What sortware do you use to design a PCB?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#21
dhaen said:
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:
Click to expand...

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).
 
#22
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.
 
#23
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?
 
#24
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
 
#28
AMT-freak said:


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#31
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...
 
#32
jackinnj said:
... This is a pretty common problem in software design -- at least as I see it from the periphery -- things are just cobbled together, tweaked...
Click to expand...

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).
 
#33
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]
Click to expand...

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...
 
#35
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.
 
#36
AMT-freak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
#37
Petter said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#38
Petter said:


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#39
AMT-freak said:


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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
#40
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom