Designing and drawing a board in AutoCad. Now theres a definition of torture!!
I'm sure you'd say the same if I gave you a copy of PCad and said have fun, heres a 6 layer project to get you started!😀
I use too many functions of a dedicated pcb design and layout package to be able to work with AutoCad. I am however, just starting to learn Designer. 3D modeling is fun.
I'm sure you'd say the same if I gave you a copy of PCad and said have fun, heres a 6 layer project to get you started!😀
I use too many functions of a dedicated pcb design and layout package to be able to work with AutoCad. I am however, just starting to learn Designer. 3D modeling is fun.
Hi GeeVee,
Thanks for the answers. I was interested in how you were doing it. No electronics pakage for you, hey. 😉
I date back to the days when CAD ran on mini computers and dedicated workstations. Very expensive equipment compared to today. Even used electronics software on Digital VAXs, not that I knew what I was doing, just a demo jock. 😀
I use Eagle for PCB design at the moment. It does a good job for nothing.
Anyway, I do think about getting back into the drafting field again, I really enjoyed those days.
regards
Thanks for the answers. I was interested in how you were doing it. No electronics pakage for you, hey. 😉
I date back to the days when CAD ran on mini computers and dedicated workstations. Very expensive equipment compared to today. Even used electronics software on Digital VAXs, not that I knew what I was doing, just a demo jock. 😀
I use Eagle for PCB design at the moment. It does a good job for nothing.
Anyway, I do think about getting back into the drafting field again, I really enjoyed those days.
regards
jmgelba said:
We use to say "if only Autocad had the command structure of
Tango..."
6 layers is a luxury. I make do with 2.
😎
Nelson Pass said:
Hi Nelson.
I know exactly what you mean. Your comment will strike a cord with AutoCAD users.
Regards,
George.
jmgelba said:
Hi jmgelba
Yes you are correct, AutoCAD can very well be torture, but it is heavily dependent on ones level of experience.
AutoCAD in itself is very powerful, but at the same time it is very dumb.
It does not possess the “smarts” of dedicated PCB design software. It was never designed to do that.
For that matter, it was never designed as a design system for any application.
It does however lend itself to automation, depending on the add-on application, other bolt on packages and most importantly, the operator’s level of experience.
For the novice AutoCAD user, trying to do PCB layouts for the first time, I would say that trying to do it in AutoCAD would be excruciating pain
To do PCB layouts in AutoCAD, quickly and proficiently does require a high level of experience, extensive knowledge of AutoCAD external applications, and ability to manipulate LISP routines to automate process.
Agreed, for someone that just wants to just to do PCB layouts, the AutoCAD route is far from the ideal starting point and definitely not simple to set up.
My knowledge and ability in AutoCAD did not come about from PCB design. It came from other types of work.
Over time you learn how to automate etc.
I suspect that I am behind the times with respect to PCB design software, and must admit, I too would like to take a look at these other packages, and see what they are capable of. I am sure that I will be amazed.
As an engineer of another flavour (not electrical) I have learnt over the years to have a healthy distrust of design software, and those that claim it will automatically do everything for you.
In the right hands, any design / automation software can be an indispensable and very powerful tool. In the wrong hands, it is a tool of disaster. I have witnessed on countless occasions junior engineers trying to convince me that they have the correct answer, when all they got, as an output was a flawed mess. Unfortunately they belive that beceause the software did it, it must be correct. (we all know the saying - c**p in, c**p out)
I strongly believe that this also applies to PCB design software. How many times do you think that a budding / inexperienced designer, has used his “auto everything-all knowing” software to do auto everything, and then wonder why there are problems in the final outcome.
The point that I am trying to make is that AutoCAD works for me, as its manual type input requires that I understand what the circuit doing, and draw upon my experience, (which is no where at the level of many other DIY Audio members!!) to complete my design.
Furthermore, as I mentioned in my other post it is very simple to output to CNC machinery.
But why stop there. You can also design your casework and front plates.
Front panels can also be designed, exported to a DXF file and automatically machined directly from a 3D drawing, regardless of complexity.
But wait there’s more.
How about creating brand new artwork from just photographing a PCB. Even if it’s already built up (you obviously need access to the track side.)
How about creating a brand new layout form a very poor photocopy of a layout that you have?
AutoCAD has the capability to take jpeg & raster images and convert them to editable line work. OK not what you would call design, but nevertheless a production tool
Actually, now that I think about it, maybe production tool in lieu of design tool is a better description.
Regards,
George.
I learned AutoCad designing my Zen chassis and went on to design the HotRod Aleph pcb. I did the pcb in 3D and then converted it into 2D 🙂 The fun was on learning something new and getting results.
Eagle - my experiences
I have used Eagle extensively (my second layout program) and would like to share my experiences.
Eagle is pretty easy to learn unless you want to do special things. Unfortunately, you quickly find out you need to do special things as your skills improve.
The most irritating thing about Eagle is the libraries. They are not good (at least they were not good for me working with audio). Bottom line, you pretty much have to make all your components from scratch. While you learn how to make your components, you make a lot of mistakes with the libraries which can come back to haunt you later. If you can deal with that you are probably OK with Eagle.
But it does not stop there with libraries. If you do a dot release upgrade, it is a one way process. You can't go back! My guess is that they do this to fight piracy but it hurts like hell.
Now, one of the special things that one would like to do as ones skills improve is to replicate sections of schematics and layout. This is actually possible. However, the danger of getting corruption between schematics and layout is vere real. In fact, you risk getting corruption for other reasons as well - accidentally closing the schematic or layout window for ecxample. Once you have a corruption, you are toast - no tools to help you at all. Workaround (again painful) is to adopt a very strict policy of saving files often with a new numerical ending. I was saving every five minutes.
There are other issues that you discover after a while. If you for example start with SMD and want to do something tight - for example components on both sides, you can't do that if the pads are in the same place because Eagle gets confused. It does not seem to recognize the layers/sides very well. One would think that a workaround of turning off one layer from display would help, but no - Eagle is not very robust here at all.
There were also some automatic net actions that were very irritating. That would not have been so bad if the schematic program actually gave you a positive connection. Even if you zoom in all the way (and Eagle is capable of a lot of zooming) you still have no idea if you managed to make the connection or not.
There are also tools for "chamfering" edges, but they are one-way. Once you apply them, making changes later is very painful. Unless you are careful, your tracks end up with many inflection points making changes hard.
It seems to me that the guys over at CadSoft (who make Eagle) are more interested in attracting a large user base by supporting many platforms than significantly improving the product. They probably are succeeding financially as they appear to be alone with that approach. However, it is fairly obvious that their limited resources are strained wrt making significant improvements in areas of irritation (to me) such as a few fairly random examples listed here.
Bottom line, I have seen very capable designs doen with Eagle but it must have required a lot of discipline, knowledge and time to make. Thus, I cannot recommend it to anyone wanting to optimize their products and change them over time. The program appears easier to use than more expensive competitors, and perhaps it is. My point though is that you can spend a lot of time getting set up and your designs quickly lock up. For hobbyists not needing a lot of optimizations, make simple boards and won't make major changes to sections, it is a good tool. For me it was just not good enough and I am looking for a replacement.
Don't get me wrong, Eagle has lots of features. It just appears that those features grew into the product and it outgrew it's architecture if you get my drift.
Petter
I have used Eagle extensively (my second layout program) and would like to share my experiences.
Eagle is pretty easy to learn unless you want to do special things. Unfortunately, you quickly find out you need to do special things as your skills improve.
The most irritating thing about Eagle is the libraries. They are not good (at least they were not good for me working with audio). Bottom line, you pretty much have to make all your components from scratch. While you learn how to make your components, you make a lot of mistakes with the libraries which can come back to haunt you later. If you can deal with that you are probably OK with Eagle.
But it does not stop there with libraries. If you do a dot release upgrade, it is a one way process. You can't go back! My guess is that they do this to fight piracy but it hurts like hell.
Now, one of the special things that one would like to do as ones skills improve is to replicate sections of schematics and layout. This is actually possible. However, the danger of getting corruption between schematics and layout is vere real. In fact, you risk getting corruption for other reasons as well - accidentally closing the schematic or layout window for ecxample. Once you have a corruption, you are toast - no tools to help you at all. Workaround (again painful) is to adopt a very strict policy of saving files often with a new numerical ending. I was saving every five minutes.
There are other issues that you discover after a while. If you for example start with SMD and want to do something tight - for example components on both sides, you can't do that if the pads are in the same place because Eagle gets confused. It does not seem to recognize the layers/sides very well. One would think that a workaround of turning off one layer from display would help, but no - Eagle is not very robust here at all.
There were also some automatic net actions that were very irritating. That would not have been so bad if the schematic program actually gave you a positive connection. Even if you zoom in all the way (and Eagle is capable of a lot of zooming) you still have no idea if you managed to make the connection or not.
There are also tools for "chamfering" edges, but they are one-way. Once you apply them, making changes later is very painful. Unless you are careful, your tracks end up with many inflection points making changes hard.
It seems to me that the guys over at CadSoft (who make Eagle) are more interested in attracting a large user base by supporting many platforms than significantly improving the product. They probably are succeeding financially as they appear to be alone with that approach. However, it is fairly obvious that their limited resources are strained wrt making significant improvements in areas of irritation (to me) such as a few fairly random examples listed here.
Bottom line, I have seen very capable designs doen with Eagle but it must have required a lot of discipline, knowledge and time to make. Thus, I cannot recommend it to anyone wanting to optimize their products and change them over time. The program appears easier to use than more expensive competitors, and perhaps it is. My point though is that you can spend a lot of time getting set up and your designs quickly lock up. For hobbyists not needing a lot of optimizations, make simple boards and won't make major changes to sections, it is a good tool. For me it was just not good enough and I am looking for a replacement.
Don't get me wrong, Eagle has lots of features. It just appears that those features grew into the product and it outgrew it's architecture if you get my drift.
Petter
- Status
- Not open for further replies.