Board Design
Suudy
evaluation kits from vendors, but now I'm ready to move onto a real
board of my own.
Can anybody recommend design services for the hobbyist? I'm looking
for someone to take my parts selection, and a high-level design, and
turn it into a schematic and PCB layout. I'd like to then take the
PCB layout to my PCB house of choice (say somebody like ExpressPCB or
PCB123) to have the boards made. I can solder myself, so that isn't
an issue.
Thanks,
Pete
Rich Webb
wrote:
Why not do it yourself? It's really not that difficult in many cases.
For layouts that may be difficult (very low level, or high speed, or
RF) you would have to be prepared to be charged accordingly.
At least give it a try. Eagle has a free version that many have used
successfully. In the FOSS world there are gEDA and Kicad, both of
which are more than capable of doing schematic capture and board
layouts that can be sent off to a board house for single-, double-, or
multi-layered designs.
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Suudy
> Why not do it yourself? It's really not that difficult in many cases.
> For layouts that may be difficult (very low level, or high speed, or
> RF) you would have to be prepared to be charged accordingly.
Part of the problem is I don't really know what I am doing
electronically. At least doing it right. I don't know what size
bypass capacitors are required and what (if any) termination resistors
are required. I don't even know why one would use an electrolytic cap
vs a tantalum vs a ceramic, etc. These are all choices that an
experience designer would know.
My experience is in RTL and firmware design. Not board design.
> At least give it a try. Eagle has a free version that many have used
> successfully. In the FOSS world there are gEDA and Kicad, both of
> which are more than capable of doing schematic capture and board
> layouts that can be sent off to a board house for single-, double-, or
> multi-layered designs.
The other problem is that many of these software kits are lacking in
libraries. The parts I want to use are not available in Eagle (or
ExpressPCB or PCB123's software). And while I can create my own
parts, I'm not even sure the footprints I select/create will be
correct. And when I drop my $200-$300 to have the PCB's made, and I
can't solder the parts on....
Honestly, I have no idea how much it would cost to have a board made
for me. If what we budget for engineering time at our company is a
rule (about $65/hr), I imagine having and experienced person do the
schematic and layout couldn't take more than a couple of days. So I'm
looking at about $1k to have a board done for me (excluding the proto
build cost). And paying that extra amount seems a whole lot safer for
me.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to do it myself. But lacking
the electrical experience, I'm afraid I'll end up wasting more than
$1k just trying to get it right.
Maybe the better question is how to get a good review of the
electrical issues before sending it off to be built. And a review of
footprints before sending it off.
Thanks,
Pete
Joel Koltner
news:9d0866d1-e0f2-42b0...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
"Maybe the better question is how to get a good review of the
electrical issues before sending it off to be built."
If you post your schematic to ABSE you'll get plenty of people telling you
what they don't like about it.
"And a review of
footprints before sending it off."
Honestly, for low production quantities that you're just going to hand-solder,
getting all the parts beforehand and physically verifying that they'll fit on
(a paper version of) the board is probably the best way to go. For
high-volume manufacturing one can spend lots of time trying to come up with
footprints that optimize yield based on the manufacturing method (wave vs.
reflow soldering, mainly) -- or just purchase the IPC libraries that contain
their idea of "optimized" footprints -- but for hand-assembly this isn't worth
the effort.
---Joel
D from BC
wrote:
>I've got a small hobby project I'd like to do. I've been working with
Perhaps post the BOM and the max board size.
Somebody here might be able to give you a competitive quotation.
D from BC
British Columbia
Canada.
Spehro Pefhany
You also have to double check that the pin names match the schematic
symbol pin names, and that they match the actual part. It's quite
possible to design a board that passes DRC but is rather flawed if
there are problems with that layer of abstraction.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
petrus bitbyter
"Suudy" <pet...@mudplace.org> schreef in bericht
news:9aef5c82-5889-4221...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
From what you tell I only can say: "It can be done and I can do it." Though
I agree with others that it may be best to do it your own, I agree with you
that this can become a time and money consuming option. If you don't want
make your design public, you can send it to me privately. My address can be
decoded easily once you know that "laatditweg" translates to "leavethisout"
and "enditook" means "andthistoo".
petrus bitbyter
qrk
wrote:
>On Feb 27, 8:51 am, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
If you get an experienced designer in at $100 to $150/hr, you'll be
into the couple thousand $ range, unless your circuit is trivial. You
would learn a lot if you did this yourself. A 1 month project will
give you an equivalent of 2 years conventional schooling plus. As
someone said, post schematics and board layouts to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronics (ABSE). People will give lots of
comments. One chap did this on his switching power supply design
recently. He had lots of input. When you do this thru the use net, you
learn, we all learn.
You also become much more valuable at work with this knowledge. It's
really hard to deal with firmware folks if they don't understand
electronics!
---
Mark
Joerg
> On Feb 27, 8:51 am, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>> Why not do it yourself? It's really not that difficult in many cases.
>> For layouts that may be difficult (very low level, or high speed, or
>> RF) you would have to be prepared to be charged accordingly.
>
> Part of the problem is I don't really know what I am doing
> electronically. At least doing it right. I don't know what size
> bypass capacitors are required and what (if any) termination resistors
> are required. I don't even know why one would use an electrolytic cap
> vs a tantalum vs a ceramic, etc. These are all choices that an
> experience designer would know.
>
> My experience is in RTL and firmware design. Not board design.
>
Just one piece of advice. You mentioned "take my parts selection and
then ...". That's not really how it works. If you can't design a circuit
on your own that's perfectly fine but it is then better to tell a
consultant "Hey, I want the circuit to do this, that and the other
thing. It should cost no more than $xx/unit and we want to build xxxxx
of them per year". Or it's a one-off where cost doesn't really matter.
Let the designer pick the parts.
>> At least give it a try. Eagle has a free version that many have used
>> successfully. In the FOSS world there are gEDA and Kicad, both of
>> which are more than capable of doing schematic capture and board
>> layouts that can be sent off to a board house for single-, double-, or
>> multi-layered designs.
>
> The other problem is that many of these software kits are lacking in
> libraries. The parts I want to use are not available in Eagle (or
> ExpressPCB or PCB123's software). And while I can create my own
> parts, I'm not even sure the footprints I select/create will be
> correct. And when I drop my $200-$300 to have the PCB's made, and I
> can't solder the parts on....
>
> Honestly, I have no idea how much it would cost to have a board made
> for me. If what we budget for engineering time at our company is a
> rule (about $65/hr), ...
In the US? Wow. That can't possibly include overhead, equipment
amortization, HR, accounting and so on. EE services cost a lot more.
Even our roofers and plumbers charge more and they don't need expensive
stuff like spectrum analyzers. And my CPA costs $200/hr.
I imagine having and experienced person do the
> schematic and layout couldn't take more than a couple of days. So I'm
> looking at about $1k to have a board done for me (excluding the proto
> build cost). And paying that extra amount seems a whole lot safer for
> me.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to do it myself. But lacking
> the electrical experience, I'm afraid I'll end up wasting more than
> $1k just trying to get it right.
>
Good approach. Just the $1k may not work.
> Maybe the better question is how to get a good review of the
> electrical issues before sending it off to be built. And a review of
> footprints before sending it off.
>
A design review is a very good thing. As for footprints and such, good
layouters should be able to handle that on their own. Mine certainly
does, never had any problems.
--
Regards, Joerg
Suudy
wrote:
> > My experience is in RTL and firmware design. Not board design.
>
> Just one piece of advice. You mentioned "take my parts selection and
> then ...". That's not really how it works. If you can't design a circuit
> on your own that's perfectly fine but it is then better to tell a
> consultant "Hey, I want the circuit to do this, that and the other
> thing. It should cost no more than $xx/unit and we want to build xxxxx
> of them per year". Or it's a one-off where cost doesn't really matter.
> Let the designer pick the parts.
What I meant by "pick the parts" was the major components. For
example, the microcontroller, type of ram, USB controller, etc. Just
those. I'm not talking about picking resistors, caps, etc.
> > Honestly, I have no idea how much it would cost to have a board made
> > for me. If what we budget for engineering time at our company is a
> > rule (about $65/hr), ...
>
> In the US? Wow. That can't possibly include overhead, equipment
> amortization, HR, accounting and so on. EE services cost a lot more.
> Even our roofers and plumbers charge more and they don't need expensive
> stuff like spectrum analyzers. And my CPA costs $200/hr.
That $65/hr is for engineering time, not overhead, materials etc.
Those are budgeted separately. I realize that a consultant will
likely cost more.
But given the types of responses, it appears that it does make sense
to do it on my own. The choice of parts and the risk of getting a
board that doesn't work can be mitigated. I didn't even think of
placing parts on a printout to see how things align. Tips like that
are great.
Pete
Suudy
> If you get an experienced designer in at $100 to $150/hr, you'll be
> into the couple thousand $ range, unless your circuit is trivial. You
I think the circuit is trivial. Low-speed, single supply rail. No
complex power sequencing issues. The hard part for me is determining
things like size and number of bypass caps, termination resistors,
etc.
> would learn a lot if you did this yourself. A 1 month project will
> give you an equivalent of 2 years conventional schooling plus. As
> someone said, post schematics and board layouts to
> alt.binaries.schematics.electronics (ABSE). People will give lots of
> comments. One chap did this on his switching power supply design
> recently. He had lots of input. When you do this thru the use net, you
> learn, we all learn.
That's a good point. Learning from others and sharing what I've done
would be a good step. I'll surf over to ABSE and lurk for a bit to
see what I can learn.
> You also become much more valuable at work with this knowledge. It's
> really hard to deal with firmware folks if they don't understand
> electronics!
In defense, I'm not clueless on the electronics side. I'm perfectly
comfortable reading a schematic. I understand pull-ups/pull-downs,
why open collector/open drain outputs are used, the right way to do
LEDs, why bypass caps and termination resistors are needed, etc. I
just don't know how to determine the appropriate types of LEDs, caps,
resistors, etc. I certainly understand the interconnect, but on a
logical level. The "analog" side of things is where I don't have
experience or knowledge. I know enough to work with the electrical
guys.
But you are correct, learning how to design a PCB is a valuable
skill. I'll surf over to ABSE and take a look there.
Thanks,
Pete
Eeyore
Suudy wrote:
Try ExpressPCB's free software.
It's very intuitive.
Graham
Eeyore
Suudy wrote:
> On Feb 27, 8:51 am, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> > Why not do it yourself? It's really not that difficult in many cases.
> > For layouts that may be difficult (very low level, or high speed, or
> > RF) you would have to be prepared to be charged accordingly.
>
> Part of the problem is I don't really know what I am doing
> electronically. At least doing it right. I don't know what size
> bypass capacitors are required and what (if any) termination resistors
> are required. I don't even know why one would use an electrolytic cap
> vs a tantalum vs a ceramic, etc. These are all choices that an
> experience designer would know.
And that is absolutely NOT a PCB layout issue.
YOU need to define those things or get someone (not a pcb house) to do that
for you.
Graham
Eeyore
qrk wrote:
> If you get an experienced designer in at $100 to $150/hr, you'll be
> into the couple thousand $ range, unless your circuit is trivial. You
> would learn a lot if you did this yourself. A 1 month project will
> give you an equivalent of 2 years conventional schooling plus. As
> someone said, post schematics and board layouts to
> alt.binaries.schematics.electronics (ABSE). People will give lots of
> comments. One chap did this on his switching power supply design
> recently. He had lots of input. When you do this thru the use net, you
> learn, we all learn.
>
> You also become much more valuable at work with this knowledge. It's
> really hard to deal with firmware folks if they don't understand
> electronics!
I couldn't agree more.
Graham
Eeyore
Suudy wrote:
> On Feb 27, 11:22 am, qrk <SpamT...@spam.net> wrote:
> > If you get an experienced designer in at $100 to $150/hr, you'll be
> > into the couple thousand $ range, unless your circuit is trivial. You
>
> I think the circuit is trivial. Low-speed, single supply rail. No
> complex power sequencing issues. The hard part for me is determining
> things like size and number of bypass caps, termination resistors,
> etc.
If it's low speed termination won't be an issue.
Deciding on a few decoupling cap values is simple too. 0.1 uF (usually
ceramic MLC) is VERY popular.
Graham
Suudy
wrote:
> Suudy wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 8:51 am, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> > > Why not do it yourself? It's really not that difficult in many cases.
> > > For layouts that may be difficult (very low level, or high speed, or
> > > RF) you would have to be prepared to be charged accordingly.
>
> > Part of the problem is I don't really know what I am doing
> > electronically. At least doing it right. I don't know what size
> > bypass capacitors are required and what (if any) termination resistors
> > are required. I don't even know why one would use an electrolytic cap
> > vs a tantalum vs a ceramic, etc. These are all choices that an
> > experience designer would know.
>
> And that is absolutely NOT a PCB layout issue.
I wasn't suggesting it was a PCB issue. That is why I asked for
design services that generate a schematic through to PCB layout.
> YOU need to define those things or get someone (not a pcb house) to do that
> for you.
I know. I wasn't looking for a PCB house. I know of ExpressPCB and
PCB123. And there are others. I was going beyond that in my request.
Pete
JeffM
>Try ExpressPCB's free software.
ExpressPCB / PCB123 / Pad2Pad are all lock-in-ware.
Their output can only be used with a single fab house.
They don't produce gerbers.
Printing out what you need is a bitch.
KiCAD (useable under Windoze) has already been mentioned.
It is the antithesis of the wares above.
It is open source (gratis and libre).
There are no forced artificial limitations.
gEDA (also previously mentioned) is the same for Linux/Unix.
(KiCAD also has Unix and Mac ports.)
The demo version of Cadsoft EAGLE
can do 3" x 4" 2-sided *non-commercial* PCBs.
DJ Delorie
gEDA has Mac ports (we have for a while).
You can build it under Windows, but it's not quite as seamless as the
unix/mac ports.
Eeyore
JeffM wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >Try ExpressPCB's free software.
>
> ExpressPCB / PCB123 / Pad2Pad are all lock-in-ware.
> Their output can only be used with a single fab house.
> They don't produce gerbers.
I know but they're VERY easy to use.
The above issues simply aren't an issue for a hobby project.
Graham
Eeyore
Suudy wrote:
Do you have a schematic of any description at this time ? You should post it
somewhere.
I could probably help you out myself actually if you need it.
Graham
sky4...@trline5.org
>really hard to deal with firmware folks if they don't understand
>electronics!
What are the common pains of firmware folks that don't "get" electronics ..?
Suudy
wrote:
> Do you have a schematic of any description at this time ? You should post it
> somewhere.
I do. I have a block diagram and know conceptually what I want to
do. The block diagram is basic, but I can post it. (Though I don't
know how to do that with Google groups, and my ISP has a crappy USENET
server--I can't even get ABSE). But I can give you a dirt simple BOM:
Atmel ATmega2561
FTDI FT232R
32K x 8 SRAM (something like the Cypress CY7199D, but hopefully lower
power)
7407 or something similar. I need open-collector outputs
8-bit latch (74100 or something similar)
1 USB type B header
1 6-pin DIN (DIN45322, the same used on C64/C128 serial ports)
Some of the parts are in the library, such as the FTDI FT232RL. I
don't know about the SRAM, and I'm having trouble searching the
library for the 74XX series parts. Certainly the DIN and USB headers
I don't see.
> I could probably help you out myself actually if you need it.
I'd appreciate the help. Tell you what, I'm going to attempt to build
it using ExpressPCB, since it has a fairly active Yahoo group. The
PCB123 libraries haven't been updated in years (at least according to
the date codes in the community library).
I'm going to take a stab at a schematic. Though it will likely take a
while since I'll have to create symbols myself.
Thanks,
Pete
D from BC
Anything between 0 and 1 is not logical. :P
Joerg
> On Feb 27, 11:36 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
> wrote:
>>> My experience is in RTL and firmware design. Not board design.
>> Just one piece of advice. You mentioned "take my parts selection and
>> then ...". That's not really how it works. If you can't design a circuit
>> on your own that's perfectly fine but it is then better to tell a
>> consultant "Hey, I want the circuit to do this, that and the other
>> thing. It should cost no more than $xx/unit and we want to build xxxxx
>> of them per year". Or it's a one-off where cost doesn't really matter.
>> Let the designer pick the parts.
>
> What I meant by "pick the parts" was the major components. For
> example, the microcontroller, type of ram, USB controller, etc. Just
> those. I'm not talking about picking resistors, caps, etc.
>
I'd leave the chips to the consultant. If he isn't familiar with your
choice uC it'll get expensive or worst case hit a dead-end.
>>> Honestly, I have no idea how much it would cost to have a board made
>>> for me. If what we budget for engineering time at our company is a
>>> rule (about $65/hr), ...
>> In the US? Wow. That can't possibly include overhead, equipment
>> amortization, HR, accounting and so on. EE services cost a lot more.
>> Even our roofers and plumbers charge more and they don't need expensive
>> stuff like spectrum analyzers. And my CPA costs $200/hr.
>
> That $65/hr is for engineering time, not overhead, materials etc.
> Those are budgeted separately. I realize that a consultant will
> likely cost more.
>
However, then you'd have to budget that in, else the company would not
be able to have an overview of what projects really cost. Like when the
marketing guys want another gizmo. Then we'd always tell them what the
real costs are, for how much they'd have to sell it at how many per
year, and then sometimes they didn't need it that badly anymore ;-)
> But given the types of responses, it appears that it does make sense
> to do it on my own. The choice of parts and the risk of getting a
> board that doesn't work can be mitigated. I didn't even think of
> placing parts on a printout to see how things align. Tips like that
> are great.
>
Yep, don't be afraid to kick the tires. Start out with a free test
version of Cadsoft Eagle which has the layout package included. It
easily transfers between schematic and layout:
http://www.cadsoft.de/freeware.htm
Later if you like it and want to go to more layers and so on you can buy
a version that's big enough. It's like upgrading from a moped to a
serious motorcycle and it is not expensive.
JeffM
>>gEDA (also previously mentioned) is the same for Linux/Unix.
>>
>gEDA has Mac ports (we have for a while).
>
IIUC, OS X has its roots in the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD
Unix).
>You can build it under Windows,
>but it's not quite as seamless as the unix/mac ports.
>
Anything you see here that doesn't pass muster?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEDA#Windows
JeffM
>>>Try ExpressPCB's free software.
>>>
>>ExpressPCB / PCB123 / Pad2Pad are all lock-in-ware.
>>Their output can only be used with a single fab house.
>>They don't produce gerbers.
>>
>I know but they're VERY easy to use.
>The above issues simply aren't an issue for a hobby project.
*THOSE* aren't, but for DIYers the one you snipped *IS*:
::Printing out what you need is a bitch.
Having to leave the program
and fire up another app to do reverse-image printing
makes the lock-in-ware apps undesirable for many folks.
My point is:
If you are going to invest the time into learning an ECAD app,
don't bother with gratis crippleware
when *truly* FREE[1] apps exist which do it all.
.
.
[1] Gratis *and* libre
sky4...@trline5.org
>On Feb 27, 2:44 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> Do you have a schematic of any description at this time ? You should post it
>> somewhere.
>I do. I have a block diagram and know conceptually what I want to
>do. The block diagram is basic, but I can post it. (Though I don't
>know how to do that with Google groups, and my ISP has a crappy USENET
>server--I can't even get ABSE). But I can give you a dirt simple BOM:
>Atmel ATmega2561
>FTDI FT232R
>32K x 8 SRAM (something like the Cypress CY7199D, but hopefully lower
>power)
>7407 or something similar. I need open-collector outputs
>8-bit latch (74100 or something similar)
>1 USB type B header
>1 6-pin DIN (DIN45322, the same used on C64/C128 serial ports)
Something like this?
SRAM
|
USB <-> FT232R <-> ATmega2561 -> 7407 -) DIN45322
Seems pretty basic.
I would have a look at power and decoupling for the CPU + SRAM primarly.
skenn_ie
from ;-)
Joerg
> On Feb 27, 2:44 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Do you have a schematic of any description at this time ? You should post it
>> somewhere.
>
> I do. I have a block diagram and know conceptually what I want to
> do. The block diagram is basic, but I can post it. (Though I don't
> know how to do that with Google groups, and my ISP has a crappy USENET
> server--I can't even get ABSE). But I can give you a dirt simple BOM:
>
> Atmel ATmega2561
> FTDI FT232R
> 32K x 8 SRAM (something like the Cypress CY7199D, but hopefully lower
> power)
> 7407 or something similar. I need open-collector outputs
> 8-bit latch (74100 or something similar)
> 1 USB type B header
> 1 6-pin DIN (DIN45322, the same used on C64/C128 serial ports)
>
> Some of the parts are in the library, such as the FTDI FT232RL. I
> don't know about the SRAM, and I'm having trouble searching the
> library for the 74XX series parts. Certainly the DIN and USB headers
> I don't see.
>
One of the first things to train yourself in with a CAD software is how
to make your own library parts. Even if you find the parts chances are
the footprints aren't optimal, and sometimes can be wrong.
>> I could probably help you out myself actually if you need it.
>
> I'd appreciate the help. Tell you what, I'm going to attempt to build
> it using ExpressPCB, since it has a fairly active Yahoo group. The
> PCB123 libraries haven't been updated in years (at least according to
> the date codes in the community library).
>
> I'm going to take a stab at a schematic. Though it will likely take a
> while since I'll have to create symbols myself.
>
Make sure the CAD program does not limit you to one particular board fab
house. For hobby that may be ok, for later series production it isn't.
One way to check for exportability is whether or not the program can
generate Gerber files.
Joerg
> On Feb 27, 11:22 am, qrk <SpamT...@spam.net> wrote:
>> If you get an experienced designer in at $100 to $150/hr, you'll be
>> into the couple thousand $ range, unless your circuit is trivial. You
>
> I think the circuit is trivial. Low-speed, single supply rail. No
> complex power sequencing issues. The hard part for me is determining
> things like size and number of bypass caps, termination resistors,
> etc.
>
It's perfectly ok to ask those questions on a.b.s.e. You can also use a
web site to post schematics, then you can ask here or on s.e.basics.
Some folks think that simple questions ought to be asked there but IMHO
it doesn't really matter. Lots of helpful people in either group. And
heck, don't think we know it all. Almost all of us ask a question once
in a while because some new stuff is unfamiliar to us.
>> would learn a lot if you did this yourself. A 1 month project will
>> give you an equivalent of 2 years conventional schooling plus. As
>> someone said, post schematics and board layouts to
>> alt.binaries.schematics.electronics (ABSE). People will give lots of
>> comments. One chap did this on his switching power supply design
>> recently. He had lots of input. When you do this thru the use net, you
>> learn, we all learn.
>
> That's a good point. Learning from others and sharing what I've done
> would be a good step. I'll surf over to ABSE and lurk for a bit to
> see what I can learn.
>
>> You also become much more valuable at work with this knowledge. It's
>> really hard to deal with firmware folks if they don't understand
>> electronics!
>
> In defense, I'm not clueless on the electronics side. I'm perfectly
> comfortable reading a schematic. I understand pull-ups/pull-downs,
> why open collector/open drain outputs are used, the right way to do
> LEDs, why bypass caps and termination resistors are needed, etc. I
> just don't know how to determine the appropriate types of LEDs, caps,
> resistors, etc. I certainly understand the interconnect, but on a
> logical level. The "analog" side of things is where I don't have
> experience or knowledge. I know enough to work with the electrical
> guys.
>
> But you are correct, learning how to design a PCB is a valuable
> skill. I'll surf over to ABSE and take a look there.
>
Another option is to scope out the web or app notes from TI, Microchip,
Atmel and other uC manufacturers. Tons of real-life projects there, with
schematics, code and all. Sometimes even with example layouts.
Joel Koltner
news:c868ed2c-4495-4410...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> ExpressPCB / PCB123 / Pad2Pad are all lock-in-ware.
I thought ExpressPCB will sell you the Gerbers for $60 or something like that?
And PCB123 will give you the Gerbers after you pay them to build your protos?
> KiCAD (useable under Windoze) has already been mentioned.
> It is the antithesis of the wares above.
> It is open source (gratis and libre).
> There are no forced artificial limitations.
It (and gEDA) tend to have a somewhat steeper learning curve than Express
PCB's package, though. Places like ExpressPCB survive for the same reason
that 7-11 does: Sometimes you want quick and easy, even if it costs noticeably
more.
JeffM
>>ExpressPCB / PCB123 / Pad2Pad are all lock-in-ware.
>>
>I thought ExpressPCB will sell you the Gerbers for $60 or something like that?
>
>And PCB123 will give you the Gerbers after you pay them to build your protos?
>
If you get it right the 1st time and never alter the PCB, this could
work.
Using their software to change the design later
means you have to jump thru the hoop again.
No, thanks.
>>KiCAD (useable under Windoze) has already been mentioned.
>>It is the antithesis of the wares above.
>>It is open source (gratis and libre).
>>There are no forced artificial limitations.
>>
>It (and gEDA) tend to have a somewhat steeper learning curve
>than Express PCB's package, though.
>
You pays your money and you takes your choice. (All $0 initially.)
Those folks who don't know what "Gerber" means
may have unpleasant surprizes down the road.
Joerg touched on lock-in-ware and scaling up in this thread.
>Places like ExpressPCB survive for the same reason that 7-11 does:
>Sometimes you want quick and easy, even if it costs noticeably more.
>
Yup. It takes all kinds to make a world.
There are "easy" girls as well.
They aren't necessarily the ones you want to marry.
Joel Koltner
> Using their software to change the design later
> means you have to jump thru the hoop again.
> No, thanks.
Fair enough.
> Joerg touched on lock-in-ware and scaling up in this thread.
Yeah, although to him I'd say that -- at least for small, simple boards like
the one the O.P. is discussing -- finding that, crap!, you used lock-in ware
and end up having to re-enter the schematic into a different/better tool is
going to comsume a miniscule amount of funding & effort relative to getting
the thing in production anyway.
But I am all for trying to help people know what they're getting themselves
into, and your post is definitely helpful is that regard.
> There are "easy" girls as well.
> They aren't necessarily the ones you want to marry.
Yeah, but few people want to get married without having gone on plenty of
dates with those easy girls first. :-)
As far as marriage goes, stuff like Eagle and Pulsonix are still quite easy on
the wallet anyway. It's things like ORCAD that's a nasty-looking made-up lady
who's going to want breast augmentations, facelifts, and a new car every time
you turn around and still won't be nearly as good to you as that girl your
knew next door in high school. A marraige to ORCAD very much should end in
divorce for any self-respecting fellow!
---Joel
JeffM
>>There are "easy" girls as well.
>>They aren't necessarily the ones you want to marry.
>>
>As far as marriage goes, stuff like Eagle and Pulsonix
>are still quite easy on the wallet anyway.
>
let's not forget about the **Now with DRM** admonition:
**The Downside of EAGLE** by Markus Zingg
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.embedded/browse_frm/thread/f794e82d26b59e18/d7cf4149edb93ac7?q=*-*-website+reuse+paying.*+*-I-will-switch+cracked-*+*.would.not.help.*+zzz+after-*-*-version-*+copied+*.*.unlock.*.designs+*-*-*-*-exchange-*-*-*-*-third-party+reused+qq+*-*-single-bit-*-*-*-*+useless+*-*-*-projects-could-no-longer-be-opened
>It's things like ORCAD
>
Careful, now. I've got a bar of soap
to wash out mouths that use that kind of language. 8-)
>that's a nasty-looking made-up lady
>who's going to want breast augmentations, facelifts, and a new car
>every time you turn around and still won't be nearly as good to you
>as that girl your knew next door in high school.
>
There you go.
The buy-up-the-competition-and-kill-it nature of the ECAD industry
is a prime example of how screwed up "the market" can get.
That's a reason I am so suspicious of proprietary software any more,
especially in this niche.
Joel Koltner
"JeffM" <jef...@email.com> wrote in message
news:ce3c84c8-55ca-47ba...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> let's not forget about the **Now with DRM** admonition:
Yeah, that is unfortunate. I can, however, see myself getting so ticked off
at piracy that I might be tempted to do something like that, not realizing
initially just how many legitimate users it would negatively impact.
Hopefully I'd be smart enough to remove it later, though.
---Joel
Joerg
> "JeffM" <jef...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:219bfae1-7ee3-413d...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> Using their software to change the design later
>> means you have to jump thru the hoop again.
>> No, thanks.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> Joerg touched on lock-in-ware and scaling up in this thread.
>
> Yeah, although to him I'd say that -- at least for small, simple boards like
> the one the O.P. is discussing -- finding that, crap!, you used lock-in ware
> and end up having to re-enter the schematic into a different/better tool is
> going to comsume a miniscule amount of funding & effort relative to getting
> the thing in production anyway.
>
True. If he wants something fast, anything is ok. Re-entering a
schematic is easy, my layouter has to do that most of the time because
our systems aren't compatible. It's done in a jiffy because his version
doesn't have to become "publish-pretty". Transcribing a layout will be a
major bear though. The sheer amount of work making package models is
going to frustrate. At least for me because in the analog world there
are lots of rather weird parts that the typical libraries won't have.
Then the odd tapped "trace inductor" and stuff like that.
> But I am all for trying to help people know what they're getting themselves
> into, and your post is definitely helpful is that regard.
>
>> There are "easy" girls as well.
>> They aren't necessarily the ones you want to marry.
>
> Yeah, but few people want to get married without having gone on plenty of
> dates with those easy girls first. :-)
>
> As far as marriage goes, stuff like Eagle and Pulsonix are still quite easy on
> the wallet anyway. It's things like ORCAD that's a nasty-looking made-up lady
> who's going to want breast augmentations, facelifts, and a new car every time
> you turn around and still won't be nearly as good to you as that girl your
> knew next door in high school. A marraige to ORCAD very much should end in
> divorce for any self-respecting fellow!
>
But don't you guys use OrCad? I used to, but not anymore.
Heck, is Autotrax still around? That used to be pretty good and I bet it
won't be expensive anymore.
Joel Koltner
"Joerg" <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:QlJxj.3261$pl4...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> But don't you guys use OrCad? I used to, but not anymore.
Yeah, for production stuff we do. I definitely don't *like* that fact, but
we're in the (not so uncommon) situation that we have a number of ORCAD
licenses that were purchased years ago so switching requires...
1) Outlay of "new purchase price" for the alternative rather than just
shelling out maintenance every year
2) Conversion of current library parts over to new system
3) Re-training of engineers & techs to use the new system
ORCAD is spendy enough that #1 isn't too big of a problem, and our libraries
still only have hundreds (not thousands) of symbols in them so changeover
there isn't too bad (I wouldn't imagine it'd be more than a month's effort),
but #3 is difficult to get by some people since they're so used to ORCAD, they
don't really see its shortcomings, and they're not personally footing the bill
for it. (I think there's often a "bell curve of happiness" associated with
mediocre software... new users have problems with everything, regular but
undemanding users are happy because they don't stress the tool much so it
works OK, whereas advanced/demanding users are unhappy again because they
realize that there are so many better options out there).
Sometime this year I'm planning on making a proper (formal) presentation
comparing ORCAD with, e.g., Pulsonix. We'll see what happens...
> Heck, is Autotrax still around? That used to be pretty good and I bet it
> won't be expensive anymore.
Autotrax or AutoTRAX? Wikipedia discusses two of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoTRAX_EDA
---Joel
P.S. -- Vaguely related story about software quality: I have a friend who
works for a Big Software Company. In general he says that their most
sophisticated users and bug reports come from Europe. They had one guy in the
U.K. who was constantly filling bug reports with them -- it was almost uncanny
how "good" he was at discovering them. At some point it dawned on them
that... hey... this would be a very useful guy to hire! They offered, he
accepted, and now he's working here in Oregon. It turns out this fellow has
been using the software package in question for longer than anyone who's
currently on staff at the company (!), and he has an excellent memory, being
able to provide in-depth comparisons and contrasts of the package and what's
been changed and fixed/broken in it for the past decade. Amazing...
Joel Koltner
right? --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotrax
Jim Thompson
Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.
I literally buried the PSpice support people in accurate bug
reports/"issues".
They thanked me profusely and did nothing.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
Joerg
> Hi Joerg,
>
> "Joerg" <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:QlJxj.3261$pl4...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> But don't you guys use OrCad? I used to, but not anymore.
>
> Yeah, for production stuff we do. I definitely don't *like* that fact, but
> we're in the (not so uncommon) situation that we have a number of ORCAD
> licenses that were purchased years ago so switching requires...
>
> 1) Outlay of "new purchase price" for the alternative rather than just
> shelling out maintenance every year
> 2) Conversion of current library parts over to new system
> 3) Re-training of engineers & techs to use the new system
>
> ORCAD is spendy enough that #1 isn't too big of a problem, and our libraries
> still only have hundreds (not thousands) of symbols in them so changeover
> there isn't too bad (I wouldn't imagine it'd be more than a month's effort),
> but #3 is difficult to get by some people since they're so used to ORCAD, they
> don't really see its shortcomings, and they're not personally footing the bill
> for it. (I think there's often a "bell curve of happiness" associated with
> mediocre software... new users have problems with everything, regular but
> undemanding users are happy because they don't stress the tool much so it
> works OK, whereas advanced/demanding users are unhappy again because they
> realize that there are so many better options out there).
>
Hmm, #3 was actually the easiest for me. I rarely get sick but right
after the Cadsoft shipment arrived a flu smacked me into bed for two
days. I read the book that came with it about three times cover to
cover, just like I had done with OrCad a long time ago. The third day I
hopped in front of the PC (with a hacking cough ...) and in the
afternoon I was happily drawing stuff.
It's not that I am any smarter than others. For example mechanical CAD
packages are still very foreign to me no matter how hard I try. But EE
CAD stuff is really easy.
> Sometime this year I'm planning on making a proper (formal) presentation
> comparing ORCAD with, e.g., Pulsonix. We'll see what happens...
>
Cadsoft Eagle could have, should have, would have. But they don't seem
to understand that it won't go anywhere without a hierarchical sheet
structure. Sad, actually, because other than that it's great.
>> Heck, is Autotrax still around? That used to be pretty good and I bet it
>> won't be expensive anymore.
>
> Autotrax or AutoTRAX? Wikipedia discusses two of them:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoTRAX_EDA
>
I meant the Protel stuff but I'll check out Kovac's software. Thanks for
the hint, I didn't even know about that one. Heck, they are almost
walking distance from a client, maybe I stop by.
> ---Joel
>
> P.S. -- Vaguely related story about software quality: I have a friend who
> works for a Big Software Company. In general he says that their most
> sophisticated users and bug reports come from Europe. They had one guy in the
> U.K. who was constantly filling bug reports with them -- it was almost uncanny
> how "good" he was at discovering them. At some point it dawned on them
> that... hey... this would be a very useful guy to hire! They offered, he
> accepted, and now he's working here in Oregon. It turns out this fellow has
> been using the software package in question for longer than anyone who's
> currently on staff at the company (!), and he has an excellent memory, being
> able to provide in-depth comparisons and contrasts of the package and what's
> been changed and fixed/broken in it for the past decade. Amazing...
>
Yep. Once we needed a realtime OS software guy. Couldn't find one so we
hired one from the UK and moved the family over (including four kids
...). Turned out to be the best RTOS guy I ever worked with. He the
typical English understatement mentality. He'd stay through lunch and
afterwards some huge problem was, well, gone. "T'wus nuthin'"
Joerg
Looks like the semiconductor industry is quickly heading in that
direction as well. The difference in support between this year and last
is mind-boggling. Day and night, with 2008 being the night ... :-(
Jim Thompson
I hope not. I just scored (this very minute) a biggy (from "Down
Under"), and I need extended cooperation from a foundry. I suspect,
given the economy, that I'll get a lot of "kissing up".
MooseFET
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:8gtes3lcir05832ts...@4ax.com...
Roger that Jim Cocksucker, get ready to pay the price for what you Dumbass
believe you did for the country. Heeheee.....
MooseFET
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
Are you NI(national instrument) software went on sales lately? That's an
indication that you dumass going down... Heehee......Halleluiah. Shame on
you arrogant people.
Joerg
From foundries I wouldn't be worried. It's the discrete parts and chip
vendors that seem to scale down support. To the point where they are now
losing business. Old rule in my trade: What doesn't get designed in now
will most likely never be designed in later. When the ECO is written
it's done and done.
MooseFET
"MooseFET" <kens...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:fq8hpc$hke$1...@aioe.org...
> indication that you dumass going down... Heehee......Halleluiah. Shame on
> you arrogant people.
>
The above was a test to see if the war bastards can fill in the missing
words. Evidently they gave up, the missing words are "aware of"
Terry Given
hence why analogue designers are smarter than digital designers; it isnt
very hard to count to one...
Cheers
Terry
krw
Ah, but that's where the difficulty comes in, to solve all the other
problems where the answer isn't one. If the answer was one, they'd
just give the job to one of you pocket-protector-wearing analog
dweebs. ;-)
"One is the loneliest number..."
--
Keith
Terry Given
LOL. I dont wear a pocket protector; I work from home, so clothes are
optional ;)
a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I started out as a digital
guy, but then saw the light. so nowadays I do all the analogue stuff,
and drool at the awesome FPGAs the digital guys get to play with (but
dislike the PSU ramp requirements of the xilinx stuff).
Cheers
Terry
Charlie Edmondson
Hey Jim,
We didn't do 'nothing', we actively ignored all 'unnecessary' fixes that
the folks in India didn't want or know how to do... ;-)
Charlie
Jim Thompson
<edmo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> I literally buried the PSpice support people in accurate bug
>> reports/"issues".
>>
>> They thanked me profusely and did nothing.
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>Hey Jim,
>We didn't do 'nothing', we actively ignored all 'unnecessary' fixes that
>the folks in India didn't want or know how to do... ;-)
>
>Charlie
My son Aaron and I just cracked the "binning" issue this morning...
simplifying the previous "solution"... now I can eliminate a file
look-up, since the binning information can be compactly included in
the "symbol".
So there, Cadence! Turkeys ;-)
sky4...@trline5.org
>guy, but then saw the light. so nowadays I do all the analogue stuff,
>and drool at the awesome FPGAs the digital guys get to play with (but
>dislike the PSU ramp requirements of the xilinx stuff).
Any experience to tell about regarding the xilinx ramp requirements ..?
Btw, TFT modules tend to like ramp requirements. :-)
JosephKK
Call it NXP effect. When it is all about bookkeeping valuation rather
than producing and selling useful goods, this is what happens,
JosephKK
> I kept reading Wikipedia, and I suspect you do mean the old Protel Autotrax,
> right? --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotrax
>
>
I suspect the reference is to pre-Protel versions of AutoTrax.
rebel
??? there were pre-Protel versions? Not that I am aware of.
Terry Given
the last xilinx fpga I put on a board had minimum and maximum ramp up
and ramp down rates for the supplies, along with stringent power
sequencing requirements. Its easy to do the sequencing, and ramp-up
rates are not too hard, but sequenced ramp-down rates get a lot
trickier. that particular design was a cost-down. I halved the price of
the original smps, and we put in an FPGA that was cheaper than the CPLD
it replaced. Then added 4 linear regulators, a pair of LM339s and an
LM324 along with some discretes to do the ramp-rate control & power
sequencing. the extra regulators ate the FPGA-vs-CPLD cost savings and
then some, and I had to add so many bits to get ramp rate control I
might as well have done the regulators discretely. all up the cost
saving was negligible. a better choice of FPGA (eg cyclone III) would
have made a big difference. Alas I didnt get to pick the FPGA, some
digital guy did, based on the impeccable logic "I like xilinx"
Cheers
Terry
Charlie Edmondson
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:33:37 GMT, Charlie Edmondson
> <edmo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>I literally buried the PSpice support people in accurate bug
>>>reports/"issues".
>>>
>>>They thanked me profusely and did nothing.
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>Hey Jim,
>>We didn't do 'nothing', we actively ignored all 'unnecessary' fixes that
>>the folks in India didn't want or know how to do... ;-)
>>
>>Charlie
>
>
> My son Aaron and I just cracked the "binning" issue this morning...
> simplifying the previous "solution"... now I can eliminate a file
> look-up, since the binning information can be compactly included in
> the "symbol".
>
> So there, Cadence! Turkeys ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
But Jim,
The Turkey is a noble animal, suitable for sustenance and tasty to boot.
Nothing like Cadence... ;-)
Charlie
Jim Thompson
<edmo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Yes, indeed! My apologies to Ben Franklin ;-)
Eeyore
JeffM wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>Try ExpressPCB's free software.
> >>>
> JeffM wrote:
> >>ExpressPCB / PCB123 / Pad2Pad are all lock-in-ware.
> >>Their output can only be used with a single fab house.
> >>They don't produce gerbers.
> >>
> Eeyore wrote:
> >I know but they're VERY easy to use.
> >The above issues simply aren't an issue for a hobby project.
>
> *THOSE* aren't, but for DIYers the one you snipped *IS*:
> ::Printing out what you need is a bitch.
>
> Having to leave the program
> and fire up another app to do reverse-image printing
> makes the lock-in-ware apps undesirable for many folks.
>
> My point is:
> If you are going to invest the time into learning an ECAD app,
> don't bother with gratis crippleware
> when *truly* FREE[1] apps exist which do it all.
In general I'd agree but the ExpressPCB software is so easy to use there
was barely any 'learning' involved at least of the type that couldn't be
transferred to any other package.
Graham
Eeyore
Joel Koltner wrote:
> "JeffM" <jef...@email.com> wrote
>
> > ExpressPCB / PCB123 / Pad2Pad are all lock-in-ware.
>
> I thought ExpressPCB will sell you the Gerbers for $60 or something like that?
>
> And PCB123 will give you the Gerbers after you pay them to build your protos?
>
> > KiCAD (useable under Windoze) has already been mentioned.
> > It is the antithesis of the wares above.
> > It is open source (gratis and libre).
> > There are no forced artificial limitations.
>
> It (and gEDA) tend to have a somewhat steeper learning curve than Express
> PCB's package, though. Places like ExpressPCB survive for the same reason
> that 7-11 does: Sometimes you want quick and easy, even if it costs noticeably
> more.
Exactly so. Precisely why I used it in fact. It's SO simple to knock something
out.
Graham
Joerg
I am used to that from European companies. The German part of Philips
way back when (Valvo in Hamburg) used to be absolutely excellent in
support. Things began to slip a few years after they re-branded all that
as Philips. Same with Siemens, excellent support until it becamne
Infineon. They blow a lot of money to have their name on stadiums or
race tracks or whatever, money they should have been spending on
engineering support.
But to see US companies now making the same mistake is sad.
Joel Koltner
have lost Joerg's response to mine.... (but Google has it...)
Joerg wrote:
"Hmm, #3 was actually the easiest for me.... It's not that I am any smarter
than others. For example mechanical CAD
packages are still very foreign to me no matter how hard I try. But EE CAD
stuff is really easy."
Agreed, EE CAD usage is pretty straightforward compared to, say, actual
design. However, for many a tech, "driving" a EE CAD program is often about
the most complicated thing they do, so suggesting that you'd like to switch
from one tool to another has the potential to cause plenty of protest on
their part. You combine that with a management infrastructure where the
engineering manager doesn't have a technical background (i.e., someone who's
never used an eCAD tool in their life) and the tools a company ends up using
often boil down to your choice of "status quo" or "whoever's willing to
scream the loudest" rather than anything having to do with technical
excellence or value for the dollar.
---Joel
JosephKK
Most of the Stadiums in California have been rebadged with corporate
names.
JosephKK
wrote:
Yo imposter. We most certainly saw it. Most are ignoring or blocking
you already. Your little act is over, go away forever.
Joerg
Yes, but why Infineon? Only engineers will recognize that name. They
really should have spent that money on customer service.
Joerg
> Apologies that this is going to get threaded incorrectly since APN seems to
> have lost Joerg's response to mine.... (but Google has it...)
>
So the Associated Press chucks my posts? Harumph ...
SCNR.
> Joerg wrote:
>
> "Hmm, #3 was actually the easiest for me.... It's not that I am any smarter
> than others. For example mechanical CAD
> packages are still very foreign to me no matter how hard I try. But EE CAD
> stuff is really easy."
>
> Agreed, EE CAD usage is pretty straightforward compared to, say, actual
> design. However, for many a tech, "driving" a EE CAD program is often about
> the most complicated thing they do, so suggesting that you'd like to switch
> from one tool to another has the potential to cause plenty of protest on
> their part. ...
That's sad. There has to be an upside though, where they see a serious
time saver or a feature they really like.
You combine that with a management infrastructure where the
> engineering manager doesn't have a technical background (i.e., someone who's
> never used an eCAD tool in their life) and the tools a company ends up using
> often boil down to your choice of "status quo" or "whoever's willing to
> scream the loudest" rather than anything having to do with technical
> excellence or value for the dollar.
>
Doesn't have to be that way. The R&D manager of my first employer was a
radio and TV tech, not an engineer. Never had any problems. He asked us
which CAD we'd think was best and then signed on the dotted line. Back
then it was Futurenet Dash.
Joel Koltner
> That's sad. There has to be an upside though, where they see a serious time
> saver or a feature they really like.
I don't think there's much of a problem demonstrating to other engineers that
there are various time savers/attractive features in other tools. For the
techs it's a little harder, though (since they're not usually the ones
*entering* schematics)... but you'd suggest inviting some techs to a
PowerPoint presentation of, "Comparison between ORCAD and xxxx...," eh?
---Joel
Joerg
Yes, definitely. If they aren't entering anything why do they need to
use the CAD then? A PDF viewer and a good Gerber viewer should be all
they need.
Jim Thompson
I no longer do PowerPoint. I discovered that I can do the same thing
with Adobe PDF's, but much nicer... descend and back-out of
hierarchical schematics with ease.
Joel Koltner
> Yes, definitely. If they aren't entering anything why do they need to use
> the CAD then?
They...
-- Pull BOMs
-- Enter footprint data when it isn't already present (quite common, as
engineering is generally not familiar with layout's naming conventions for
footprints... and I don't think we really want to be, either :-) )
-- Might perform pin/gate swapping if it facilitates easier layout
-- Might change a part after finding, e.g., it's too big to fit, coming back
to ask you for an alternative, and you give'em one
They are willing to enter schematics from a hand sketch if you ask them to.
We have one engineer who never really got into eCAD at all who does this;
everyone prefers entering their own schematics.
---Joel
Joel Koltner
> I no longer do PowerPoint. I discovered that I can do the same thing
> with Adobe PDF's, but much nicer... descend and back-out of
> hierarchical schematics with ease.
Thanks Jim, I'll keep that in mind. I did a presentation in OpenOffice
Impress last year, although it was more because I wanted to play around with
OO than thinking it was actually better than PP. Perhaps now would be a good
time to play with PDFs a bit...
Jim Thompson
You need Adobe Acrobat so you can use the Form Tool to make invisible
forms that have an action. v4 is MUCH easier to use than newer
versions... surprise, surprise ;-)
JeffM
>I no longer do PowerPoint.
>I discovered that I can do the same thing with Adobe PDF's,
>but much nicer...
>descend and back-out of hierarchical schematics with ease.
Has this always been available in PDF?
At what version did you become aware of this?
Joerg
Ok, so then they do use the CAD. Creating library parts is just as
difficult as doing the actual layout. Even more so, since you have to
get the land patterns just right or production will be a mess.
I think they should be open to new systems. After all it will be
something they can add to their resume should they ever have to move
away for some reason. That doesn't have to be a desire to leave but
could be as simple as a relative becoming seriously ill. That's how we
lost one of the best semiconductor guys I ever knew. He now runs his
father-in-law's farm.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>I no longer do PowerPoint.
>>I discovered that I can do the same thing with Adobe PDF's,
>>but much nicer...
>>descend and back-out of hierarchical schematics with ease.
>
>Has this always been available in PDF?
I don't know.
>At what version did you become aware of this?
Acrobat v4
Makes for really nice presentations... the audience always asks
questions requiring going back to a previous view... in a schematic
stack PDF Forms shine!
Spehro Pefhany
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:43:37 -0800 (PST), JeffM <jef...@email.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>I no longer do PowerPoint.
>>>I discovered that I can do the same thing with Adobe PDF's,
>>>but much nicer...
>>>descend and back-out of hierarchical schematics with ease.
>>
>>Has this always been available in PDF?
>
>I don't know.
>
>>At what version did you become aware of this?
>
>Acrobat v4
>
>Makes for really nice presentations... the audience always asks
>questions requiring going back to a previous view... in a schematic
>stack PDF Forms shine!
>
> ...Jim Thompson
So you manually link the higher levels in the hierarchy to the lower
levels?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Joerg
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:04:09 -0700, Jim Thompson
> <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:43:37 -0800 (PST), JeffM <jef...@email.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> I no longer do PowerPoint.
>>>> I discovered that I can do the same thing with Adobe PDF's,
>>>> but much nicer...
>>>> descend and back-out of hierarchical schematics with ease.
>>> Has this always been available in PDF?
>> I don't know.
>>
>>> At what version did you become aware of this?
>> Acrobat v4
>>
>> Makes for really nice presentations... the audience always asks
>> questions requiring going back to a previous view... in a schematic
>> stack PDF Forms shine!
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> So you manually link the higher levels in the hierarchy to the lower
> levels?
That's what a good CAD system does automagically. Draw a block "mixer
circuit", click on that, descends one level in the hierarchy. Now I just
wish Cadsoft would understand :-(
Jim Thompson
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:04:09 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:43:37 -0800 (PST), JeffM <jef...@email.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>I no longer do PowerPoint.
>>>>I discovered that I can do the same thing with Adobe PDF's,
>>>>but much nicer...
>>>>descend and back-out of hierarchical schematics with ease.
>>>
>>>Has this always been available in PDF?
>>
>>I don't know.
>>
>>>At what version did you become aware of this?
>>
>>Acrobat v4
>>
>>Makes for really nice presentations... the audience always asks
>>questions requiring going back to a previous view... in a schematic
>>stack PDF Forms shine!
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>So you manually link the higher levels in the hierarchy to the lower
>levels?
>Best regards,
>Spehro Pefhany
Yes. I just superimpose an invisible form block over a schematic
block such that clicking descends into the hierarchy and vice versa.
As Joerg opines later, the schematic capture already does that, you
just need to add that function to your PDF "stack".
Spehro Pefhany
Yes, but when we make PDFs from Orcad, it doesn't do that
automagically in the target PDF. Of course you can download and
install the Cadence free viewer, but not everyone wants to (or even is
allowed to, without involving some PITA IT guy). 8-)
Spehro Pefhany
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
Thanks. I'll give it a try.
BTW, is there any free tool that allows that kind of thing?
Jim Thompson
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
Not that I know of but, if you find one, let me know!
Robert Adsett
says...
> That's what a good CAD system does automagically. Draw a block "mixer
> circuit", click on that, descends one level in the hierarchy. Now I just
> wish Cadsoft would understand :-(
Ooooh, Please!
It does seem they have a large blindspot here.
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Jim Thompson
<su...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
>In article <teYyj.18751$R84...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, Joerg
>says...
>> That's what a good CAD system does automagically. Draw a block "mixer
>> circuit", click on that, descends one level in the hierarchy. Now I just
>> wish Cadsoft would understand :-(
>
>Ooooh, Please!
>
>It does seem they have a large blindspot here.
>
>Robert
My venerable PSpice Schematics does that very nicely.
Joerg
> In article <teYyj.18751$R84...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, Joerg
> says...
>> That's what a good CAD system does automagically. Draw a block "mixer
>> circuit", click on that, descends one level in the hierarchy. Now I just
>> wish Cadsoft would understand :-(
>
> Ooooh, Please!
>
> It does seem they have a large blindspot here.
>
Yeah, I don't understand it. This block their entry in large scale
companies, and large scale sales. I mentioned it numerous times. But
what's the old economist's saying? You can lead horses to the water but
you can't make them drink.
JosephKK
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
But it is a cool sounding name and could attract "investors".
JosephKK
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:30:39 -0800, Joerg
><notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Joel Koltner wrote:
>>> "Joerg" <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ScWyj.6852$Mh2....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> That's sad. There has to be an upside though, where they see a serious time
>>>> saver or a feature they really like.
>>>
>>> I don't think there's much of a problem demonstrating to other engineers that
>>> there are various time savers/attractive features in other tools. For the
>>> techs it's a little harder, though (since they're not usually the ones
>>> *entering* schematics)... but you'd suggest inviting some techs to a
>>> PowerPoint presentation of, "Comparison between ORCAD and xxxx...," eh?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, definitely. If they aren't entering anything why do they need to
>>use the CAD then? A PDF viewer and a good Gerber viewer should be all
>>they need.
>
>I no longer do PowerPoint. I discovered that I can do the same thing
>with Adobe PDF's, but much nicer... descend and back-out of
>hierarchical schematics with ease.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Write us a mini tutorial then.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
OK.
It requires Adobe _Acrobat_. DO you have that tool?
Joel Koltner
> OK.
Thanks Jim, I'll be looking for it too.
> It requires Adobe _Acrobat_. DO you have that tool?
In my case version 6 is installed on my PC at work here (I tend to agree with
you that Acrobat has generally just gotten worse in later versions), although
I believe I have at least 5 and possibly 4 on CD somewhere.
---Joel
Jim Thompson
v5 is where it started going bad ;-)
I have v4 and v7 on my computers... v7 only for dealing with clients
who send me stuff v4 can't read.
Fortunately v7 has a "Reduce File Size/Make Compatible With" feature,
where I turn most everything back to v4 (except where I absolutely
need the search features of v7).
Joerg
Yeah, like the guy up there in the 7th row, with the beer, who's got
about $15k of credit card debt ...
Joel Koltner
> Yeah, like the guy up there in the 7th row, with the beer, who's got about
> $15k of credit card debt ...
Skyboxes, Joerg, skyboxes... that's where the fat wallets are!
Joerg
Sure. But those are the folks who would be the least influenced by
banner ads and stuff.
Simon S Aysdie
wrote:
> Sometime this year I'm planning on making a proper (formal) presentation
> comparing ORCAD with, e.g., Pulsonix. We'll see what happens...
What gives you an initial attraction to Pulsonix? What is the
approximate dollar price of the sch plus pcb packages?
I used to like OrCAD, and I was never the one footing the bill. I
think the basic schematic and symbol editing of OrCAD is a very good
compromise of features and simplicity. (Simple to learn/use is one of
my big bullet points for sch and pcb editors.)
I am thinking about the modern Altium myself, as I thought Protel 99SE
was well designed from a shallow learning curve perspective, and it
used to be on the inexpensive side (comparatively). It also is not a
Mentor or Cadence product, which is actually the first and most
important requirement.
Joel Koltner
"Simon S Aysdie" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in message
news:5ce532ce-0b35-4090...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> What gives you an initial attraction to Pulsonix?
Essentially I was looking for something reasonably inexpensive but with Real
People behind it to call up and bitch^H^H^H^H^H talk to in case I encountered
problems (i.e., I wasn't looking for free/almost-free packages where, well, if
something doesn't work, it's completely up to you to ignore or work around the
problem.) I had previously used Protel and Accel and Pulsonix looked to have
many similar features but without the high price tag. (Ironically, when I
first started using Protel it was for the same reason -- lots of features and
low price. But over time Protel went up and up and up...)
Oh yeah... I was also looking for a SPICE simulator, and after having used
John Warner's SI-Metrix in college, was happy to find that "Pulsonix SPICE" is
just SI-Metrix in a relatively low-end (and hence inexpensive) configuration.
(I suspect that people don't realize just how powerful the version of
SI-Metrix included in Pulsonix SPICE is, though -- it includes, for instance,
a full scripting language, which very few of the other inexpensive commerical
SPICEs do.)
I'd also admit to being influenced by Leon Heller, who as an official beta
testers get his beer^H^H^H^H software for free. As it turned out, Leon
definitely over-hyped Pulsonix for me and initially I was a little annoyed to
be finding more bugs and warts than what Leon's cheerleading had led me to
believe. However, over the past few years now Pulsonix has been quite
responsive and has made an honest effort to get rid of bugs while still
managing to add new features to help make them more competitive with the "big
guys." It's really evolved into a prettty nice package these days.
One of their weakest remaining areas is in getting decent country-specific
tech support. The guys in the U.K. where Pulsonix is made are quite
knowledgable about the software, but the guys in the U.S. (and, I'm told, some
other countries) often seem to have only a passing familiarity with the
software and aren't really aware of some of its more advanced features (I feel
quite confident they're not using the software on anything approaching a daily
basis). My opinion is that Pulsonix isn't big enough yet that they should be
trying to have country-specific support; it seems that hiring more support
personnel in England would be better. But this is a relatively minor nit...
> What is the
> approximate dollar price of the sch plus pcb packages?
It's supposed to be available here: http://www.pcb-sw.com ...but I sure
couldn't find it listed (notice they also rep Easy-PC, which is the "little
brother" of Pulsonix and also known as "PCB Artist" -- free from Advanced
Circuits if you use their services --, as they're both now developed in the
same building by the same company... I believe I was once told Pulsonix
developers are upstairs and Easy-PC is downstairs... :-) ). Here's a link to
current Oz/Kiwi pricing: www.emlogic.com.au/pdfs/Pulsonix.pdf
> I used to like OrCAD, and I was never the one footing the bill. I
> think the basic schematic and symbol editing of OrCAD is a very good
> compromise of features and simplicity. (Simple to learn/use is one of
> my big bullet points for sch and pcb editors.)
Pulsonix tries hard to be easy to use, but it does have enough features that
it's not always quite as obvious to use as ORCAD (but it really is much
better!). I've often felt they should write a document along the lines of,
"The Pulsonix Philosophy" where they explain the background of what they were
thinking in designing the software and how all the bits are pieces tend to tie
together, since it is somewhat different than the way ORCAD and Protel do it.
(I'd label invidual sections stuff like, "Libraries: Yes, there are good
reasons we use 5 different types," "Technology files: Far more important than
the somewhat vague name suggesst," "Named nets for footprints: Quite useful,
but don't expect your local support guy knows what they are," etc.)
As you'd expect, Pulsonix has the usual downloadable demo that does everything
but save or export/output files (this doubles as a free viewer, and as such is
actually much more than what you get in, e.g., a PADS "viewer" license that
won't even let you pick up some parts and move them out of the way to get a
better look at the board!), and they'll send you a 30-day license to try out
the whole shebang for the asking. There's also a Yahoo! group around
(started by Leon) if you want to check out what sorts of things people
compliment or whine about.
In brief, relative to ORCAD Pulsonix has more (and more powerful) features,
costs markedly less, and is backed by a team in England that is still actively
developing the software and *will* respond to support requests (ORCAD these
days is on "life support" in India and -- as Jim and I and many others have
found found -- support requests generally fall on deaf ears).
---Joel
JosephKK
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>Joel Koltner wrote:
>> "Joerg" <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:tBgzj.12568$5K1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Yeah, like the guy up there in the 7th row, with the beer, who's got about
>>> $15k of credit card debt ...
>>
>> Skyboxes, Joerg, skyboxes... that's where the fat wallets are!
>>
>
>Sure. But those are the folks who would be the least influenced by
>banner ads and stuff.
I would not be so quick to make that claim. Many medium size business
owners buy the season box seats and turn them over to marketing to woo
customers.
JosephKK
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
Yes. Of course if you are still using ver. 4 there might be a
compatibility problem. I have only a few copies of V5 and the rest
are V7 and V8.
JosephKK
I am still thinking about buying myself a new copy of CirCad by
Holobyte. The price is about $1000 for sch and pcb and they have been
in business for over 20 years. I still like my old copy.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
I know that v7 will read v4 and v5. But v7 is a bitch to use to make
fields... new and "improved" ;-)
Joel Koltner
news:7u3ss3tfac5lg3fot...@4ax.com...
> I am still thinking about buying myself a new copy of CirCad by
> Holobyte. The price is about $1000 for sch and pcb and they have been
> in business for over 20 years. I still like my old copy.
There's a lot to be said for staying with a program you're familiar with and
gets the job done. I wonder how many new licenses CirCad is selling? From
their web site it looks to have some unique features.
One often-asked-for feature that Pulsonix is missing is support for scripting
(or a COM interface or similar). As I've probably mentioned before, I think
one of the things that's really made Eagle popular is its ability to run
user-generated scripts; there's quite a library of them these days.
---Joel
Simon S Aysdie
Joel -- Thank you for the detailed response.