Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

Hello,

I’ve just been sacked from a PCB layout job after a two-day trial. The PCB layout package concerned was a “high-end” package, that is, one of the more expensive ones.
Why is it that simple PCBs are very difficult to lay out in the “high-end” PCB layout packages?

I can, however, use the Eagle PCB Layout program without problems, Eagle is very very different than other packages –much simpler. Anyone who understands a PCB’s basic structure, and can use a windows PC, will easily be able to use Eagle. This is not the case with any of the other “high-end”, proprietory PCB layout packages.
The “high-end” PCB layout packages are only useable to people who…
1…have very good I.T. skills, akin to those of a Compute Hacker, or…
2…are “in the know”, or….
3…have lots of highly expensive Applications visits.

It may sound cynical but I believe that the “high-end” packages deliberately avoid publishing effective “simplified guides” to their packages, because it would diminish their income from overly-expensive applications visits. It’s the only reason I can find for the fact that a PCB that is a doddle in Eagle is a considerable struggle in the “high-end” packages. Another point is that no-one will use a bootlegged “high-end” package without a licence if there’s a high chance of them getting totally stuck and needing help from the PCB software company. This is why there are no good “simplified guides” to using them. It encourages people to use a (non-bootlegged) licenced version and also purchase the maintenance contract and renew it each year.
Also, I believe that the “high-end” packages deliberately put bugs in the software, so that users dare not work on bootlegged unlicenced versions and also users keep up paying the maintenance fees. The existence of these bugs, means that the “high-end” packages need users to be possessed of very good I.T. skills. Due to this situation of the “High-end” packages being deliberately made more difficult than they should be, the type of person needed to operate them tends to either be “in the know”, or someone with very good I.T. skills. –In fact, the I.T. skills needed to operate a “High-end” PCB layout package are akin to the skills of a Computer Hacker.
In the big companies, you often find that the PCB layout guy is an ex-electronics technician or SMD machine operator who knows components, and just has an excellent flare for I.T and the “computer hacking” type way of working.

Unfortunately, though Eagle is simple to use, it lacks certain features such as 'Track pusher' and 'Differential pair bus router' etc etc. What would be best is if Eagle were to get augmented with these features. Does anyone know if there are User Language Programs that can be used with Eagle to achieve Bus Routing capability?

I once spent 8 weeks in a company that was using a “High-end” PCB layout package, even though all their PCBs were simple types. Their layout guy had been using that package for 10 year plus, and had done all the company’s PCBs. In spite of this, during my time at this company, the Package Apps Engineer was in the company for 3 whole days during my time there (at great expense), and this was a regular occurrence. It shows the bad state of affairs regarding the “high end” packages that people still need ‘hand-holding’ after that much time (10 years!), especially when all their PCBs were just simple ones. I actually asked their PCB guy if I should change the “workspace” for a PCB job, and he replied “I don’t know, I never use workspaces”. –This just highlighted everything about “high-end” PCB layout packages, because in that package, you are always in a “workspace”, the “workspace” is the epicentre of the package, it’s just not possible to “not use” them…What this guy meant was, that he hadn’t a clue what a ‘workspace’ was, (because the layout package is so confusing) and that he was just relying on repeated visits from the Apps guy in order to allow him to survive using it.
These kind of situations are common in many companies.

Many companies, perhaps if they only have a few simple PCBs, actually like the fact that their PCB layout program is overly confusing. This is because it supposedly reduces the chance of any competitor being able to do anything with the layout/schem files if they were ever to get hold of them.

In earlier days, I lost a few jobs by not being able to manage whichever company’s “high-end” PCB program. It was no consolation when I eventually happened on the Eagle PCB software package, which is very simple, and would have allowed me to succeed in those previous failures if I’d known about it then. One great feature of Eagle, (aswell as its great intuitiveness & simplicity of use) not shared by almost any other package, is that if someone is testing a PCB and needs the schem and board files…then Eagle has a free viewer that allows anyone to fully interrogate both schem and board. The free Eagle viewer actually allows the user to have full access to all the Eagle features, so viewing is made effective, as well as incredibly simple.

The only way to describe the currently available “high-end” PCB layout packages is that they are gross, tangled leviathans, made unnecessarily complicated. This though, is sometimes their attraction..Whilst at Jesmond Ltd, we had some driver PCBs designed by a Rotherham company. They had done all the designs in a certain PCB package. However, after finding out that we also used that same package at Jesmond Ltd, they then decided to re-do all the designs in a different “high-end” PCB layout package. –This, presumably, to reduce the chances of us being able to modify the boards ourselves if necessary…instead probably having to pay the Rotherham company to do any modification work for us.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

"High-end" packages are designed to be operated by full-time layout engineers. I also believe that you are probably underestimating the amount of specific knowledge involved with Eagle, which you have accumulated over the years and which makes the working with it appear smoothly.

But presuming an engineer with PCB layout experience can start Eagle design of simple PCBs from the scratch in two days, he unlikely can't with most high end packages. A beginners training for these tools is usually scheduled for three days at least. And you'll need a week or two to start performant design work.

It would be a longer thing to explain why it can be reasonable though to go through the learning curve, if I remember right, we already talked about it in previous threads. I would agree that it doesn't make sense to make "simple PCBs" with a "high-end" package as an occasional job.

I fear your job trial was burdened with misunderstandings on both sides.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

In the early days I got trashed by some companies, and this wouldn’t have happened if only I’d known about Eagle then.

I also believe that you are probably underestimating the amount of specific knowledge involved with Eagle, which you have accumulated over the years and which makes the working with it appear smoothly.

Click to expand...

..thankyou but sorry I don’t agree, I remember the first board I ever did with eagle……it was so easy that I was almost jumping up and down with joy whilst I layed it out…..finally, after being sacked from several jobs due to not getting to grips with whichever pcb layout package quick enough, here was a pcb package that I was able to use straight away…..all I needed to rely on was basic knowledge of the structure of a pcb…that’s ALL you need with eagle.

- - - Updated - - -

Falk Stricker of dmx.de told me that Eagle is the most common pcb software in use in industrial Germany, where pcb’s are simple.
Is it true that in Germany the companies that need to do bus routing get special “user language programs” written so that they can do bus routing in eagle?

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

I have had PCB vendors visit the company to demostrate these high-end PCB routing softwares. They keep saying how easy it was to use. I even attended one of the seminars host by supposedly one of the best PCB layout software company. They key point is easy to use with powerful features. I tried it for awhile I did get into some difficulties which were easy to overcome with the forums and such available now. I dont see how you got into a problem that was so bad you were ask to leave your job.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

Is it true that in Germany the companies that need to do bus routing get special “user language programs” written so that they can do bus routing in eagle?

Click to expand...

I don't see any features with Eagle that would allow automatic or semi-auto interactive routing, neither of busses or other structures. Respectively ULP won't help to achieve it.

Generally there are different opinions among layout engineers if auto-routing is useful at all. I don't want to push this discussion here, but beyond it, you can obviously make complex PCBs without using auto-route features. Essential features of a PCB tool you have to rely on are e.g. hierarchical design rules, including per layer and regional specifications, high speed rules, support for high-density features. Also support to re-use previously designed subcircuits with layout elements, etc.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

FvM said:

"High-end" packages are designed to be operated by full-time layout engineers

Click to expand...

I fully agree with that conclusion; While it is tempting to think of using a single tool for all jobs (which would be a reasonable decision), unfortunately this has not proven to be efficient in the corporate perspective. I cite for example the case of Protel 99 and Altium1x that, although in some way have the same DNA shared, the usability of both is quite different. While in the first case we can quickly create a project in the second case this already requires a little more patience.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

Simple is in the eye of the beholder, and while Eagle can do simple boards (But not all that quickly) it quickly runs out of puff when life gets interesting, give me Altium, or even (spit!) Pads any day.

Things like BOM and variant management, scriptable design and layout rules, diff pair and net length matching only really become critical when you get above the level of a few hundred parts and a GHz or so of edge rates, but I would hate to try to do a DDR3 layout in eagle.

The ability to do the difficult does come with a certain amount of fixed overhead of course, so if you are only ever going to be doing trivial boards then Eagle may be a reasonable choice, but it really does not scale at all well.

Of course there are high end cad packages and high end cad packages, and sometimes the vendors do seem to be making the help files useless to encourage you to do the service contract or commercial training thing (Mentor Pads, looking at you!).

and I don't think anybody can be expected to be actually productive in **ANY** job in less then a few weeks to a few months (it takes that long to learn how the company works, never mind the cad), but a basic board should only be a few days in any cad system.

I am somewhat surprised that you are having that much difficulty with it, most of these systems are frankly very similar once you get past the annoyingly different keyboard shortcuts.
One thing that may differ from Eagle is that much of the design tends to be rule based in the bigger systems, if you don't like the way a copper pour worked you tweak the design rules rather then manually editing the pour.

Regards, Dan.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

One thing that may differ from Eagle is that much of the design tends to be rule based in the bigger systems, if you don't like the way a copper pour worked you tweak the design rules rather then manually editing the pour.

Click to expand...

..Thanks, that is the beauty of Eagle for SMPS, ie, that its easy to do tweaks to copper pours without having to go into some over-complicated rule system.

I believe that in any electronics company, any PCB that is simple enough to be done in Eagle, should be done in Eagle, even if that means having two different cad packages in use at that company.
If not, then the "high-end" package should make a simplified version of their high end package that is as simple as eagle, and that can be used for the simple boards.....there is no reason why this should not be possible.

Eagle has shown that for simple (non DDR3 type) boards, a PCB layout program CAN be as simple as a PCB.
Why, for simple boards, are “high-end” PCB layout programs NOT anywhere near as simple as Eagle is?, in other words, why are they not as "simple as a PCB" for simple boards?

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

Problem with that is that then I need to know two sets of packages, and (worse) my muscle memory for keyboard shortcuts ends up confused.

Once you have the templates set up for your companies stuff the overhead in doing a simple two layer job with a big package is small to negligible, so I am far better off knowing one package well then two poorly (and confusing my muscle memory to boot).

Further I would far rather hire a PCB guy with experience with the big guns simply because as you say learning Eagle/Isis-Aries or whatever is easy if the occasion really needs it, going the other way not so much.

The other thing about the big stuff is that it will often integrate well with things like mechanical cad, and even corporate process requirements so you can easily check fit between boards in a stack or components and case and can do things like populating the BOM tables in an ERP system automatically, do not underestimate the importance of this.

Regards, Dan.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

"High End" PCB Design Tools are created to do "High End" PCB Design. They need a skilled designer, who knows how to use the tools. How knows about pcb manufacturing and has a good knowledge of assembly, knows about crosstalk, timing etc.....................

In other words, it a REAL PROFESSION

You can not learn how to use a "High End' tool in a few days, or even a few weeks. This takes time. Sure, you can take a course and they show you some of the 'buttons' that
are available. But that is only a small part of the tool capabilities. You need to make hours using the tools and get experienced.


I work with a "High End"tool every day ( Mentor Graphics xpedition) and do designs with 2 layer till 28 layers, with 'slow' components or DDR2/DDR3 or 10GB ethernet or whatever.
But that is now, after doing pcb design over 20 years. In those 20 years I have learned to use "High End Tools", and believe it or not. If you can work with "High End" software
from Vendor A, it is not a big step to "High End" software from vendor B. (They are all more or less the same).

You can even do "SIMPLE" boards with "High End" software and I am convinced that I will be faster than someone doing an occasional design with Eagle.


It is more or less like a formula1 car, you can sit in it and drive away, but only a professional 'Driver' can sit in it and break records.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

it a REAL PROFESSION

Click to expand...

..i agree, the “High end” packages are so complex that you need somebody to be on them all the time..because they are a real profession unto themselves.

I actually don’t believe that “High-end” PCB layout packages actually need to be as complex as they are…they could be simplified far more than they are and still be just as useful…..as I say in the top post, the “high-end” layout packages are made deliberatety difficult.

That then is a massive problem for stuff like layout of SMPS…because your SMPS designers are just not going to have the time to be on the layout package all the time.
Therefore, for SMPS layout, a package like Eagle is needed which is simple enough to be quick to use for people like SMPS designers who just don’t have the time for learning a huge “high end” PCB layout package.

- - - Updated - - -

As you know, an SMPS needs to be layed out by an SMPS designer, as otherwise the high di/dt current loops can be messed up and it can all go very very wrong…not to mention the thermal aspects of PCB layout. You cannot expect an SMPS designer to be fully competent on a high-end PCB layout package...however, you can expect them to be fully conversant with Eagle.

Ditto RF amplifier designer

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

My notional specialism is analogue and mixed signal, and yes, I am fully expected to be at least minimally competent with at least some of the more common professional tools (I can hum the tune in Dxd/Pads, Altium, Orcad), Doesn't make me a layout specialist, but I can draw a simple board in any of them at least as quickly as I ever could in Eagle.

Actually the RF guys do tend to push the limits on the high end tools....
Density may be low, but impedance control matters as does things like integration with 2 & 3D field solvers for the simulation of microwave matching networks @ 10GHz the impedance discontinuity due to the geometry of a via can be a real problem, especially if you have failed to provide a nearby path between the two reference planes, the better tools can constrain that stuff.

I would suggest that if a PSU designer cannot hand off a design to a layout person without having a reasonable expectation of getting a sane layout back then there is either a documentation problem or you are hiring pony layout folks.

One of the things the good stuff does well is integrating rules export from the schematic capture stage, so you as the schematic guy can create net classes for things like 'high di/dt', 'high dv/dt' and 'low noise', then label groups of nets as appropriate and can then set net length limits, clearances between them, net widths and isolation distances.
This is far more often a documentation problem then anything else...

Schematic designers should work closely with the layout team, but they do NOT usually need to be the same person.

Regards, Dan.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

A SMPS can be laid out by any competent PCB designer..... I do them all the time and don't have any problems.
A simple board can be laid out with any PCB package, learning both the intricies of PCB layout and the design package you are using is the key hear.
|Instead of booing about it get your head down and learn, that's what I have had to do and I am still doing 30 years after moving from test/electronic design to PCB layout.
At the end of the day PCB design is 90% placement and that is a skill that is developed, the rest is joining the dots (if your placement is correct) with finesse (track widths, current capacity, EMC etc. etc.

The “high-end” PCB layout packages are only useable to people who…
1…have very good I.T. skills, akin to those of a Compute Hacker, or…
2…are “in the know”, or….
3…have lots of highly expensive Applications visits.

Click to expand...

Rubbish, I have the IT skills of a goat, never had an expensive application visit (don't even know what one is) I will admit to being "in the know" because I read manuals and play about with the software so I learn its functionality. And finally if I go for interviews I tell them exactly where my skills are and if a new design package is involved tell them I need training and time to become familiar with the package. I have and still do work hard at my choses profession and I am always studying and learning new things.....

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

Two days is unrealistic for a high end PCB program. A month would be difficult and two months more realistic just for a simple layout.

Eagle is a point and shoot PCB program that is clumsy to use. It is one step up from using paper and pencil. So the learning curve is low.

Altium is a high end program that is exceptionally difficult to use because of its DOS roots. They did not want to lose their DOS users when windows came out so they kept all of the DOS functionality/commands and tacked on the windows stuff.

I think across the board, all PCB programs have poor documentation. It can be fairly easy to layout a PCB in a high end package but you are never told how to do it the simple manual way. It does not enter there miniscule minds that for small jobs when trying to learn the program you do not need all there wiz bang features and you just want to get the job done and move on. Another reason is the program is under constant revision and the manual needs constant expensive revision also, as in dedicated person.

No one is going to introduce bugs in there software on purpose. Altium lost a good size of their user base because of their bugs.

And like FVM said, it takes a full time guy to use and remember the high end PCB packages if you want to use the features of the software.

I agree with Andre. "I cite for example the case of Protel 99 and Altium1x that, although in some way have the same DNA shared, the usability of both is quite different. While in the first case we can quickly create a project in the second case this already requires a little more patience."

If Protel 99 was updated a little for surface mount , modern windows, and a few features it would be a killer mid ground program.

BTW, whoever only gave you two days to learn a new PCB program and make a board is an idiot and you can quote me!

I am still doing 30 years after moving from test/electronic design to PCB layout.

Click to expand...

I have worked in 25 different uk based electronics co's and rarely if ever is the PCB layout guy an electronics designer or ex-designer..i think you don't appreciate that most PCB layout staff just don't have your design experience , and they struggle immensely with stuff like layout of SMPS.

- - - Updated - - -

Eagle is a point and shoot PCB program that is clumsy to use. It is one step up from using paper and pencil.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but sorry I couldn't disagree more, eagle is by far the best pcb layout tool I have ever used

- - - Updated - - -

A SMPS can be laid out by any competent PCB designer..... I do them all the time and don't have any problems.

Click to expand...

Marce you are of exceptional ability, most layouters don’t have anything like your ability, if there were loads of people like yourself around then there wouldn't be scores of companies in UK desperately short of layout staff, which is how it is now. PCB packages need to be useable by the majority of available staff, not just by those very few exceptionals, like yourself

- - - Updated - - -

I think across the board, all PCB programs have poor documentation. It can be fairly easy to layout a PCB in a high end package but you are never told how to do it the simple manual way. It does not enter there miniscule minds that for small jobs when trying to learn the program you do not need all there wiz bang features and you just want to get the job done and move on.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.

Instead of booing about it get your head down and learn

Click to expand...

..not possible , I have been sacked..and I cant get my head down and learn a high end PCB package at home because I cant afford one.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway why would I want to learn a high end pcb package when eagle can do all the boards I ever do absolutely fine.
Once someone has learned a high end PCB package, they then defend it to the hilt regardless of whether its good or bad..after all, once you’ve learned it and are using it, it’s a nice little earner to say the least…and due to the ridiculous difficulty of learning these high end pcb packages, you can be guaranteed that you’ll never suffer much competition in the labour market, so yes , I can quite see why someone who has ended up learning it would say it’s the be all and end all.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

Treez, when you say you were sacked what did you mean? Did you get fired from your job and are unemployed or was this just a small job given to you at your regular job and they do not want you to lay out PCB anymore.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

There layout guy retired so they invited me in to hopefully be there full time guy. They told me to update some obselete components in a schematic and adjust library and PCB accordingly, but I didn’t get anywhere with it, so was sent home. I have now got a job doing lighting, elsewhere.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

Was this the place you were doing the smps work you have been posting here.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

SMPS layout is very simple, like anything break it down into elements and it all becomes clear, the main thing is separating the AC (switching loops, on and off) from the DC parts of the supply. Always make things simple and keep them simple... you can manage the simple bits and it will build up into a complex finished board.
Any PCB designer who is laying out SMPS should learn what they are doing, most controllers have data sheets and also evaluation designs... read them and you have a guide to what you are doing. Today a PCB designer has to be more aware of what they are doing, understand signal flow etc. its part of the job these days as far as I am concerned, get the information and study... its a requirement of the job, I often post a text file with a esoteric mix of what I consider some basic links of what you need to have at least a basic understanding off.

Re: Why are simple PCBs difficult to lay out in "High-end" PCB layout packages?

SMPS layout is very simple

Click to expand...

..it is simple to yourself, it is simple to myself if done in eagle....it is not simple at all to the vast majority of high end PCB package operators. Not in Uk anyway.
I will give you the address of the RF company in Northern UK who are currently having a heck of a job trying to fill their Altium job...you can tell them how simple the job is...they wont believe you
(this is the place where I just came out of after failing the 2 day test)