 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / CAD / December 2005Good, relatively low cost PCB layout SW?
Someone had recommended PC123; a bit large for POTS but doable. BUT. It is impossible to get useable documentation. After a longwinded download, Adobe Acrobat reader complains that it is damaged and cannot be fixed. The so-called 24 hour response took a week and the attached "copy" was as bad, and the second time was also bad. So scratch PCB123 at any price, because without documentation, it becomes useless when one needs immediate help and/or guidance. ** Eagle? The trial version loaded, but was completely non-functional. So why should i pay for something that i cannot try out? ** Ivex Winboard? Trial version worked to all expectations, liked the incremental pricing and have used it a lot. *Really* liked the library compiler/decompiler - used it a lot to create many new and necessary pad layouts. BUT. It is impossible to put surface mount parts on the back, so one has to "fudge" by using two "front side" layout files; PITA and then some (lemme see, shall i mirror the back side gerbers? Where do i put offset vias to make them work in real life? etc?). And the company is dead, so there is no possibility of improvements. ** IDEAL: 1) *one* part layout that can be used for either front or back; let the computer figure out what to do regarding pin numbers, and non-symmetry. 2) something as easy or easier than the WinBoard compiler/decompiler, only add a graphical editor: move this over here, widen this pad there, make an arbitrary external graphic (GIF?) into a pad/padset, etc. 3) be able to *group* and ungroup objects at will, copy and paste at will, move any object from one side to the other at will (in short, be as flexible as Corel Draw). 4) at least a trial version that can do all that the full version can do - just limited in some reasonable manner (like Ivex did), say number of pins, number of days, library size, combinations of these. But full documentation *easily* available (not force one to use IE or some exotic reader like the USPTO does). 5) some kind of stepped pricing scheme where small useage has an affordable price for the little guy/ experimenter, mid pricing for those that need more useage, and reserve the bigg buck$$ for the bigg users. I suggest a stepping based on pins, like Ivex did; very reasonable approach. Suggestions? EasyPC: http://www.numberone.com I used it for years. Leon > EasyPC: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Leon I also endorse the Easy-PC product. Though I've been using it's big brother Pulsonix for several years I just had a look at the latest version of Easy-PC, version 9, and it's still be far the best budget priced product around. Prescott >>EasyPC: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Prescott Can a trial version be downloaded via POTS in under 45 minutes? If not, can a trial version be bought on CD for under $10? > I also endorse the Easy-PC product. Though I've been using it's big > brother Pulsonix for several years I just had a look at the latest > version of Easy-PC, version 9, and it's still be far the best budget > priced product around. Though I see they've dropped the lowest cost version, the one they used to sell for 98UKP. Maybe they've compensated by adding functionality to the demo version, which was a bit silly, as it couldn't save. You really need time to evaluate a PCB program, and having to start from scratch each session will put a lot of people off. The demo download is about 6Mbytes, so about 35 minutes on a typical 56k modem. Paul Burke > The demo download is about 6Mbytes, so about 35 minutes on a typical 56k > modem. No it's not, it's 23Mbytes. Leon ... Do you have a legit copy of an obsolete Windows version of Easy-PC you'd be willing to sell? I used Easy-PC DOS about fifteen years ago and it was a bitch kitty when trying to make new parts. It was also DOS-Version specific so when Microlimp came out with a new version of MSDOS, Easy-PC choked on it. I couldn't mess around with what was then hobby-level software with buggy parts. I've heard you all rave over the newer versions, but I'm not all that thrilled with the demo I downloaded a couple of years ago. Perhaps the cripple code made it less than I expected. I've also got about ten years of CircuitMaker/TraxMaker PCB files that I will have to port over to whatever new program I decide upon. CM can export in Protel, Tango, Orcad, and a few more, and TM can export in Gerber or ProtelText format. Do you happen to know if EZPC can accept any of these formats? Thanks, Jim > EasyPC: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Leon > I used Easy-PC DOS about fifteen years ago and it was a > bitch kitty when trying to make new parts. It REALLY is easy now. >I'm not all that > thrilled with the demo I downloaded a couple of years ago. Perhaps the > cripple code made it less than I expected. They are making a big mistake in not letting you create a very limited design as Eagle does. Though I think Eagle might have to limit a little more in the future. 80x100 is now one of my larger PCBs! Paul Burke >I think Eagle might have to limit a little more in the future. >80x100 is now one of my larger PCBs! > Paul Burke 2 layers? >>I think Eagle might have to limit a little more in the future. >>80x100 is now one of my larger PCBs! >>Paul Burke > > 2 layers? I don't know how good Eagle's copper pour is (EasyPC's is excellent), but I've had very good EMC results using a poured groundplane with plenty of vias stitching the two sides together. Though most PCBs tend to be 4 layer these days. Paul Burke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Baer" <robertbaer@earthlink.net> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.cad Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 12:40 PM Subject: Good, relatively low cost PCB layout SW? > Someone had recommended PC123; a bit large for POTS but doable. > BUT. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The trial version loaded, but was completely non-functional. > So why should i pay for something that i cannot try out? Hello Robert, ten thousand people have downloaded EAGLE and have used it without problems. I just downloaded it a few minutes ago just to test it. It immediately worked. Now think about your conclusion. Best regards, Helmut > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Baer" <robertbaer@earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Best regards, > Helmut It is true that others have said they had no problems with Eagle. But if i cannot get it to work it is useless for me. And i have read about layout problems, difficulty inmaking new patterns, etc - all of which decreases my motivation to try again. Can you say (now, after some revisions since i last tried it about a year ago) that most of my (idealized) wishes would be reasonably satisfied with Eagle? >Eagle? >The trial version loaded, but was completely non-functional. > Robert Baer Yours is the 1st testament of out-of-the-box failure that I've heard. . . >4) at least a trial version that can do all that the full version can do Is *free* cheap enough? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.cad/browse_frm/thread/4610130aa5f 13f7e?q=*-first-three-problems+have-*-been-addressed+Aug-*+zzz-zzz+It's-free-and -runs-on-both-Windows-and-Linux . . >...PC123...It is impossible to get useable documentation. KiCAD is an Open Source offering originated by some French academics. The English docs followed quickly. The development team seems very responsive to user input. >>Eagle? >>The trial version loaded, but was completely non-functional. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The English docs followed quickly. > The development team seems very responsive to user input. I do not mind paying som reasonable amount for the prog. But at "104 megs zipped" it is totally impossible to obtain via POTS. >>KiCAD is an Open Source offering >> JeffM >> >I do not mind paying som reasonable amount for the prog. >But at "104 megs zipped" it is totally impossible to obtain via POTS. > Robert Baer So, you're thinking that no one in the users group would be willing to burn a CD and mail it to you? Software chauvinism being what it is, I rather doubt that would be a problem. >>>KiCAD is an Open Source offering >>>JeffM [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Software chauvinism being what it is, > I rather doubt that would be a problem. So... are you offering, and if so, how much and name/address for check? > I do not mind paying som reasonable amount for the prog. > But at "104 megs zipped" it is totally impossible to obtain via POTS. how so? I have dowloaded over half of Debian woody (8 CDroms so far) call it 5Gigs, over POTS. 104 megs will only take all night to download, something like "get right" will help with resuming aborted downloads if you're running windows (handy if your ISP has a time limit etc...) Bye. Jasen >> I do not mind paying som reasonable amount for the prog. >> But at "104 megs zipped" it is totally impossible to obtain via POTS. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Bye. > Jasen "104 megs will only take all night to download" ?? You are nuts! >>> I do not mind paying som reasonable amount for the prog. >>> But at "104 megs zipped" it is totally impossible to obtain via POTS. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "104 megs will only take all night to download" ?? > You are nuts! I don't pay by the minute for dialup internet (or for local calls), and neither want nor expect any phone calls while I sleep. I say let the computer work while I sleep. why am I nuts? Bye. Jasen Hi everyone, My name is Todd Clifton, I am the product manager for PCB123. I admit I am biased, but PCB123 is an excellent tool, PCB123 has had over 200,000+ downloads and thousands of downloads of our manuals with no issues. We are even willing to mail, at our cost printed user manuals to all that ask. We know that our schematic tool is weak and it is slated to be replaced in 2006. I challenge anyone to try out our technical support, call us free of charge, you will not be disappointed. The number is 1-800-228-8198 and we love constructive criticism, it is the only way we can truly understand what is working and what is not working. Our tool it totally customer driven and not bogged down with isosteric features. If you need the software mailed on CD let us know at support@pcb123.com and we will gladly send you a copy at no cost. Please see what other customers have had to say: http://www.pcb123.com/pcb123customers.php Please keep the feedback and constructive criticism coming our way. Todd > >>> I do not mind paying som reasonable amount for the prog. > >>> But at "104 megs zipped" it is totally impossible to obtain via POTS. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Bye. > Jasen > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > no issues. We are even willing to mail, at our cost printed user > manuals to all that ask. Except its serious disadvantage is it can only be used to make PCBs in your factory. Ian > Except its serious disadvantage is it can only be used to make PCBs > in your factory. gEDA/PCB produces industry standard gerbers (RS-274X) but I've seen at least one fab that charged extra if you didn't send them a cad-package-specific all-in-one file. I.e. a gerber surcharge. >> Except its serious disadvantage is it can only be used to make PCBs >> in your factory. > > gEDA/PCB produces industry standard gerbers (RS-274X) but I've seen at > least one fab that charged extra if you didn't send them a > cad-package-specific all-in-one file. I.e. a gerber surcharge. Not sure about your point but I was not referring to gEDA. Ian > > gEDA/PCB produces industry standard gerbers (RS-274X) but I've seen at > > least one fab that charged extra if you didn't send them a > > cad-package-specific all-in-one file. I.e. a gerber surcharge. > > Not sure about your point but I was not referring to gEDA. I know, I was offering a contrast. Plus pointing out that it's not just the software vendors that penalize standards. >> > gEDA/PCB produces industry standard gerbers (RS-274X) but I've seen at >> > least one fab that charged extra if you didn't send them a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I know, I was offering a contrast. Plus pointing out that it's not > just the software vendors that penalize standards. Got you. Ian PCB-Pool (my favourite PCB supplier) charges extra for Gerbers, but they accept GC-Prevue GWK files, so one doesn't have to use one of their supported packages. Leon > PCB-Pool (my favourite PCB supplier) charges extra for Gerbers, but > they accept GC-Prevue GWK files, so one doesn't have to use one of > their supported packages. Yeah, that's the one I was thinking about. I was also thinking about adding GWK support to PCB but with such an easy workaround... except for the windows dependency. The hypocrisy of that situation is that GC-Prevue's GWK file is really just a collection of imported Gerber layers. It takes less than a minute to import and set them up in a GWK, so what is the difference between a GWK file and a collection of individual Gerbers? I have to believe that these places (that don't want Gerbers or charge a surcharge for Gerbers) are simply playing marketing games.  SignatureSincerely, Brad Velander. >> PCB-Pool (my favourite PCB supplier) charges extra for Gerbers, but >> they accept GC-Prevue GWK files, so one doesn't have to use one of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > adding GWK support to PCB but with such an easy workaround... except > for the windows dependency. : The hypocrisy of that situation is that GC-Prevue's GWK file is really : just a collection of imported Gerber layers. It takes less than a minute to : import and set them up in a GWK, so what is the difference between a GWK : file and a collection of individual Gerbers? : I have to believe that these places (that don't want Gerbers or charge a : surcharge for Gerbers) are simply playing marketing games. I do agree with you that refusing individual Gerbers seems silly. However, I wonder if the idea is that the .gwk file organizes the Gerbers into a defined stack-up order, and thereby minimizes the possibility of mistakenly mis-ordering the layers during manufacturing? Yes, smart people name their Gerbers with names caling out the ordering sequence, and also provide a stack-up in the README & fab dwg. However, these PCB houses might be dealing with less-than-clueful students and hobbiests. Also, it is always possible for somebody in manufacturing to mess something up despite the most carefully crafted design package. Stuart I think that's the main reason. I don't think they charged for Gerbers originally, and I used to get the occasional phone call from them, as the software I was using didn't identify the layers automatically and I sometimes forgot to provide a file explaining what they were. The software I use now generates names like "Elsie_en_2(Silkscreen Top).gbr" so that it's quite obvious what they are. GC-Prevue is useful anyway for checking that a border has been included and that drill holes haven't. PCB-Pool don't mind them, but some other suppliers object to them. Leon Except, you idiot, you have written software that can only be used to make boards at your facility. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Go AWAY. How's THAT for constructive criticism? Jim > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >> Bye. >> Jasen On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:34:59 -0800, "RST Engineering \(jw\)" <jim@rstengineering.com> wrote: >Except, you idiot, you have written software that can only be used to make >boards at your facility. Be nice. Top-posters should generally refrain from imprecations and calumny. >BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ > >Go AWAY. How's THAT for constructive criticism? Standard Gerber files are indeed, well, standard. However, for the onesie-twosie user, a proprietary format isn't that big a deal -- especially if the overall project cost is acceptable. It's not like their target customer is intending to go out for multiple bids on 100K lots, is it? I'm personally happy with the gEDA toolchain but I can see where the PCB123 guys could have a useful market niche. SignatureRich Webb Norfolk, VA See my notes and links to some 60 ECAD programs at http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/ECADList.html Terry Pinnell Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK > See my notes and links to some 60 ECAD programs at > http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/ECADList.html > > Terry Pinnell > Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK Thanks; will heck that out along with EasyPC. > Someone had recommended PC123; a bit large for POTS but doable. > BUT. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Suggestions? Number One Systems has this frame to put in a bunch of info (which i did) and a "submit" button. The screen gets refreshed and one sees the same frame with info as before. What gives? I checked with Number One; they tried it and said there wasn't a problem. Leon One significant feature that Pulsonix/EasyPC lack is the ability to automatically have nets connect by copying/pasting (or duplicating) a bunch of components and their associated nets "on top of " some other nets. I was really surprised to find this -- ORCAD, PCAD, and most other packages I've tried in the past 5 years all do this! It has been mentioned to me that allowing this behavior is potentially "risky," so I can see some checkbox for whether or not it should be allowed, but for someone used to working in this style of design entry it's a real producitivity killer. Similarly, drawing a line past a bunch of pins (say all your power pins sticking out of the side of a larger symbol) doesn't connect the net to those pins -- something that can make what could be a "two click" operations a "twenty click" operation if you have 10 pins you wanted connected to the same net. (Although, in all fairness, just like other programs you can pre-assign a net to a bunch of pins and not show them on the schematic, but personally I've preferred to show all power pins ever since the likelihood that "diagonally opposite pins = +5V and Gnd" went the way of the dodo about a decade ago. Hiding lots of information like power pins numbers certainly makes the schematic look a little nicer, but for me this benefit is outweighed by the utility of being able to know, from a paper schematic, where one ought to find power -- and what the voltage should be -- during troubleshooting.) In general, Pulsonix/EasyPC are well-written programs that are fast and 'clean,' -- they're still lacking some of the features that the big boys have, but I haven't regretted spending the money on Pulsonix yet. ---Joel > One significant feature that Pulsonix/EasyPC lack is the ability to > automatically have nets connect by copying/pasting (or duplicating) a bunch of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > ---Joel I really appreciate the mention of copying groups; i have one very busy board with 40 items that interconnect to each other exactly the same way. So i layout four, and "step and repeat" to get 8, then dup the set for 16 etc until have 32 then dup a group of 8 for that total of 40. So i know exactly what you mean. The bad thing was that Ivex winBoard would not allow any SM on the back side - otherwise i could theoretically have dupped the 40 and flipped for the back side. Being an electronic tech for over 40 years, i agree that documentation should be complete - even if the schematic looks "messy". One never knows when troubleshooting is needed, and pin functions have always been vital since the days of 4-pin, 5-pin, etc tubes and with plate and grid caps. The added info (eg: Tektronix) of voltages and waveforms at notable or useful test points adds to the useability of a schematic for the test tech. > I checked with Number One; they tried it and said there wasn't a > problem. > > Leon They are sending me a CD, and at no charge; *excellent* support!! How about the badly named but (I think???) otherwise well done "Rimu PCB" and (if you please) "Rimu Schematic" from www.hutson.co.nz ? Cordially, Richard Kanarek NOT affiliated with Hutson Systems in any way. > How about the badly named but (I think???) otherwise well done "Rimu > PCB" and (if you please) "Rimu Schematic" from www.hutson.co.nz ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > NOT affiliated with Hutson Systems in any way. Am open to all; will look into it and compare with the others. Thanks. Rimu happens to be a beautiful hardwood tree very popular among furniture manufacturers. It also looks far better in a forest. Simon > > How about the badly named but (I think???) otherwise well done "Rimu > > PCB" and (if you please) "Rimu Schematic" from www.hutson.co.nz ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Am open to all; will look into it and compare with the others. > Thanks. > Rimu happens to be a beautiful hardwood tree very popular among furniture > manufacturers. It also looks far better in a forest. In New Zealand they're no longer allowed to cut down new rimu, so there's now a thriving market in recycling old rimu furniture into new pieces. Having to leave in some of the holes, cuts, etc. that are already there from the original piece sometimes makes the new piece quite artistic... > How about the badly named but (I think???) otherwise well done "Rimu > PCB" and (if you please) "Rimu Schematic" from www.hutson.co.nz ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > NOT affiliated with Hutson Systems in any way. I purchased RimuPCB, and found it to be the most intuitive PCB layout package I ever tried to use. I was productive almost immediately, and finished a 4-layer surface mount design. There was *ONE SMALL* problem - the gerbers for the inner (plane) layers weren't generated properly. I sent an email to the developer, along with my files, and a fixed version was available in less than 8 hours. Urbite >> How about the badly named but (I think???) otherwise well done "Rimu >> PCB" and (if you please) "Rimu Schematic" from www.hutson.co.nz ? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Urbite I have looked at it but not tried it yet. Nevertheless I am tempted to say WOW! Did they drop a zero in the price? SignatureBoris Mohar |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.