I'm having some trouble adapting myself to modern pcb programs.
Now it's been some time since I don't design a pcb, about 15 years ago, but when I did I used Traxedit, which was a DOS program which at the time run under Windows 98 with no problem.
Unfortunately there's no way I can run it under Windows 7 or even XP.
Even if apparently simple, the program was very complete and easy to use. You just pressed the pre-programmed keys or used you mouse, and you could do anything in any size.
I have tried Eagle and KiCad, and their learning curves is quite steep, mostly because the tutorials are not very good.
Is there any simple pcb programs around?
BTW: I want to design the pcb, so I'm not interested in feeding the schematic into the program, which is what most programs make you too.
Now it's been some time since I don't design a pcb, about 15 years ago, but when I did I used Traxedit, which was a DOS program which at the time run under Windows 98 with no problem.
Unfortunately there's no way I can run it under Windows 7 or even XP.
Even if apparently simple, the program was very complete and easy to use. You just pressed the pre-programmed keys or used you mouse, and you could do anything in any size.
I have tried Eagle and KiCad, and their learning curves is quite steep, mostly because the tutorials are not very good.
Is there any simple pcb programs around?
BTW: I want to design the pcb, so I'm not interested in feeding the schematic into the program, which is what most programs make you too.
Maybe this?
Making Printed Circuit Boards - Robot Room Copper connection software link down the page a little.
The basic version is freeware, but if you want Gerbers you need to pay for it. Works great for toner transfer method as is.
Mike
Making Printed Circuit Boards - Robot Room Copper connection software link down the page a little.
The basic version is freeware, but if you want Gerbers you need to pay for it. Works great for toner transfer method as is.
Mike
Last edited:
I also used Traxedit years ago, but now I recommend you to use Sprint Layout.
Great software, cheap, complete, easy to use and easy to learn.
ABACOM Ingenieurgesellschaft
Great software, cheap, complete, easy to use and easy to learn.
ABACOM Ingenieurgesellschaft
I really don't understand why newer CAD programs are made to be so difficult in the first place. It would stand to reason that while newer ones offer more features they should also improve the interface and logical modern interpretations of different functions. Instead, many programs seem to have a real problem getting to the point.
Hi I feel exactly the same about this and dislike forced schematic capture (in fact you need to draw the schematic first before any board can be designed) and autorouting "features" too. Must be that I used to draw PCBs by hand (with ink on paper) long ago. I cannot and will not stop thinking and acting the analog way despite various reasons to adapt to the workflow recent software offers. To me drawing the PCB is in fact drawing the schematic/circuit with care for current loops, proper power supply decoupling etc. The supposedly better efficiency of most PCB programs is not what I want, I want quality. Efficiency is debatable as one needs to spend many hours to get used to this CAD software. Nowadays I use pad2pad and I like it a lot as it is free and simple, no steep learning curve etc. One point is that you can not export boards, you will have to have the PCBs made at their facility.
Pad2Pad - Custom Printed Circuit Board Manufacturer, Mahwah NJ | General | Main
BTW I think I used the same DOS software in the past but I recall it being called Easytrax ?!?!
Pad2Pad - Custom Printed Circuit Board Manufacturer, Mahwah NJ | General | Main
BTW I think I used the same DOS software in the past but I recall it being called Easytrax ?!?!
Last edited:
Interesting that it's called schematic capture, when there's no capture at all. You have to design the schematic with the program and then convert that to pcb parts, that you then arrange.
AS I come from the time when you designed the schematic with a drawing program and then placed the parts with the pcb program, I really don't see the need for it if you're not going to do simulations and all.
And they are complicated to learn indeed: I went through Altium, KiCAD and Eagle, and except for the Altium, the other two tutorials were very poor and they said things would happen that did not.
Problem with the Altium is that you have to load too many variables before you get things going. I've been told that things get easier later, but I got impatient.
But seeing the learning problems the others had, I might go back to the Altium.
This is an analog circuit I'm building and not too sophisticated. Also it is not the first I design, double-sided and all.
Once again, I don't see why they don't make things easier. For instance, if the same technique that was used on the DOS pcb program I used before was applied on the schematic design, such a program would be much easier than the ones I mentioned. Just put a mistake protection for short-circuiting the supply and that's all.
RS nw offer a free package based on the easy PC platform call design spark.
DesignSpark PCB Home Page DesignSpark
I also recommend learning to use the schematic capture function. As you can check at the schematic level and then using the net list be sure that the layou matches the schematic.
The up front time is longer but for more complex boards is saves days.
Andrew
DesignSpark PCB Home Page DesignSpark
I also recommend learning to use the schematic capture function. As you can check at the schematic level and then using the net list be sure that the layou matches the schematic.
The up front time is longer but for more complex boards is saves days.
Andrew
Yes, the program was Easytrax. Protel allowed me to import the pcb files and print them in Windows.
And no, not interested in programs designed by the place the makes the boards. I need a file type anyone can use, or allow me to print it and send it to be made wherever I want.
I had EagleCAD, great program but problematic interface. I had to buy a book the size and thickness of a university text just to get an introduction. Using netlist was about as bad as deciphering device creation in LTSpice while trying to get a straight answer without someone skipping steps, or who's literacy skills degrade mid-sentence to suddenly inserting ./io**^~ programmer jargon. And to think, all the confusion could have been avoided through better intuitive button and interface design.
Last edited:
If you did any amount of this you would understand why schematic capture, export of a netlist, layout, are an economic way of managing these operations.
Schematic capture -> layout is a tremendous boon in terms of error trapping. Circuit re-use starts at the schematic.
If you fight the program's workflow you will just create problems. Go with the flow. Enter the schematic and stop bitching.
I have used Mentor Graphics, PCAD, Orcad, Eagle, Proteus and a couple of others under DOS. Plus LTSPice for sims and I messed around with TIna. And a load of earlier sims.
These programs do not have steep learning curves. They all do the same thing, roughly. If you only make 3 PCBs in your life you will not get slick, but if you only do 3 spreadsheets you will not be an expert Excel user.
Schematic capture -> layout is a tremendous boon in terms of error trapping. Circuit re-use starts at the schematic.
If you fight the program's workflow you will just create problems. Go with the flow. Enter the schematic and stop bitching.
I have used Mentor Graphics, PCAD, Orcad, Eagle, Proteus and a couple of others under DOS. Plus LTSPice for sims and I messed around with TIna. And a load of earlier sims.
These programs do not have steep learning curves. They all do the same thing, roughly. If you only make 3 PCBs in your life you will not get slick, but if you only do 3 spreadsheets you will not be an expert Excel user.
Some people feel otherwise.
I am not sure who you are addressing at but IMO it is not fighting the workflow. The user should be the one defining the workflow, not the software. If the user just wants to draw PCB tracks then let it be and create that possibility.
BTW using terms like "If you did any amount of this" and "stop bitching" may give a wrong impression of your personality.
I am not sure who you are addressing at but IMO it is not fighting the workflow. The user should be the one defining the workflow, not the software. If the user just wants to draw PCB tracks then let it be and create that possibility.
BTW using terms like "If you did any amount of this" and "stop bitching" may give a wrong impression of your personality.
Last edited:
Simple is easy to learn but a lot can be missing.
Firstly I would always draw a schematic.
Then use design rule checking of the schematic.
I would then use the schematic to pcb converter program
I would route the pcb then do design rule checking again.
I would then run an integrity check to make sure the pcb is still in line with the schematic.
Once the gerber files are done I would run a gerber viewer check to make sure the pcb is what I expect.
Firstly I would always draw a schematic.
Then use design rule checking of the schematic.
I would then use the schematic to pcb converter program
I would route the pcb then do design rule checking again.
I would then run an integrity check to make sure the pcb is still in line with the schematic.
Once the gerber files are done I would run a gerber viewer check to make sure the pcb is what I expect.
Some feel this step could be omitted:
I would then use the schematic to pcb converter program
Nigel just think of this: Complex is difficult to learn and a lot of the features can be superfluous
Maybe it is a matter of being in total control, that is the case with my wish to draw everything by hand. Using advanced CAD software is no guarantee for better boards or better performing devices, at least not with simple audio devices. We're not designing high speed computer main boards etc.
On a side note: it would be nice if a decent PCB CAD program would be developed for Mac OS X use.
I would then use the schematic to pcb converter program
Nigel just think of this: Complex is difficult to learn and a lot of the features can be superfluous
Maybe it is a matter of being in total control, that is the case with my wish to draw everything by hand. Using advanced CAD software is no guarantee for better boards or better performing devices, at least not with simple audio devices. We're not designing high speed computer main boards etc.On a side note: it would be nice if a decent PCB CAD program would be developed for Mac OS X use.
Last edited:
This one is the only PCB program which was sufficiently easy for me :
Logiciel TCI
Portable anywhere, no installation necessary.
Menus are in french, but there are simple so they could be understood very quickly, there are less than 35 menu items.
Here is a circuit I drew a few days ago to study implementation on an experimental PCB.
Logiciel TCI
Portable anywhere, no installation necessary.
Menus are in french, but there are simple so they could be understood very quickly, there are less than 35 menu items.
Here is a circuit I drew a few days ago to study implementation on an experimental PCB.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I have been writing PCBCAD programs since 1990.
Started off with DOS based program and slowly moved along through Pascal, C# then C++.
My first bought in package was EasyPC in around 1990.
This was reasonably straight forward to use but had a few bugs.
Being a programmer/electronics engineer I decided I could do better so wrote PCBCAD1.
Over the years as time has gone on I have added functions to it as I thought useful or necasary.
I have now done 140 pcb's for myself so have lots of experience.
I obviously keep an eye on competitors and quite often download their software.
I recently downloaded EasyPC and was not impressed at all. Some of the original function key presses no longer work and I couldn't work out how to do some quite simple functions.
Started off with DOS based program and slowly moved along through Pascal, C# then C++.
My first bought in package was EasyPC in around 1990.
This was reasonably straight forward to use but had a few bugs.
Being a programmer/electronics engineer I decided I could do better so wrote PCBCAD1.
Over the years as time has gone on I have added functions to it as I thought useful or necasary.
I have now done 140 pcb's for myself so have lots of experience.
I obviously keep an eye on competitors and quite often download their software.
I recently downloaded EasyPC and was not impressed at all. Some of the original function key presses no longer work and I couldn't work out how to do some quite simple functions.
Thanks, Jean-Paul, I could have not said it any better.
It should be my prerogative to do what I want, and not the program's. That option should exist, and apparently it does not.
And yes, these programs do have a steep learning curve. I'm 67 years old, a filmmaker that is used to complex video editing, my mind is 100% active and I do know the concept of learning curves, as I understand these tutorials are very poor. If they were easier, as Easytrax was, I wouldn't be complaining and had already designed the schematic on any of the programs I have tried.
I am an amateur in electronics, so this is not a flow for me, but a brickwall. I'm designing a preamp to be used in video, and I did design another one 15 years ago. With Easytrax.
My design was made with MSPaint, not an schematic program, as it was easier for me. As a user I know what you need for this application.
My partner IS an electronics engineer, and he is in charge of one version of this preamp, the SMD one. I am in charge of the through-hole version, as I don't have the capability to solder a complete SMD circuit.
It should be my prerogative to do what I want, and not the program's. That option should exist, and apparently it does not.
And yes, these programs do have a steep learning curve. I'm 67 years old, a filmmaker that is used to complex video editing, my mind is 100% active and I do know the concept of learning curves, as I understand these tutorials are very poor. If they were easier, as Easytrax was, I wouldn't be complaining and had already designed the schematic on any of the programs I have tried.
I am an amateur in electronics, so this is not a flow for me, but a brickwall. I'm designing a preamp to be used in video, and I did design another one 15 years ago. With Easytrax.
My design was made with MSPaint, not an schematic program, as it was easier for me. As a user I know what you need for this application.
My partner IS an electronics engineer, and he is in charge of one version of this preamp, the SMD one. I am in charge of the through-hole version, as I don't have the capability to solder a complete SMD circuit.
Last edited:
It is a good thing software engineers don't rule the world. Some forget most users won't use 90% of functionality. Some users just want to get things done instead of hours of fiddling with countless features. Let's call it "result orientated workflow"
I see the described phenomenon more and more. Not the user but the designer/company making a certain product defines what the user should do, this while the user just wants ..eh.. to use the device. Very frustrating. Very simple desired functionality being bent for (often) marketing/financial purposes.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.