Post by thread:What Schematic software use????

Richard wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > > I want to get a good sotware on the Internet to make > Schematics of my Hi richard. this topic comes up every 6 months on the list. I'll send you an archive of the last round privately if you want. Let me know privately. My personal choice is AutoCad, but I am in the minority. The answer depends a lot on how complex your designs will be and how much you want to spend.s There are several shareware packages, that are generally lightweight and not useful for complex designs. The one I like the best is at http://www.ivex.com The shareware version is crippled to produce designs with no more than 100 nodes. Best Regards, Lawrence Lile

Matthew wrote: > Hi Lawrence, > > I was scanning some old notes and found this one. I'm curious about > how you use AutoCADD. I imagine you've created (or purchased) the > electronic symbols and place them as objects on your drawing. Correct. I have drawn a library of symbols in AutoCad, with separate layers for part outlines, silkscreen text, pads, and holes. I insert these as "blocks" and move them around the drawing until things fit. You can get this library from my web page at http://home1.gte.net/llile/index.htm > Then > I suppose, you simply draw lines to connect the pins of the symbols. The lines are a special type of line in Acad called a "Polyline". Polylines contain width information, and print out like circuit board traces. > If I'm correct so far, if you then move a symbol, will the attached > line also move (known as rubberbanding)? Unfortunately, no. This is the real downfall of AutoCad for PCboard drafting - you don't get true schematic capture, and the program does not maintain connections between all the parts for you. I have to manually check to be sure that "A" is still connected to "B" when I'm done routing. On the other hand, I always have my technician perform this step. He does a double check on many aspects of the design, like spacing, part outlines, pinouts, fit, other things that are not checked by any software. It is a real quality control plus, so I don't mind sacrificing schematic capture for it. > And then, as with any > other CADD program, you can do block moves, copies, and deletes. Is > it really this easy or am I missing something? > It is pretty easy, if you already know AutoCad. If you don't then AutoCad is as hard to learn as any other CAD package. If you don't know AutoCad, I would recommend you stick with the CAD packages that are already streamlined for layout and schematic capture. > My real question is about PCB design. Do you do printed circuit > designs and what CADD tool do you use? > Yes. AutoCad is my only tool for PCB design. I create production drawings, have them converted to Gerber files, the whole ball of wax. > The reason I am asking; I am currently using Pads Software for both > schematic capture and PCB design. I'm using it because it is what > my employer uses. I have found it very frustrating to use and > quirky to learn so I am interested in finding another solution. My > designs are generally simple, but every now and then get more > complicated. Pads is, IMHO, a klunky piece of software at best. My version (an old DOS version) crashes all the time, so I can't use it. Newer versions are ported into windows with the DOS interface, making them even klunkier. I would at least use a piece of software that was written for windows to begin with. > > If you could send me the archive also, that would be great. I'd > also be interested in your thoughts? Archive is attached as a ZIP file. I asssume you have PKUNZIP. -- Lawrence Lile Download AutoCad blocks for electrical drafting at: http://members.sockets.net/~llile/index.htm

On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Lawrence Lile wrote: > > Pads is, IMHO, a klunky piece of software at best. My version (an > old DOS version) crashes all the time, so I can't use it. Newer > versions are ported into windows with the DOS interface, making them > even klunkier. I would at least use a piece of software that was > written for windows to begin with. I use PADS, and am current with my maintenance contract on it, so I can safely comment about the new versions. I have never had a crash. The windows 95 interface is pretty complete, though I have not tested OLE to a great extent. It does all the testing and engineering changes to and from schematic and pcb, warns me if I have clearance or other errors, does not route shorts into the board, every board I design comes out of the PCB house looking and working like I designed it. The downside is cost. PADS has raised their prices incredibly in the years I've been using it. My yearly maintenance bill this year will be around $1400. Every year I promise myself I will change to something else, and I think this is the year. I think Eagle looks pretty good, for a "semi-pro" package. I've tried the demo, but I'd like to test the real thing for a while, too bad it doesn't come with a trial period. I should have tried out the cracked version when it was floating around(hey, a legitimate use for cracked software!). Autocad is fine if you know it well and do very simple boards. Otherwise use a dedicated schematic-pcb-autorouter package. It automates things nicely and you don't need to stay quite so alert to errors. I like to sleep soundly. Just my two cents... Cheers, Bob

At 14:55 26.6.1998 -0700, you wrote: >think this is the year. I think Eagle looks pretty good, for a "semi-pro" >package. I've tried the demo, but I'd like to test the real thing for a >while, too bad it doesn't come with a trial period. I should have tried >out the cracked version when it was floating around(hey, a legitimate use >for cracked software!). We are using EAGLE (firstly the DOS version, now the Win95/NT version) and we are very satisfied. We used this PCB software for designing VERY COMPLEX (4 - 6 layers) boards with mixed analog and digital circuits, mostly SMD and we was very satisfied. Autorouter is a bit "naughty", but with some manual help, the results are very good. The windows version is pretty stable and libraries are much better than in DOS version. The learning curve is also very fast, because the program is not overcomplicated. I should say that we are very satisfied customers. PavelK ************************************************************************** * Pavel Korensky * * DATOR3 LAN Services spol. s r.o. * * Modranska 1895/17, 143 00, Prague 4, Czech Republic * * * * PGP Key fingerprint: F3 E1 AE BC 34 18 CB A6 CC D0 DA 9E 79 03 41 D4 * * * * SUMMA SCIENTIA - NIHIL SCIRE * **************************************************************************

Bob Blick Pontificated: > I use PADS, and am current with my maintenance contract on it, so I > can safely comment about the new versions. I have never had a crash. > The windows 95 interface is pretty complete, though I have not > tested OLE to a great extent. It does all the testing and > engineering changes to and from schematic and pcb, warns me if I > have clearance or other errors, does not route shorts into the > board, every board I design comes out of the PCB house looking and > working like I designed it. I take back every mean thing I ever said about Pads. > > The downside is cost. PADS has raised their prices incredibly in the > years I've been using it. My yearly maintenance bill this year will > be around $1400. Every year I promise myself I will change to > something else, and I think this is the year. That's OK, AutoCad is $2000. If you are like me, and need AutoCad anyway, it's a bargain. I wouldn't pop $2000 if all I was doing was electronics. >I think Eagle looks > pretty good, for a "semi-pro" package. I've tried the demo, but I'd > like to test the real thing for a while, too bad it doesn't come > with a trial period. I should have tried out the cracked version > when it was floating around(hey, a legitimate use for cracked > software!). I'll be trying Eagle as soon as I get win 95 running on my antiquated Model A Stone Age box (hear that, boss?) > > Autocad is fine if you know it well and do very simple boards. > Otherwise use a dedicated schematic-pcb-autorouter package. It > automates things nicely and you don't need to stay quite so alert to > errors. I like to sleep soundly. > > Just my two cents... Worth much more than 2 cents. I'd agree. Most of my designs are simple single sided boards, and I spend labor dollars doing things that are automatic in other software packages. On the other hand, it would be really neat if someone built an add-on that did schematic capture in AutoCad. It is possible. I always get frustrated with dedicated CAD packages, becuase the drawing interface, the ability to easily draw, move, copy, etc., is never as smooth as in Acad. Best Regards, Lawrence Lile

Pavel Korensky wrote: > We are using EAGLE (firstly the DOS version, now the Win95/NT version) and > we are very satisfied. We used this PCB software for designing VERY COMPLEX > (4 - 6 layers) boards with mixed analog and digital circuits, mostly SMD > and we was very satisfied. Autorouter is a bit "naughty", but with some > manual help, the results are very good. > The windows version is pretty stable and libraries are much better than in > DOS version. > The learning curve is also very fast, because the program is not > overcomplicated. > I should say that we are very satisfied customers. > Another vote for Eagle. It's not cheap, but YGWYPF. You Get What You Pay For - this can be said so often that I plan on never typing it again :-) --Matt

You can also look at WinBoard, at http://www.ivex.com. Free version will do up to 300 connections; different prices after that for different #'3 of pins. ---------- From: PICLIST [SMTP:EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU] Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 10:11 AM To: PICLIST Subject: Re: What Schematic software use???? Pavel Korensky wrote: > We are using EAGLE (firstly the DOS version, now the Win95/NT version) and > we are very satisfied. We used this PCB software for designing VERY COMPLEX > (4 - 6 layers) boards with mixed analog and digital circuits, mostly SMD > and we was very satisfied. Autorouter is a bit "naughty", but with some > manual help, the results are very good. > The windows version is pretty stable and libraries are much better than in > DOS version. > The learning curve is also very fast, because the program is not > overcomplicated. > I should say that we are very satisfied customers. > Another vote for Eagle. It's not cheap, but YGWYPF. You Get What You Pay For - this can be said so often that I plan on never typing it again :-) --Matt

>Pavel Korensky wrote: > >> We are using EAGLE (firstly the DOS version, now the Win95/NT version) and >> we are very satisfied. We used this PCB software for designing VERY COMPLEX >> (4 - 6 layers) boards with mixed analog and digital circuits, mostly SMD >> and we was very satisfied. Autorouter is a bit "naughty", but with some >> manual help, the results are very good. >> The windows version is pretty stable and libraries are much better than in {Quote hidden}>> DOS version. >> The learning curve is also very fast, because the program is not >> overcomplicated. >> I should say that we are very satisfied customers. >> >Another vote for Eagle. It's not cheap, but YGWYPF. You Get What You >Pay For - this can be said so often that I plan on never typing it again >:-) > >--Matt Sum another one. And considering the options, it can be considered cheap. Calvin