Thoughts and opinions on Puls0nix ?

[panalog9]

pulsonix symbols

Hi All -

I've been playing around a little with Puls0nix for a few days now, and it really does look good. I'm usually a Pr0tel 99SE user, and have found that the new DXP2004 really looks nice, and has a few very good new features, but on the whole, it takes longer to do things. So I'm looking around at other packages. Puls0nix, C@dstar, P@DS 2004.

Puls0nix has a very nicely done library system. There are schematic symbols, footprints, schematic doc symbols and pcb doc symbols. On top of that is the "Part", which links the symbols together.

You can define a part to have several sch symbols if you want, but more importantly it can define several footprints. The Part system lets you map the sch symbol pins for each footprint differently. For example, a micro with 5 ADC channels in DIP format and 8 ADC channels in SOIC format can both use the same sch symbol.

You can also create 0-pin parts, like bolts, nuts, washers etc. These can be associated with a part or with a footprint. So a 7805 regulator in to92 footprint has nothing, while the TO220 footprint has a screw, washer and nut associated with it. It's nice to be able to associate the box/enclosure part to the design without the kluges needed with Pr0tel.

The default colors suck. Maybe I'm just more attuned to 99SE. Easy enough to change. Drawing arcs is cumbersome - 99SE is much nicer. No easy way to do radial placement of parts. There are a few other annoying things, but thay may just be me being set in my ways.

Anyone else looked at Puls0nix in any detail ? What thoughts and opinions do you have ?

-pana

 

[mkbs]

I have seen Puls@nix and I have tried to work with it.
Is very simple to use, intuitive with few bugs.
I thinks that it's useful for all people that needs a "basic" PCB (under 1000 pins) with High Voltage - Low Voltage and other constraints.
But if you have to do complex PCB I have some doubt !!!
E.g. the Push&shove don't work so well, the gerber output would have to be improved and when you try to move a trace close to another seem that is glued and is difficult to move.
I prefer C@dstar for dense PCB (e.g with Cadstar Bronze L4 Tools) because it have a real Interactive Push&Shove,Bus routing, river&memory routing, a good gerber output and so on.... more or less with the same price.

 

[panalog9]

I'm not a motherboard designer (phew!) so I don't need to do incredibly dense 12-layer boards

I didn't realize C@dstar was that cheap. I'll have to take a closer look at it. Do you have any sources for good tutorials and docs for it ?

 

[rauol]

8) Pulsonix is trying to marry the simple easy to use interface of Eagle with more functionality like protel, it has support for full manual placement as well has a shape based autorouter licensed from Bartels Gmbh. may be it will take some time to resolve bugs and come with better solutions. but i think it will be considered as one of the good PCB design tools in the future.

 

[mkbs]

Is not necessary to have a 12Layer motherboard to have a hard PCB design ! isn't it ??
If you compare the products with the same features,the price isn't so different!! (2000pins with autoruote.)
Have you never heard a CadStar seller ?

 

[mkw]

Hi.
I´m my opinion Pulsonix is an great PCB tool, i´m using Pulsonix to make boards with one and two route layers, i thing that it´s easy of use and very usefull, i use Specctra to route the board, but Pulsonix inside router is good, but of course that specctra is better.