Why are poorly supported pcb layout packages so popular?

[marce]

IDF is a better way of interfacing with a 3D mechanical design package.
Again I disagree with you view on CAD, the three dominant EDA providers in the world and their users don't seem to suffer like you say.
As to the rest, whether its PCB CAD mechanical CAD word, Photoshop, Visio unless you are willing to learn and master the tool (tools) you use you will never be a craftsman at any discipline, there are no free rides but hard work and perseverance will reward you.

Another question regarding PCB design, how aware are you and how many have you referenced or read of the IPC specifications on PCBs? These are another critical source of information for all aspects of PCB design.

 

[keith1200rs]

There seems to be too much emphasis on "idiots" using the software. Maybe that is the problem. In my experience powerful software can take a lot of learning. It takes effort. You are rewarded later when you have put in that effort. If you don't want to learn how to use the software then don't use it, but you may be prevented from doing some work because of the limitations of your tools. As has already been said (if not in this thread then in the other related one) - there are no free rides, you need to put in the effort to get the results.

Keith

 

[123jack]

just an FYI

You can get stunning looking 3D images for free eagle but it is quite a bit of work to do so.
I've worked it out now and it really is good if you have the time to do it.

 

[treez]

there are no free rides, you need to put in the effort to get the results

I agree, but with Eagle, it was far far easier to do a 4 layer board with 2 smps, one 64 pin micro etc etc....far far easier than any other package.
If it can be made so easy in Eagle.......then why not in other packages too?
(once again i'm not talking about computer motherboards here)

 

[marce]

I am not really interested in stunning 3D images, more for accuracy of PCBs etc fitting in the cases, though I have done 3D models in both Inventor and Solidworks using proper materials so they can be rendered, but apart from the odd marketing pictures its a bit of a waste of time, having a basic space envelope is faster, and just use fancy models for connectors and critical components that require careful alignment such as LED's.

All ECAD is the same.
Create a symbol, footprint and parts library.
Put symbols on schematic
Join the dots.
Transfer to PCB.
Place components within board outline.
Join the dots.

What is hard about it, the basic tools in ALL packages are the same, and for doing basic PCB's you use the basic tools...

 

[Mattylad]

I give up!

I'm going off to write some dummies guides for the major PCB CAD packages.

I'll start with.

Instruction 1.
Open box.
instruction 2,
place PC in it.
instruction 3.
Return to supplier with note saying I'm too dense to be able to use it.
instruction 4.
lay out PCB using tape & pads.

Replied in wrong thread - but then as there are several along the same lines we all know which is which.

 

[Ice-Tea]

I have to disagree on the 3D part. To me it increases the intuitive feel of a PCB, even if no interaction with a housing or whatever is required.

 

[treez]

Ice-tea..well, I find Managers like to open a pcb file and see a 3d, just to chek they've opened the right one....

What would be good, is if there was one 3D software which interfaced with all the PCB Layout software packages, and allowed collision avoidance even if only collides/doesn't collide...i'm sure a Software Engineer will tell us if this is possible.

 

[marce]

Ice-tea..well, I find Managers like to open a pcb file and see a 3d, just to chek they've opened the right one....

What would be good, is if there was one 3D software which interfaced with all the PCB Layout software packages, and allowed collision avoidance even if only collides/doesn't collide...i'm sure a Software Engineer will tell us if this is possible.

The IDF interface as I have already mentioned, ALL the major 3D packages will import IDF, you can create realistic models, you can create an assembly of the PCB and fit it in your case, you can move components that clash and transfer this back to the PCB package.

As to 3D in the PCB package, routing is a 2D process and when I am routing I am concentrating on the electrical requirements, so the £D would just be in my way. It is there for checking fit.

To me it increases the intuitive feel of a PCB

to me that is seeing the current loops and signal paths in my mind as I put the traces down, not pretty little 3D Images.
I do collision checks etc in 3D land, either a bespoke 3D package such as Inventor, or using the 3D add on to the software I use, and for SIV I use the SIV add on, a tool for each part of the design cycle, so I can concentrate on the job at hand,

- - - Updated - - -

I give up!

I'm going off to write some dummies guides for the major PCB CAD packages.

I'll start with.

Instruction 1.
Open box.
instruction 2,
place PC in it.
instruction 3.
Return to supplier with note saying I'm too dense to be able to use it.
instruction 4.
lay out PCB using tape & pads.

Replied in wrong thread - but then as there are several along the same lines we all know which is which.

Or buy some professional software, pay for maintenance and phone up Mattylad with inane problems twice a day, that's what I did in the past:grin:

- - - Updated - - -

Ice-tea..well, I find Managers like to open a pcb file and see a 3d, just to chek they've opened the right one....

This is a joke, yes...
If not then I am seriously worried, the first thing that comes to mind is document control or information control if you want to be picky, the second thing is control of information...yes its that important, sometime referred to as revision control etc. This is so fundamental to the that I cant really believe you have posted that comment, how do you create BOMS of assemblies how do you manage changes, how do you ever design and control anything.
Remember PCB design is just joining the dots with finesse.

 

[123jack]

I am not really interested in stunning 3D images, more for accuracy of PCBs etc fitting in the cases, though I have done 3D models in both Inventor and Solidworks using proper materials so they can be rendered, but apart from the odd marketing pictures its ...

Sure I agree totally. I just thought I'd mention it because it doesn't get much publicity and could be useful to someone.
(Its also fun to play with if you're into that sort of thing)

 

[marce]

It does look nice, and is the best option for 3D collision checking.
And having used the 3D I agree it can be more fun than PCB layout, and when customers are shown round it looks very techy and impresses them.

 

[treez]

some of the high end packages, as you know, allow interfacing with an actual 3D program which allows a user to lierally step through cross sections of the inside of the enclosure so that they can see exactly where the collision is happening. This is very effective. Does anyone know how many and which of the high end packages can do this.
I believe eagle can do a "fit or no fit" analysis, which isn't quite the same as being able to "walk about inside the enclosure" and see where the collisions are.

So does anyone please know which pcb packages integrate with that high end 3D collision avoidance package.?

 

[123jack]

treez - high end...
Once you get to that level of complexity you start to enter the world of simulation and that gets expensive.
I expect you'd have to step up into one of the top 5 packages to get any reasonably reliable features of that nature.
At the very top you get companies like BAE systems doing full blown simulation of things like nuclear submarines
with simulated mechanics and high tolerance fiting and wear modules, finite element analysis and so on fully integrated
with electronics and mechanical design and VR modules.
A little further down the tree you get the products you or I would probably call "top of the tree" but you are still
talking of paying large sums of money. You already know their names I think.

There are some integrated packages that allow a small amount of 3D. As well as eagle I have a package here called easy-pc.
In spite of the name it isnt a "basic package" as such but it is possibly good value for schools with limited very specific products to design
or occasional small time commercial use (which is why I bought it).
It has basic 3D built in with real time rotation but its not very sophisticated. It does allow a reasonable degree
of 3D use to visualise your product and (in spite of my previous comment) you can gain placement confidence from
it. But no more than the bodge for eagle - its just easier and less pretty than eagle
For various reasons it isnt a product I'd invest in for long term use though. I stopped using it in favour of eagle myself.
This is not to say I do a lot of design so others may have more up to date comments - it tends to come and go in spurts with me.

I guess maybe the on board collision "identification" if I can call them that, in packages like easy-pc are useful - but as for "high end 3D collision avoidence" - perhaps
you could explain more what your requirements and limitations are? Collision could mean anything from fitting into an enclosure snugly without other issues (just fitting is seldom enough
in my experience) to avoiding on board rf coupling and any package capable of doing your enclosure detection is probably any one of the top ones.

I guess the same goes for this as with any other software product - start with how much money you can spend as your primary
search engine entry then look for products that pop out with the features you want. Then ask people if that particular product
works how you want it to.

 

[pinout]

Another option (not yet explored by me!) is to use DesignSpark PCB (based upon easyPC) and use the new DesignSpark Mechanical.
This appears to give you the option of adding 'true' mechanical 3D component models from the RS Components website and get a good 3D view.

**broken link removed**

All I need is "more time....."

 

[treez]

ok Thanks, I believe Cadstar interfaces to "boardmodeller lite", and this allows a pcb designed in cadstar to be put inside the enclosure, and one can then "walk around inside the enclosure" and see where the components are colliding with the enclosure.
Can altium interface with boardmodeller lite (Or do a similar thing)......?
Also , all the others like Mentor, Pulsonix, etc etc?

 

[marce]

IDF STEP files etc. etc. Its not new we have been doing it (fit and collision check, along with SIV, Thermal, EMC for at least two weeks).
When doing collision checks you do not walk round, the software does it for you and highlight the areas, so you can examine the problem areas. pick up your mobile phone and look how tightly things are packed.
Inane.

 

[treez]

boardmodeller lite really does make it like you are "literally shrunk down and allowed to walk round inside the enclosure" and see where you've got room, see where you're tight etc etc.
I think what you're talking about is "Fit or No Fit", and tell where the problem area is......and even Eagle does that.

 

[ArticCynda]

I've tried out various PCB layout packages, and despite its occasional crashes I find it by far the most enjoyable software to work with. Once you've built up your own library of footprints on top of Altium's standard library -- including colorful 3D models -- then doing the layout of a board is ridiculously easy. For me personally, the forward and back annotation features as well as the customizability of the design rules are Altium's most powerful features.

Practically I also find it extremely convenient how Altium allows you to define the board shape, including mounting holes, slots etc. from an Inventor part. This makes cooperation with the enclosure design guys so much easier.

 

[treez]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ9K6mtnV2Q

..this shows designspark has a free mechanical 3d package which looks about as good as it gets..designspark is also free.

 

[mtwieg]

I've used eagle happily for about five years now, but recently I've been frustrated by some limitations. In particular, it's a huge PITA to do via-in-pad without setting off the DRC checker, and it doesn't support soldermask defined pads at all as far as I can tell. This makes it very frustrating to layout tiny LGA packages. Would designspark handle these any better?

Also last time I checked eagle's follow-me interactive router was still terrible. A few years back I "procured" a copy of altium to try out, and man their interactive routing was pretty slick, though not totally necessary. I've yet to see any free CAD that comes close to that.