel 99 SE whit sp6, is esay to learn and you can download the full working 30 day demo. |
|
|
| Bricolo |
I started to use Eagle. I found how to make a groundfill (simply add a polygone around all the PCB, and name it GND)
But, either I don't know how to do it correctly, or Eagle don't always connect the wires to the pins you put them on... |
|
|
| AMT-freak |
| quote: | Originally posted by jackinnj
... This is a pretty common problem in software design -- at least as I see it from the periphery -- things are just cobbled together, tweaked... |
What I learned from my tries as a programmer, once you spend a sufficient amount thinking about the data structures and manipulations you want to do on them, a program more or less writes itself.
I'm still waiting for the open source community to develop a good schematic capture / PCB design program (I wouldn't hesitate to participate). |
|
|
| Lisandro_P |
| quote: | | Originally posted by AMT-freak I'm still waiting for the open source community to develop a good schematic capture / PCB design program (I wouldn't hesitate to participate). [/B] |
http://gael.sourceforge.net/ - Work in progress, but seems to have potential.
http://www.geda.seul.org/ - much more mature, but haven't been able to try it so far.
http://www.opencollector.org/ carries a list of a LOT of OS electronic oriented software as well.
As a Linux user, EAGLE is the only more or less mature choice i have handy. It's ok, i loved EAGLE on Windows as well :) but an open source EDA would be *really* nice... |
|
|
| dhaen |
Thanks for the link:)
A very ambitious and exciting project:cool:
I doubt it will be practical to use for a year or 2.
IMO There is nothing more frustrating than unreliable schematic / PCB software.
It's well worth keeping an eye on. |
|
|
| Lisandro_P |
Yeah, so it seems... gEDA is muche more mature, but it's, ironically, lacking the PCB design tool; it's being worked on. They're both oriented in the right direction though!
gEDA developers' recommend PCB as a replacement - i just installed it and, while powerful, has a dated interface. I'll have to play with it for a while to see if it's any good for me. |
|
|
| Petter |
| quote: | Originally posted by AMT-freak
What I don't like in Eagle 4.09 (snip ...
Many people have been complaining about these issues in the Eagle forum, but the programmers refuse to work on them. (Copying parts from library to library and even deleting parts from a library was only added to the latest version and hasn't been available before!) To me it seems that the underlying structure of the software wasn't thought out well, and that new features had been added quick and dirty. I guess the source code must be a mess and the company is hesitating to re-work it from scratch. Just speculating, though. |
I think you will find that as for pretty much any outfit that chooses to be cross-platform (reads Windows + Linux + whatever), it is harder to take advantage of the underlying platform capabilities and best of breed (for that platform) tools. In a sense you get the minimum overlap of functionality and must use other methods, tools and so on in order to create your own framework within which you can create your multi-platform application.
Thus, Eagle has a very non-windows like GUI, looks very ugly. My guess is that all the graphical user interface work (they must likely even handle the mousing .... ) is the main reason why it is stable enough to use for relatively serious amateurs but not professionals.
My guess is that they would have sold just as much had they stuck to one platform.
Still, I like it better than anything else I have tried.
Petter |
|
|
| Lisandro_P |
| quote: | Originally posted by Petter
I think you will find that as for pretty much any outfit that chooses to be cross-platform (reads Windows + Linux + whatever), it is harder to take advantage of the underlying platform capabilities and best of breed (for that platform) tools. In a sense you get the minimum overlap of functionality and must use other methods, tools and so on in order to create your own framework within which you can create your multi-platform application. |
I dunno... the thing with Eagle is that's old (relatively) software; so the interfaces doesn't look dated, it IS dated. Lately i had to install Xilinx Foundation for some uni work; same deal. It's a great program but the interface doesn't adapts as well to Windows as some more modern software (and i'm running 98SE). Having said that, i found the Eagle interface to be identical in both Linux and Windows, so maybe is just a design flaw.
As for why it isn't more widely used... dunno. Maybe because it isn't as advanced as something like Protel, which will edit the schematic, simulate it, create a pcb and brew you a cup of coffee. If you can afford Protel and learn it it's hands down the most advanced and professional EDA available, in *any* platform. Eagle can do professional work just as well, it just lacks the finesse and options of other software. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Petter
I think you will find that as for pretty much any outfit that chooses to be cross-platform (reads Windows + Linux + whatever), it is harder to take advantage of the underlying platform capabilities and best of breed (for that platform) tools. In a sense you get the minimum overlap of functionality and must use other methods, tools and so on in order to create your own framework within which you can create your multi-platform application.
|
No, that need not be much of a problem except for certain
types of software like computer games and similar. There
are a several examples of standard programs in the Unix/Linux
world that has been very successfully ported to Windows and
works more reliably than any of MS own programs. There are
several program packages you can use to develop platform-
independent software, since they hide the details of the
underlying OS. Have a look at WxWindows for instance
(www.wxwindows.org if I remember correctly). If you use
that as the bottom layer of your program it is in most cases
possible to port a program by just recompiling it. Of course,
many or most programmers in the PC and Mac world don't
care about portability, and Bill Gats does his best to convince
them to continue writing Windows-dependent programs. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by AMT-freak
What I learned from my tries as a programmer, once you spend a sufficient amount thinking about the data structures and manipulations you want to do on them, a program more or less writes itself.
|
Exactly, and that and some similar wisdoms is what we
emphasize when teaching our students programming.
Unfortunately, most people who work as programmers don't
have any proper education in programming, so they don't
understand such simple elementary methodologies. There is a
saying that there are two ways to develop a program, either
you spend 10% of the time on thinking and writing the program
and 90% on debugging, or you spend 90% of the time thinking
and programming and 10% on debugging. There is some truth
to that, and what is usally not said is that the 100% usually
amounts to a much shorter time period in the latter case. |
|
|
| Petter |
Many wise points
I still think it is harder to target multiple platforms. With limited resources for design, development, testing and debugging (even if you can reach the write-once, test everywhere scenario - consider even something as "simple" as printing which is very important for Eagle), something is bound to suffer in a cross-platform environment.
Then factor in compatibility across versions across platforms :) ...
Petter |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Petter
Many wise points
I still think it is harder to target multiple platforms. With limited resources for design, development, testing and debugging (even if you can reach the write-once, test everywhere scenario - consider even something as "simple" as printing which is very important for Eagle), something is bound to suffer in a cross-platform environment.
Then factor in compatibility across versions across platforms :) ...
Petter |
Not so sure printing is a problem, but I admit I haven't tried
that in Wxwindows. This project has developed over quite a
long time, is free software and is used in many products,
both serious commercial ones as well as freeware. Take a
few minutes to have a look at the website. You don't have to
read the doc, but read a little about the features and reports
on succesful crossplatform software that has been written
based on WxWindows. The guys developing WxWindows are
very serious and competent and work hard to offer a first-class
software despite it being freeware. Besides, there are other
similar commercial platforms.
Compatibility across platforms shouldn't usually be much of
a problem if you are disciplined and really use WxWindows as
the fundament. There are few features that doesn't work
both under *nix and Windows due to inherent limitations in
one or the other, but those are marginal things. It may be that
you may have to take care of different file formats explicitly,
I don't remember how well that is handled, but I think most
usual types of files are transparent. |
|
|
| nemestra |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lisandro_P
Maybe because it isn't as advanced as something like Protel, which will edit the schematic, simulate it, create a pcb and brew you a cup of coffee. If you can afford Protel and learn it it's hands down the most advanced and professional EDA available, in *any* platform. |
Thanks for the Protel advert, Lisandro. I've used quite a number of pcb tools in the past few years (Cadstar, Vutrax, Protel, Unicad, Cadence, Orcad, Ultiboard amongst others, in no particular order) on a number of platforms, (DOS, Windows and Unix) and am a current user of Protel. 'hands down the most advanced ...' not by a long shot. Its over-complex for what it does, counter-intuitive in places and has far too many 'options' allowing users to make mistakes. It's only good with respect to some of its cheaper relatives and some of its peers. Look at Cadence etc. if you need to see what an advanced PCB system looks like.
James |
|
|
| Lisandro_P |
| quote: | Originally posted by nemestra
Thanks for the Protel advert, Lisandro. I've used quite a number of pcb tools in the past few years (Cadstar, Vutrax, Protel, Unicad, Cadence, Orcad, Ultiboard amongst others, in no particular order) on a number of platforms, (DOS, Windows and Unix) and am a current user of Protel. 'hands down the most advanced ...' not by a long shot. Its over-complex for what it does, counter-intuitive in places and has far too many 'options' allowing users to make mistakes. It's only good with respect to some of its cheaper relatives and some of its peers. Look at Cadence etc. if you need to see what an advanced PCB system looks like. |
Well, that's exactly what i meant by it being hands down the best. Yeah, it's complicated and has way too many options, but name ONE electronic design step you can't fully cover with it. Like i said, if you're willing to learn it, you can pretty much design anything from scratch.
Personally, i found it the same way as you: way too heavy for what i want/need, through i could appreciate it's potential. I settled for CircuitMaker for a while (think of a lighter Protel), but then realized that Eagle did what i needed (PCBs) much better, even simpler, and UNIX-natively.
OrCad was nice (tried it a good while ago), but i never ran across Cadence. I'll keep my eyes open. |
|
|
| Lyra |
Is there a way to create a single layer PCB with Eagle. Cant find that it has this possabillity!?
If not....how do I create a GND plane on one side (upper) before or after autoroute??
Where to read to find out more about this?
Alll the best
Lyra |
|
|
| jwb |
| If you want only one layer, you can simply discard the bottom layer's CAM information. To create a ground plane, use the polygon tool to draw a closed rectangle around the desired area. Name this rectangle GND. Whenever you use the 'ratsnest' command, the ground area will be recalculated. |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lyra
Is there a way to create a single layer PCB with Eagle. Cant find that it has this possabillity!?
|
Yes, there's one
In the board editor->DRC->Layers-> In the "Setup" box just type 16 |
|
|
| Lyra |
Hi!
I am trying to make a layout with Eagle 4.11, regarding a PCM1794 (have tryed other's "allready in the library" too..) DAC with a 28 lead's SSOP package.
The thing is that I cant get the autorouter to route this item. It routes all the other items, an leave this one with a mess off green wires in the unrouted layer.
What am I doing wrong ?
Would really appreciate some help here folks ! :xeye:
Lyra |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| sorry, I don't know :( |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| does someone here use a software to design circuits on veroboards? I'd like to try this |
|
|
| tschrama |
I just received something for veroboards.. mail me...
gtg,
regards,
Thijs |
|
|
| Aud_Mot |
Stay away from CircuitMaker. Protel claims to provide service. They have no service and have never answered any tech questions.
There is a user's group:
http://gtechno.com/bugs-n-fixes/
Everyone there will tell you they have never heard of any one getting any kind of support from CircuitMaker/Protel.
Protel is a bunch of crooks. That could be taken slander. Protel come and get me, please.
There is a promising product, AutotraxEDA
http://autotraxeda.com/
Not to be confused with the PCB part of the older version Protel product with the name of "Traxmaker"
Autotrax has strong support, but still seems to be a work in progress. The SPICE portion is not up to speed. Illija Kovacevic is the designer/engineer of the product and responds to tech support questions several times a day.
There is an Autotrax Yahoo group, very active.
For $95.00 Autotrax is worth looking into.
Aud_Mot |
|
|
| Lyra |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lyra
I am trying to make a layout with Eagle 4.11, regarding a PCM1794 (have tryed other's "allready in the library" too..) DAC with a 28 lead's SSOP package.
The thing is that I cant get the autorouter to route this item. It routes all the other items, an leave this one with a mess off green wires in the unrouted layer.
|
I found that if I change the library component and told that is was a DIL28 package instead of SSOP28 the router works as it should.....
Think it must have something to do with the small footprint of the PCM1794, and some setup on how small the pad's could be allowed, but I don't know withc setting this is....
Anybody ??
Lyra |
|
|
| jwb |
| My advice: don't use the autorouter. |
|
|
| sam9 |
I'm not sure there is any auto router that works well for audio amplifiers. If you absolutely must try it anyway, first hand route the key nets; Power, ground, feedback. - then try the autorouter. Maybe, just maybe it might do ok.
The most irritating problem with the autorouters I've tried is that they give up after a certain number of itterations leaving one or more tracks un-routed, even on two layer boards. At that point you are usually "boxed in" in such a way that there is no way route the remaining tracks except by a jumper which is normally kind of dumb with a two layer PCB. |
|
|
| jackinnj |
| quote: | Originally posted by sam9
I'm not sure there is any auto router that works well for audio amplifiers. If you absolutely must try it anyway, first hand route the key nets; Power, ground, feedback. - then try the autorouter. Maybe, just maybe it might do ok.
The most irritating problem with the autorouters I've tried is that they give up after a certain number of itterations leaving one or more tracks un-routed, even on two layer boards. At that point you are usually "boxed in" in such a way that there is no way route the remaining tracks except by a jumper which is normally kind of dumb with a two layer PCB. |
isn't that why they make "zero-ohm" resistors?
btw, I use the auto-router in audio stuff to give me a good idea of who's doing what to whom, then "rip up and retry" -- and then do it by hand. experience is the best educator,
jack |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by jackinnj
isn't that why they make "zero-ohm" resistors?
jack |
exactly |
|
|
| cocolino |
| quote: | Originally posted by sam9
I'm not sure there is any auto router that works well for audio amplifiers. |
I think You don`t need one.
When You place the components wrong an autorouter routes nonsense.
The hardest work is to figure where to place the components right that at the end everything will go together in the most reasonable manner - I believe no autorouter can do this for You -this You must do by Yourself.
Once You`re so far that You already know what is the best component arrangement (usually only after much trial and error) the biggest part is done and after this, the rest (routing traces) then just leads to itself and hence an autorouter is completely superfluous IMO. |
|
|
| sam9 |
Which is basicly what I do since once you have the critical traces in place, the remaining ones tend to work themselves out. And besides you are likely to spend more time fixing what the auto router does than doing yourself.
Auto placement is even worse. I'm sure there are non-ausio circuits that the auto features do just fine at. Toasters, dorrbells, etc. |
|
|
| zinsula |
.... but i'm really interested to know if anyone has made some experience with Target PCB Layout software?
Thanks
Tino |
|
|
| jackinnj |
| quote: | Originally posted by sam9
Auto placement is even worse. I'm sure there are non-ausio circuits that the auto features do just fine at. Toasters, dorrbells, etc. |
The good thing about auto-placement, however, is that it puts the pieces of the puzzle in close proximity to where they eventually should be -- most of the time.
If you get the demo-version of Ultiboard 7 there auto-placement function is enabled -- but you can't "file save" with the demo. |
|
|
| ergo |
I just bought a software called Sprint-Layout from
http://www.abacom-online.de/html/sprint-layout.html
For 39.90 EUR I think it's an exeptional value.
I used to use Eagle and also tried TraxMaker, Protel, etc. but always felt they were overly complicated and not intuitive.
Well the Sprint-Layout is what the name says. It is not overly advanced but it supports 2 layer PCB with silkscreens on both sides (really who need more for DIY audio?), automatic groundplane filling and very easy to get interface.
One more fine feature which I have not tested yet but look very promising is to be able to import image file and put it as background and draw a board according to image file. As the Sprint-Layout exports gerber it should be possible to send the data to any decent PCB manufacturer.
Anyway, just one more program, but give it a try with a working demo.
Ergo |
|
|
| Pjotr |
Right Ergo :)
For DIY you hardly need more. But the autofill feature is too limited to be much useful IMHO. You get better and neater results by filling large copper areas using the polygon feature.
Tip: Always check the Gerber output with a Gerber viewer to avoid nasty surprises. This not only holds for SE but for all PCB programs.
Cheers ;) |
|
|
| sam9 |
I'm particularly interested in a package (at a reasonable price!) that integraes Spice/Schematic/Layout. Re-entering a circuit that has been checked in Spice to an unrelated schematic editor just so one can do a board layout is a source for potential error. Especially when the interfaces are quite different. There seem to be three that fit this in price range I can live with
Spicecycle/Spiceage
Ivex (new version - I dumped the old one that would run on XP)
BeigeBag + Eagle
Has anyone experiece with these? Particularly moving from the simulation/idea stage to layout? |
|
|
| janneman |
I'm using Proteus from labcenter.co.uk. I think they have a 'lite' version for about 100 $ US. Works reasonably well, nice simulator with graphs on the same page if you want, animation (see the currents flow in your circuit) and interactive components (there are switches, for example, that you can 'throw' in a working circuit by clicking them with the mouse).
If you are in PIC or other microcontrollers, Proteus can simulate/runs these as well and links to your code so you can really simulate your microcontroller circuits VERY realistically. That actually is their forte.
Although the package has an auto-router, I only use that to get a rough idea of my parts placement, then do routing interactively by hand, especially for audio work, I'd like to be in control.;)
I have no experience with any of the others. I tried Ivex years ago but found it so hard to learn that I abandoned it.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| JTT |
I use Proteus, from Labcenter in the UK. They do really excellent Lite versions of both their Schematic and PCB design packages, and they are a bargain at the price they ask:
http://www.labcenter.co.uk/
If you have a look at my excuse for a website:
http://www.btinternet.com/~jaytt
all the scematic and PCB stuff on there is produced with Proteus, and the zipfiles contain more, and higher res, jpgs than are shown on the web pages.
I tried umpteen CAD packages before Proteus, and it beats 'em all hands down. I cannot speak too highly of it.
Regards
JohnT |
|
|
| ALW |
I used Eagle for a while and rate it highly, but its licensing model is too restrictive for my work (board size as opposed to pin count).
I used to use EasyPC, and have gone back to it, the Windows versions are great, currently at v7, but v8 is due VERY soon.
It will add some great functionality, including freehand routing, with automatic tidying up and mitreing + Eagle import, which I am reliably informed will be useable as if the board were designed in EasyPC.
A note on simulations though, none of the ones I've tried integrate very well, they were all a bit 'bolt on'. The Beige Bag stuff was powerful was hard work to get the speed out of in my experience, too much tweaking required to otpimise performance.
My favourite is Simetrix (http://www.catena.uk.com/), which is truly excellent. It's actually the simulator that is available for EasyPC, but I found the integration poor, so I use the free one from the Simetrix site to design the schematic / netlist, and then import the netlist into the full version I have with EasyPC, which can be run standalone. I found this much quicker than trying to create the netlist / schematic in EasyPC's schematic editor (not because it isn't any good, but simply that the method to assign Spice parameters etc. was laborious).
Also, check out Pro-router add-on for Easy PC if you do any high density, non-audio, digital stuff, the demo I have looks to be the best autorouter I've tried yet, it certainly beats BlazeRouter (PowerPCB) for both speed and definitely for quality.
For audio though an autorouter will not get you a good layout - use it as others have mentioned, as a means to ensure the layout is routable / spot obvious problems, then route by hand, optimally. You'll throw away a load of performance if you autoroute, I guarantee it.
Andy. |
|
|
| zagisrule! |
| quote: | Originally posted by jackinnj
Here's just a warning -- I use Ultiboard -- and probably wouldn't buy it again -- the legacy software (WIN98) is incompatible with Win2K -- no matter how many times you uninstall and reinstall it after a few tries it will refuse to open.
I discussed the problem with their techs in Canada -- they are aware of the problem and ARE NOT going to fix it -- their idea of a solution is to purchase the $800 upgrade. Apparently the problem is just now starting to hit Ultiboard users.
If you do have Multisim you can open Ultiboard by importing a dummy circuit using TRANSFER., then open up your circuit using FILE/OPEN
Perhaps I should voice my displeasure to Elektor, Nuts N Volts, AudioXpress and Circuit Cellar, |
I have the same problem, but a different version...you can always just open it by double-clicking the files in Windows Explorer...but it ****es me off! :mad:
I am using P-CAD now and it is nothing but impressive, I find it has more features than Ultiboard and I just like the way it works better. Easier to use and even has an autoplacement tool that I have not figured out how to use yet...time will teach me I guess. :D
-Matt |
|
|
| zagisrule! |
Cool, I see that the forum software has already edited my bad language. :whazzat:
-Matt |
|
|
| janneman |
I have the same bad experience with Ultiboard/Ultisim etc as mentioned above. I know the product since it was launched by a Dutchman, who I happened to meet once or twice. I have been trying the product out several times over the last 20 years or so, enticed by great advertising. Without exception everytime I had problems even to get it to run stable. One solution suggested was that I buy THEIR workstation to be sure it ran well!
It is a mystery to me how such a product can survive for so long in the market. Maybe they follow the lesson learned from Hi-End Audio: if you make it expensive enough, people will buy anything.;)
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Jan-Peter |
I use;
PCB Elegance, to be found at www.merco.nl
Also a Dutch PCB design software. I use it already since 2000, very stable and fast program. In case of some program errors you normaly get in one or two days an update.
In the demo you can see a design for a 486 motherboard.
Regards,
Jan-Peter |
|
|
| janneman |
Jan-Peter,
Looks interesting. I tried to find a manual on their website to see what it can do, but apparently there is none?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Jan-Peter |
Janneman,
When you download the program, and install it, you find in the directory the manual. If you like I can also mail it to you.
Mine email adres is info@hypex.nl
I have had also a bad experience with Ultiboard, altough it is very much used in the Netherlands. For designers who looks to a fast NONE AUTOROUTER pcb design program, PCB Elegance is worth to try. We use it to design High Class-D amplifiers (450W) with a lot of 0805 SMD and power fet's running at 450kHz, so we definatly need a good software to create groundplanes and wide copper tracks.
Jan-Peter |
|
|
| Pjotr |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
It is a mystery to me how such a product can survive for so long in the market. Maybe they follow the lesson learned from Hi-End Audio: if you make it expensive enough, people will buy anything |
Well actually Ultiboard provides a lot of power for the money compared to other professional packages costing many times more. That is why it survived in the past in industry. I’m using the 1999 version that is called in the manual Ultiboard 2000 :confused: It runs under W2K but not very stable, saving every 5 min. is a must. The user interface is very counter intuitive and many obvious things are possible with workarounds requiring imagination, forget about user support. But once you managed to tame the little dragon it is not that bad.
Have seen and used a lot of other much more expensive PCB packages, no one is easy to learn and intuitive. They all are nasty dragons difficult to tame. The only one I remember that was a pleasure to work with was RUN on the Mac which isn’t anymore.
Jan-Peter,
PCB Elegance looks interesting, will look further into it.
Cheers ;) |
|
|
| Elso Kwak |
Hi, Boardmaker is easy and intuitive to learn even for a PC-Moron like me.;)
I hate Proteus from Labcenter but for schematics it has an export facility giving BMP files that I can post on this forum.:bawling: |
|
|
| janneman |
Elso,
Interesting you say that. I have used Boardmaker several years, then lost the dongle during a move. Although I could prove to the company that I bought it with my invoice (I was even on their customer list) they insisted I pay half the new price for a new dongle, which I thought was absurd. Their last remark was that I should claim it from the moving company...
I have since found back the dongle in a dark corner, but at that time had already bought Proteus. Boardmaker is a DOS program, does it run well on an XP machine?
I also used Layo; in fact, I wrote the English and Dutch language user and reference manuals for them at the end of the 90-ies and introduced the program to AudioXpress (then still Audio Amateur)so I am quite familiar with it.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Jan-Peter |
Jan,
Interesting you wrote some manuals for Layo1. I am growing up with Layo1. In the beginning I have asked the desinger of PCB Elegance for a lot of things what I was used with Layo1.
If you are a formely Layo1 user, you should really give it a try!
Jan-Peter |
|
|
| janneman |
Jan-Peter,
The last time I heard from Peter Baas was that he was going to port Layo1 to Windows, I don't know if that was completed. Which version do you use, DOS or Windows?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Elso Kwak |
Hi Jan,
I have a slightly later version of Boardmaker where the omitted the dongle but it is still BM1 running under DOS. It does not run well in a DOS window under Windows ME. I use it on an old 386 computer not connected to the internet. At Tsien they no longer support it. www.tsien.com
I had a copy of Layo without manual but threw it away......Not my piece of cake.
:cool: |
|
|
| Jan-Peter |
Jan,
I have had also some contact with them about their Windows version. But that was 4-6 years ago. Around the same time I saw an advertisement in Elektuur about PCB Elegance. After some trials a start to work with it. In the meantime the designer of PCB Elegance did listen to a lot to mine idees as a Layo1 user!
So please give it a try and tell us your experience.
Jan-Peter |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elso Kwak
Hi Jan,
[snip]I had a copy of Layo without manual but threw it away......Not my piece of cake.
:cool: |
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 |
|
|
| Emsad |
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. |
|
|
| Johnix |
Does anyone can explain what 'GERBER' file format is ?
I suspect this is the kind of file including drills and tracks absolute position but I'm not sure :xeye:
For Eagle users, do you know how to exchange chip footprints between librairies ? |
|
|
| dhaen |
"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. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Emsad
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. |
Well, if you say that Ultiboard is very unstable and crashes all the time, why do you still use it? Very good value for the buck? You must be kidding! Are you a masochist?;)
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Pjotr |
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 ;) |
|
|
| janneman |
Yeah, I'm sure it is not totally junk, but I was amused at the statement: I use product xyz, good value, it is **** 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:D ..
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 |
|
|
| sam9 |
You guys are encouraging me to stay with my current (free) software!
BTW, anyone familiar withe "Spiceage" |
|
|
| jcx |
still using Vutrax?
i failed to "get it" in several days of trying, even with the tutorials - but it looks very powerful and has the best free/demo limits i've seen and i could give it another try if i was certain the effort was going to be worthwhile |
|
|
| sam9 |
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. |
|
|
| janneman |
Could you not export a netlist from both in the same format and compare that, eventually with a simple piece of (Basic) software?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| sam9 |
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. |
|
|
| janneman |
Yeah, you got a point there. Still, you would only need to set it up once. Think of all those cases where you DID forget something and had to redo the boards...;)
Jan Didden
/Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - yes I know.. |
|
|
| Johnix |
| does smbdy knows how to generate GERBER files with Eagle ? |
|
|
| andrau |
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? |
|
|
| Bricolo |
Does someone know how to make "multisize" footprints with eagle?
I mean, multiple holes at different spacing, if you're not sure of what size of cap you'll use.
Like in pedja's TDA board |
|
|
| ALW |
| quote: | | Does someone know how to make "multisize" footprints with eagle? I mean, multiple holes at different spacing, if you're not sure of what size of cap you'll use. Like in pedja's TDA board |
Isn't it as simple as just adding more pads to the symbol and then joining the relevant ones up?
Andy. |
|
|
| peranders |
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_f...r0schema_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. |
|
|
| JTT |
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 |
|
|
|
