elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - EDA CAD Electronics - advice on selecting new PCB design package
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Dave Boland
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:57 pm
All,
For the record, David Brown (see below) and I are not the
same David, but we seem to think a lot alike -- must be the
name!
gEDA community, we don't mean to gang up on you, and we
really do appreciate all you have done, though you may be
feeling a little thin skinned by now.
So let me suggest the gEDA community put together a roadmap
showing where you want to go and post it. My sense of
things (yes, this is a rerun) is that you do need to focus
on some key items:
* better integration of tools
* consistent user interface
* easy installation of the entire gEDA suite
* the dummies book on gEDA that can be the re-packaged CC
articles for now. You may want to update them.
* and of course a Windows version
I understand you will need some help -- so ask for it. I
have to believe that there are other people that may be able
to help that will do so.
See you all next Thur., or as I like to say (kiddingly)
"gE-DAY". I'm such a stinker!!!!
David Boland
David Brown wrote:
Quote:
DJ Delorie wrote:
"Lukas Louw" <louw1_at_att.net> writes:
but switching to GEDA will definitely be a step backwards in
productivity for me.
Why?
Since you are in the mode for comments, I'll add mine. They are from a
perspective of someone who has not tried gEDA, and only seen its website
and other information (such as threads in this newsgroup). I'm having a
look at different EDA suites at the moment, and planning to test them
with a small card. Please view this post as constructive criticism,
rather than just plain criticism - gEDA clearly has a lot of work behind
it and a lot of potential, but it is needs a lot of work if your average
designer is going to be able to use it.
First off, I like the idea of open source EDA tools. I use plenty of
open source software (such as gcc for a half dozen different embedded
targets, and Open Office or LaTeX for documentation). The key benefits
I see in being open source, for something like EDA tools (where neither
I, nor most other users would want to play with the source code) are the
open file formats and freedom from node-locking and other such license
restrictions. Regarding file formats - this is a major pain in the EDA
branch, with every vendor having their own closely guarded file formats
to ensure you can't easily switch to a different vendor. Like most
professionals, I don't have a problem with paying appropriate prices for
tools - but I do have a problem with paying money for tools and then
spending days fighting with a vendor to get license codes and dongles to
work correctly, and then days more to try and get it working at my home
office as well as the main office.
There are several problems with gEDA, as I see it. First off, there is
the lack of integration - it appears to be a random collection of
loosely related programs, rather than a complete solution. As a user, I
would not want to have to figure out which command-line program is used
to generate netlists from a schematic design, and which parameters are
used to get a format that PCB likes. Having the parts as separate
executable programs is a good thing - not everyone wants to use all the
parts, and may want to use alternatives for some parts of the design
flow, and command-line programs are much better suited to batch
processing or other automation. But they should work better together.
The second big issue is the appearance of the programs. If a potential
user is not put off by the myriad of assorted independent sub-projects,
then they certainly will be put off when they look at the screenshots.
The Xaw PCB screenshot looks like something from an early 1990's DOS
program, while the "new" GTK brings it to the level of Win 3.1 days.
There is just no way most potential users are going to view gEDA as
anything other than specialist "nerdy" software for the kind of users
who thinks lynx is a suitable browser for every day use, and that
WindowMaker is a poor window manager because it wastes too much
resources on eye-candy.
The third issue is lack of Windows versions. Like it or not, that's
what most designers use. Too many essential programs are windows-only
for anything else to be practical for most users. Cygwin X is not a
solution - it is arguably worse than useless, as it might delay efforts
to make a proper port. While I couldn't work without cygwin, it brings
new levels of extreme to dll hell, and the X server is unsuitable for
real work. Any windows ports should therefore use mingw, or even Visual
C++ - most serious cross-platform software supports one or both of these
as their main windows compiler.
As it stands, gEDA appears more as a half-finished programming project
that happens to be useful for EDA work, rather than an EDA design suite.
Just look at the FAQs - they are much more concerned with compilation
and software libraries than actually using the software! It is a rare
user who does professional EDA design and is happy downloading libraries
and following compile instructions - and such people seldom have much
time to spare to try gEDA.
What really needs to be done is for someone to go through what is needed
for a practical EDA suite that people will use. Pick a decent
cross-platform toolkit (wxWidgets, gtk 2 or the GPL'ed version of QT are
about the only sensible choices). Re-write the GUIs of all the main
apps (I know PCB has a gtk version - consider it a prototype and throw
it out) with a view to consistency, integration and ease of use. Even
better would be to do it in a language like Python. Keep all the
back-end stuff that you can - I'm sure that is fine. The different
parts don't necessarily have to be in one monolithic program - but they
should look like they come from the same vendor!
Have a look at Kicad. I haven't yet tried it, but while gEDA was thrown
out of my list of candidates for testing (along with software that
required ordering demo CDs from distributors) at the first round, I will
definitely be trying out Kicad. It might not do all that I need, but it
sure looks like a solution, at least for small boards.
Oh, and add an autorouter. I realise that this is hardly a minor
request, but it's an essential for many users.
mvh.,
David
"Lukas Louw" <louw1_at_att.net> writes:
but switching to GEDA will definitely be a step backwards in
productivity for me.
Why?
Since you are in the mode for comments, I'll add mine. They are from a
perspective of someone who has not tried gEDA, and only seen its website
and other information (such as threads in this newsgroup). I'm having a
look at different EDA suites at the moment, and planning to test them
with a small card. Please view this post as constructive criticism,
rather than just plain criticism - gEDA clearly has a lot of work behind
it and a lot of potential, but it is needs a lot of work if your average
designer is going to be able to use it.
First off, I like the idea of open source EDA tools. I use plenty of
open source software (such as gcc for a half dozen different embedded
targets, and Open Office or LaTeX for documentation). The key benefits
I see in being open source, for something like EDA tools (where neither
I, nor most other users would want to play with the source code) are the
open file formats and freedom from node-locking and other such license
restrictions. Regarding file formats - this is a major pain in the EDA
branch, with every vendor having their own closely guarded file formats
to ensure you can't easily switch to a different vendor. Like most
professionals, I don't have a problem with paying appropriate prices for
tools - but I do have a problem with paying money for tools and then
spending days fighting with a vendor to get license codes and dongles to
work correctly, and then days more to try and get it working at my home
office as well as the main office.
There are several problems with gEDA, as I see it. First off, there is
the lack of integration - it appears to be a random collection of
loosely related programs, rather than a complete solution. As a user, I
would not want to have to figure out which command-line program is used
to generate netlists from a schematic design, and which parameters are
used to get a format that PCB likes. Having the parts as separate
executable programs is a good thing - not everyone wants to use all the
parts, and may want to use alternatives for some parts of the design
flow, and command-line programs are much better suited to batch
processing or other automation. But they should work better together.
The second big issue is the appearance of the programs. If a potential
user is not put off by the myriad of assorted independent sub-projects,
then they certainly will be put off when they look at the screenshots.
The Xaw PCB screenshot looks like something from an early 1990's DOS
program, while the "new" GTK brings it to the level of Win 3.1 days.
There is just no way most potential users are going to view gEDA as
anything other than specialist "nerdy" software for the kind of users
who thinks lynx is a suitable browser for every day use, and that
WindowMaker is a poor window manager because it wastes too much
resources on eye-candy.
The third issue is lack of Windows versions. Like it or not, that's
what most designers use. Too many essential programs are windows-only
for anything else to be practical for most users. Cygwin X is not a
solution - it is arguably worse than useless, as it might delay efforts
to make a proper port. While I couldn't work without cygwin, it brings
new levels of extreme to dll hell, and the X server is unsuitable for
real work. Any windows ports should therefore use mingw, or even Visual
C++ - most serious cross-platform software supports one or both of these
as their main windows compiler.
As it stands, gEDA appears more as a half-finished programming project
that happens to be useful for EDA work, rather than an EDA design suite.
Just look at the FAQs - they are much more concerned with compilation
and software libraries than actually using the software! It is a rare
user who does professional EDA design and is happy downloading libraries
and following compile instructions - and such people seldom have much
time to spare to try gEDA.
What really needs to be done is for someone to go through what is needed
for a practical EDA suite that people will use. Pick a decent
cross-platform toolkit (wxWidgets, gtk 2 or the GPL'ed version of QT are
about the only sensible choices). Re-write the GUIs of all the main
apps (I know PCB has a gtk version - consider it a prototype and throw
it out) with a view to consistency, integration and ease of use. Even
better would be to do it in a language like Python. Keep all the
back-end stuff that you can - I'm sure that is fine. The different
parts don't necessarily have to be in one monolithic program - but they
should look like they come from the same vendor!
Have a look at Kicad. I haven't yet tried it, but while gEDA was thrown
out of my list of candidates for testing (along with software that
required ordering demo CDs from distributors) at the first round, I will
definitely be trying out Kicad. It might not do all that I need, but it
sure looks like a solution, at least for small boards.
Oh, and add an autorouter. I realise that this is hardly a minor
request, but it's an essential for many users.
mvh.,
David
kai-martin knaak
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:16 pm
Stuart Brorson schrieb:
Quote:
Lots of engineers
out there use gEDA because it is open, zero-cost, stable, and useful to
them. OTOH, they don't use it because it was sold to the IT manager after
a tennis game with the regional sales manager, or because it is dictated
by corporate policy,
out there use gEDA because it is open, zero-cost, stable, and useful to
them. OTOH, they don't use it because it was sold to the IT manager after
a tennis game with the regional sales manager, or because it is dictated
by corporate policy,
If my little start-up ever takes of to employ engineers, I will dictate
gEDA upon them (SCNR ;-)
---<(kaimartin)>---
--
Kai-Martin Knaak
http://lilalaser.dyndns.org/blog
DJ Delorie
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:05 pm
David Brown <david_at_westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:
Quote:
Since you are in the mode for comments, I'll add mine.
I'm always in the mode for useful feedback :-)
Quote:
The Xaw PCB screenshot looks like something from an early 1990's DOS
program, while the "new" GTK brings it to the level of Win 3.1 days.
program, while the "new" GTK brings it to the level of Win 3.1 days.
Hmmm, Gtk is the latest linux GUI; what about it makes it not "seem"
modern? Just eye candy?
Quote:
The third issue is lack of Windows versions.
Yup, well noted.
Quote:
(I know PCB has a gtk version - consider it a prototype and throw it
out)
out)
Too late. I committed those changes this week; it now has two main
GUIs (Gtk and Motif) with options for more, including a potential
native Windows GUI. Not much *practical* change from before, but from
a design standpoint, this is a stepping stone to Win32 and MacOS
versions.
Quote:
Oh, and add an autorouter.
We've had one for a while. It isn't topological, but it is at least
gridless. We had a grid autorouter before that.
DJ Delorie
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:10 pm
Dave Boland <NODARNSPAMdboland9_at_stny.rr.com> writes:
Quote:
gEDA community, we don't mean to gang up on you, and we really do
appreciate all you have done, though you may be feeling a little thin
skinned by now.
appreciate all you have done, though you may be feeling a little thin
skinned by now.
I've been online since 300 baud modems were "wow that's fast". My
skin is titanium plated carbon fiber by now.
Quote:
So let me suggest the gEDA community put together a roadmap showing
where you want to go and post it.
where you want to go and post it.
As part of the HID conversion, we added a to-do to PCB at least (I'm
most involved in PCB development). My personal (i.e. greed-based)
roadmap is thusly: First, work on bringing docs up to date. Second,
improving the trace optimizer. Third, getting back to my own projects
;-)
I'd like to see a Win32 GUI on PCB soon, though. I've been told
there's a wxWidgets GUI in the works too.
Quote:
I understand you will need some help -- so ask for it. I have to
believe that there are other people that may be able to help that
will do so.
believe that there are other people that may be able to help that
will do so.
At the moment, this kind of feedback is very helpful. After we've
settled (a lot of development is going on at the moment), the best
kind of help would be "try it and see, let us know what's needed
next".
David Brown
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:00 pm
DJ Delorie wrote:
Quote:
David Brown <david_at_westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:
Since you are in the mode for comments, I'll add mine.
I'm always in the mode for useful feedback :-)
The Xaw PCB screenshot looks like something from an early 1990's DOS
program, while the "new" GTK brings it to the level of Win 3.1 days.
Hmmm, Gtk is the latest linux GUI; what about it makes it not "seem"
modern? Just eye candy?
Since you are in the mode for comments, I'll add mine.
I'm always in the mode for useful feedback :-)
The Xaw PCB screenshot looks like something from an early 1990's DOS
program, while the "new" GTK brings it to the level of Win 3.1 days.
Hmmm, Gtk is the latest linux GUI; what about it makes it not "seem"
modern? Just eye candy?
GTK 2 is certainly a modern toolkit, and is the standard toolkit for
Gnome applications (and also, I believe, for Firefox and Thunderbird?).
Personally, I feel GTK apps often look a bit "clunkier" than wxWindows
or QT. But maybe that's just the Gnome style (after all, wxWindows will
often use GTK when running under linux). Maybe it is also that GTK apps
often look slightly out of place on Windows, while wxWidgits uses native
widgets when possible.
But no, it's not about eye candy (I've never been a fan of excessive eye
candy). It's about following standard design practices, and giving a
layout that looks like it's got the required information and controls in
an appropriate place. I'm basing this on the single screenshot from the
geda website, by the way - if things have changed substantially without
updating the website, then maybe you have other screenshots that give a
better impression (I think the gEDA image problem could be as much to do
with the website(s) as with the programs - why on earth is the Xaw
screenshot still there?). The window layout looks like it has been
designed by someone who has never used a gui program before. Judging
from the Xaw screenshot, the GTK version has kept as much as possible of
the Xaw design with no regard for changes in standards, style and usage.
For example, I'd expect a menu bar to be in the same position as the
menu bar on every other program I use. I'd expect a set of toolbars
with configurable buttons (with a nicer button label font, if you want
labels on the buttons at all), which could be docked or floating
according to preference. It's a little difficult to describe, and
perhaps I'm biased from having used the one EDA program (Protel 9
too
much and thinking that everything else looks funny, but the GTK
screenshot strikes me as being merely a slightly nicer version of the
Xaw screenshot, which looks like it comes from the early days of
computer graphics, when every app had its own style for every widget.
Quote:
The third issue is lack of Windows versions.
Yup, well noted.
(I know PCB has a gtk version - consider it a prototype and throw it
out)
Too late. I committed those changes this week; it now has two main
GUIs (Gtk and Motif) with options for more, including a potential
native Windows GUI. Not much *practical* change from before, but from
a design standpoint, this is a stepping stone to Win32 and MacOS
versions.
Yup, well noted.
(I know PCB has a gtk version - consider it a prototype and throw it
out)
Too late. I committed those changes this week; it now has two main
GUIs (Gtk and Motif) with options for more, including a potential
native Windows GUI. Not much *practical* change from before, but from
a design standpoint, this is a stepping stone to Win32 and MacOS
versions.
Is there any reason for having several GUIs, instead of a single good
cross-platform gui? At best, you are going to end up with a lot of
duplication of effort, and at worst you'll get GUIs that look completely
different on different platforms, with significantly different
functionality.
Quote:
Oh, and add an autorouter.
We've had one for a while. It isn't topological, but it is at least
gridless. We had a grid autorouter before that.
We've had one for a while. It isn't topological, but it is at least
gridless. We had a grid autorouter before that.
So you do - sorry I didn't spot that earlier.
DJ Delorie
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:51 pm
David Brown <david_at_westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:
Quote:
I'm basing this on the single screenshot from the geda website, by
the way
the way
The Gtk GUI still looks mostly like that. The new Motif HID looks more
like this: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/screenshot.png (although the
status line has more in it now).
The Motif HID is new so I haven't had much time to play with
look-n-feel. I kept it minimalist on purpose.
Quote:
why on earth is the Xaw screenshot still there?
The Xaw GUI is, for some people, significanly faster than the Gtk one
on older hardware. We kept a branch for it so those users could still
use it.
Quote:
I'd expect a set of toolbars with configurable buttons
Good suggestion.
Quote:
(with a nicer button label font, if you want labels on the buttons at
all),
all),
Gtk fonts are configurable on a user-level basis, just like Windows.
The Motif HID uses standard .Xdefaults, so you can set the fonts to
whatever you want (even a different font for each button).
Quote:
Is there any reason for having several GUIs, instead of a single good
cross-platform gui?
cross-platform gui?
A couple. First, lock-in. We already went through the pain of
changing the GUI layer once. Part of the goals behind the HID project
was to *hide* the GUI from the core, as the old gui code polluted the
core a lot, which made it harder to work on the core code. By
isolating the gui code behind an application-specific API, core
development is easier and GUI development stays "clean" of the core.
Second, we actually have eight HIDs at the moment, only two of which
are GUIs. Having two GUI hids proves that the API is properly
designed. We use the same API to handle exporting, printing,
importing, wizards, extensions, etc.
Third, we've discovered that not everyone LIKES the same layout.
Windows users shouldn't be burdened with the Unix conventions. Motif
users shouldn't be burdened by the Gtk style guides. Etc. Some users
want lots of buttons and knobs in the main window (like your toolbar).
Some users want as much screen space dedicated to their board as
possible. HID lets us support different *styles* of GUIs, not just
different toolkits.
Fourth, there's no such thing as a "single good cross-platform gui".
There are acceptable cross-platform guis, but they all result in some
compromise. With HID, you can always take advantage of whatever
extras your native toolkit offers, without having to dumb down to the
least common denominator.
Quote:
At best, you are going to end up with a lot of
duplication of effort,
duplication of effort,
There's some duplicated effort, yes. We try to keep the duplicated
parts in the core, if they can be made gui-independent.
Quote:
and at worst you'll get GUIs that look completely different on
different platforms, with significantly different functionality.
different platforms, with significantly different functionality.
Well, that's one possiblility we consider a bonus :-)
Imagine being able to plug in a pads-compatibility HID if you're a
pads house, or an orcad compatiblity HID if you're an orcad house.
David Brown
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:49 pm
DJ Delorie wrote:
Quote:
David Brown <david_at_westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:
I'm basing this on the single screenshot from the geda website, by
the way
The Gtk GUI still looks mostly like that. The new Motif HID looks more
like this: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/screenshot.png (although the
status line has more in it now).
The Motif HID is new so I haven't had much time to play with
look-n-feel. I kept it minimalist on purpose.
why on earth is the Xaw screenshot still there?
The Xaw GUI is, for some people, significanly faster than the Gtk one
on older hardware. We kept a branch for it so those users could still
use it.
I'd expect a set of toolbars with configurable buttons
Good suggestion.
(with a nicer button label font, if you want labels on the buttons at
all),
Gtk fonts are configurable on a user-level basis, just like Windows.
The Motif HID uses standard .Xdefaults, so you can set the fonts to
whatever you want (even a different font for each button).
Is there any reason for having several GUIs, instead of a single good
cross-platform gui?
A couple. First, lock-in. We already went through the pain of
changing the GUI layer once. Part of the goals behind the HID project
was to *hide* the GUI from the core, as the old gui code polluted the
core a lot, which made it harder to work on the core code. By
isolating the gui code behind an application-specific API, core
development is easier and GUI development stays "clean" of the core.
Second, we actually have eight HIDs at the moment, only two of which
are GUIs. Having two GUI hids proves that the API is properly
designed. We use the same API to handle exporting, printing,
importing, wizards, extensions, etc.
Third, we've discovered that not everyone LIKES the same layout.
Windows users shouldn't be burdened with the Unix conventions. Motif
users shouldn't be burdened by the Gtk style guides. Etc. Some users
want lots of buttons and knobs in the main window (like your toolbar).
Some users want as much screen space dedicated to their board as
possible. HID lets us support different *styles* of GUIs, not just
different toolkits.
Fourth, there's no such thing as a "single good cross-platform gui".
There are acceptable cross-platform guis, but they all result in some
compromise. With HID, you can always take advantage of whatever
extras your native toolkit offers, without having to dumb down to the
least common denominator.
At best, you are going to end up with a lot of
duplication of effort,
There's some duplicated effort, yes. We try to keep the duplicated
parts in the core, if they can be made gui-independent.
and at worst you'll get GUIs that look completely different on
different platforms, with significantly different functionality.
Well, that's one possiblility we consider a bonus :-)
Imagine being able to plug in a pads-compatibility HID if you're a
pads house, or an orcad compatiblity HID if you're an orcad house.
I'm basing this on the single screenshot from the geda website, by
the way
The Gtk GUI still looks mostly like that. The new Motif HID looks more
like this: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/screenshot.png (although the
status line has more in it now).
The Motif HID is new so I haven't had much time to play with
look-n-feel. I kept it minimalist on purpose.
why on earth is the Xaw screenshot still there?
The Xaw GUI is, for some people, significanly faster than the Gtk one
on older hardware. We kept a branch for it so those users could still
use it.
I'd expect a set of toolbars with configurable buttons
Good suggestion.
(with a nicer button label font, if you want labels on the buttons at
all),
Gtk fonts are configurable on a user-level basis, just like Windows.
The Motif HID uses standard .Xdefaults, so you can set the fonts to
whatever you want (even a different font for each button).
Is there any reason for having several GUIs, instead of a single good
cross-platform gui?
A couple. First, lock-in. We already went through the pain of
changing the GUI layer once. Part of the goals behind the HID project
was to *hide* the GUI from the core, as the old gui code polluted the
core a lot, which made it harder to work on the core code. By
isolating the gui code behind an application-specific API, core
development is easier and GUI development stays "clean" of the core.
Second, we actually have eight HIDs at the moment, only two of which
are GUIs. Having two GUI hids proves that the API is properly
designed. We use the same API to handle exporting, printing,
importing, wizards, extensions, etc.
Third, we've discovered that not everyone LIKES the same layout.
Windows users shouldn't be burdened with the Unix conventions. Motif
users shouldn't be burdened by the Gtk style guides. Etc. Some users
want lots of buttons and knobs in the main window (like your toolbar).
Some users want as much screen space dedicated to their board as
possible. HID lets us support different *styles* of GUIs, not just
different toolkits.
Fourth, there's no such thing as a "single good cross-platform gui".
There are acceptable cross-platform guis, but they all result in some
compromise. With HID, you can always take advantage of whatever
extras your native toolkit offers, without having to dumb down to the
least common denominator.
At best, you are going to end up with a lot of
duplication of effort,
There's some duplicated effort, yes. We try to keep the duplicated
parts in the core, if they can be made gui-independent.
and at worst you'll get GUIs that look completely different on
different platforms, with significantly different functionality.
Well, that's one possiblility we consider a bonus :-)
Imagine being able to plug in a pads-compatibility HID if you're a
pads house, or an orcad compatiblity HID if you're an orcad house.
I don't think I can come up with any sensible counter-arguments here
(except that the Xaw screenshot and information should be moved out of
the limelight - it's fine to make a plainer gui for slower PC's, but
it's poor advertising to have it first in the list!). It's clear there
is a lot more going on with gEDA development than is apparent from the
web site. I still don't think it is likely to be a realistic choice for
my use at the moment, but it's a lot closer than I thought, and appears
to be getting much more usable. It is perhaps the web site and
information that is most in need of updating, rather than the software
itself. Thanks for your time and information, and all your work on gEDA
(even if I don't use it myself, I still think it is an important
project). I'll be looking in at it again in the future.
mvh.,
David
Stuart Brorson
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:11 pm
:> Is there any reason for having several GUIs, instead of a single good
:> cross-platform gui?
DJ know about this since he's the developer, but forgot to point it
out. I consider it a big advantage of the new PCB.
Fifth: by separating the layout engine from the GUI, you can run PCB
from the command line to perform various actions like creating
Gerbers and fab drawings. You don't need to start the GUI to operate
in this mode. This means you can use a Makefile to
automate your design flow. Very sweet, if you've got a complicated
design.
Moreover, a separated layout engine can conceivably be driven by a
script (i.e. TCL or Perl with a little bit of glue coding to talk to
the PCB API), which offers very interesting possibilities for
constructing repetitive layouts, large components with pre-built
pin-escaping, etc.
Who says the commercial vendors are more innovative?
Stuart
DJ Delorie
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:07 pm
Stuart Brorson <sdb_at_cloud9.net> writes:
Quote:
Fifth: by separating the layout engine from the GUI, you can run PCB
from the command line to perform various actions like creating
Gerbers and fab drawings. You don't need to start the GUI to operate
in this mode. This means you can use a Makefile to
automate your design flow. Very sweet, if you've got a complicated
design.
from the command line to perform various actions like creating
Gerbers and fab drawings. You don't need to start the GUI to operate
in this mode. This means you can use a Makefile to
automate your design flow. Very sweet, if you've got a complicated
design.
Sigh, NINE hids. I forgot about the "nogui" hid that's built-in. The
gedasymbols.org web site uses a no-gui copy of PCB to drive all the
online footprint viewers.
Yeah, it's converting stored footprints to web pages on demand, using
the same layout tool we design boards with.
We also use pcb itself to generate all the inline images in the
documentation, from .pcb files stored in the docs subdirectory.
Sigh^2, 13 hids. I forgot that a lot of the hid modules have multiple
hids within them, to serve different purposes. For example, the
gerber hid has one for collecting aperture data and one for the actual
plotting (because it's easier to implement that way, that's why).
David Brown
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:28 pm
Stuart Brorson wrote:
Quote:
:> Is there any reason for having several GUIs, instead of a single good
:> cross-platform gui?
DJ know about this since he's the developer, but forgot to point it
out. I consider it a big advantage of the new PCB.
Fifth: by separating the layout engine from the GUI, you can run PCB
from the command line to perform various actions like creating
Gerbers and fab drawings. You don't need to start the GUI to operate
in this mode. This means you can use a Makefile to
automate your design flow. Very sweet, if you've got a complicated
design.
:> cross-platform gui?
DJ know about this since he's the developer, but forgot to point it
out. I consider it a big advantage of the new PCB.
Fifth: by separating the layout engine from the GUI, you can run PCB
from the command line to perform various actions like creating
Gerbers and fab drawings. You don't need to start the GUI to operate
in this mode. This means you can use a Makefile to
automate your design flow. Very sweet, if you've got a complicated
design.
I wasn't objecting to the separation of the gui from the backend code -
I think that's a good idea, and is something missing in many commercial
programs (I see it particularly with things like compilers that force
you to use their IDE instead of your favourite editor and make utility).
I was just wondering why you would want to develop several full-blown
gui front-ends to the back-end, and if it was worth the effort. It
turns out there are several good reasons, so fair enough.
Quote:
Moreover, a separated layout engine can conceivably be driven by a
script (i.e. TCL or Perl with a little bit of glue coding to talk to
the PCB API), which offers very interesting possibilities for
constructing repetitive layouts, large components with pre-built
pin-escaping, etc.
Who says the commercial vendors are more innovative?
script (i.e. TCL or Perl with a little bit of glue coding to talk to
the PCB API), which offers very interesting possibilities for
constructing repetitive layouts, large components with pre-built
pin-escaping, etc.
Who says the commercial vendors are more innovative?
Some *are* quite innovative, but they have by no means a monopoly.
Quote:
Stuart
Andrew Tweddle
Guest
Guest
Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:44 am
Robert Lacoste wrote:
Quote:
"megoodsen" <hq105862_at_hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1140686047.914352.18380_at_j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
In leui of a FAQ for this group, here goes with a likely hot
chestnut...
I'm looking for a good schematic capture and PCB design package to
replace our very flaky EasyPC.
We need both good schematic and PCB layout capabilities, ideally in one
system.
Best I outline the requirements...
We do pretty straightforward analogue and digital designs, and a lot of
microwave RF designs.
We create a lot of our own components (sch and PCB elements) as many of
the parts we use are very often not in any libraries.
Our boards (especially RF boards) are often multilayer, with blind
vias, have curved tracks of need-to-be defined width and length, and
always copper pours. (EasyPC copper pours lets us down a lot).
We also need to export boards (with components) to 3D mech CAD
(Solidworks) in some format.
We need good autorouting for non RF boards of course.
The players I am looking at are:
Electronics Workbench
Eagle
OrCAD
Cadstar
Pulsonix
I'd really appreciate comments from users of these packages about their
suitability for our tasks, and if they are stable in use etc.
thanks
Hi,
I have right now exactly the same problem, looking for a new CAD tool, for
nearly exactly the same kind of designs (mainly RF).
On my side I added one constraint : budget under 2-3K$.
1140686047.914352.18380_at_j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
In leui of a FAQ for this group, here goes with a likely hot
chestnut...
I'm looking for a good schematic capture and PCB design package to
replace our very flaky EasyPC.
We need both good schematic and PCB layout capabilities, ideally in one
system.
Best I outline the requirements...
We do pretty straightforward analogue and digital designs, and a lot of
microwave RF designs.
We create a lot of our own components (sch and PCB elements) as many of
the parts we use are very often not in any libraries.
Our boards (especially RF boards) are often multilayer, with blind
vias, have curved tracks of need-to-be defined width and length, and
always copper pours. (EasyPC copper pours lets us down a lot).
We also need to export boards (with components) to 3D mech CAD
(Solidworks) in some format.
We need good autorouting for non RF boards of course.
The players I am looking at are:
Electronics Workbench
Eagle
OrCAD
Cadstar
Pulsonix
I'd really appreciate comments from users of these packages about their
suitability for our tasks, and if they are stable in use etc.
thanks
Hi,
I have right now exactly the same problem, looking for a new CAD tool, for
nearly exactly the same kind of designs (mainly RF).
On my side I added one constraint : budget under 2-3K$.
Did you consider Eagleware Genesys Personal Edition
$US1000
but without all the nice design aids. The output format is Autocad,
which helps deal wioth mitered corners, curved tracks etc.
And it is a proper RF design support system ,not Just a PCB
layout/Schematic system.
Andrew
Dax
Guest
Guest
Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:22 am
Quote:
ROFL: "Try DipTrace and you will be surprised! DipTrace is a complete
state-of-the-art PCB Design System."
$145 for 500 pins, 2 layer version
$595 for unlimited version
Did you try it, or only looked at web-site and price?
I'm representative of a company developing this product, it is cheap
because is developed by small company in Russia, but number of people
switched to DipTrace from Eagle, P-CAD, etc. for their jobs. Just look
at testimonials on web-site - they are real, and there are many others
not published. However I think it is not a nice choice for very complex
jobs. We have a number of RF projects or Flex Circuits with 1000+ pins
made with DipTrace.
state-of-the-art PCB Design System."
$145 for 500 pins, 2 layer version
$595 for unlimited version
Did you try it, or only looked at web-site and price?
I'm representative of a company developing this product, it is cheap
because is developed by small company in Russia, but number of people
switched to DipTrace from Eagle, P-CAD, etc. for their jobs. Just look
at testimonials on web-site - they are real, and there are many others
not published. However I think it is not a nice choice for very complex
jobs. We have a number of RF projects or Flex Circuits with 1000+ pins
made with DipTrace.
Try it? I have a cracked copy if v1.20 in my collection and yes, I gave
it a good run-through.
Quote:
A number of people switched from a licensed version of P-CAD to a licensed version of >DipTrace?
Sorry, can't picture that...wait, let me take another hit off the ol'
Sorry, can't picture that...wait, let me take another hit off the ol'
pipe...nope, still nothing.
"Testimonials" are a crutch when you have nothing else to stand on.
They do not put you in a good light. Best to remove them from your
website.
Quote:
"not a nice choice for very complex jobs"
Gee, ya think?
Gee, ya think?
Quote:
"We have a number of RF projects or Flex Circuits with 1000+ pins
made with DipTrace." Might be good to bundle them with the software as
made with DipTrace." Might be good to bundle them with the software as
sample files so we can be impressed, huh?
I also dug through Yahoo Group you use as a support forum. Looks like
you have big bug problems, my friend. To your credit, it appears they
are being fixed as fast as they're found.
Oh, oh. Old man starting to ramble...someone fetch his medicine.
Quote:
it is cheap because is developed by small company in Russia...
Yep, you're Russian. I can almost hear the accent through the words on
Yep, you're Russian. I can almost hear the accent through the words on
the screen as well as identify your native language by your ESL. Used
to work long hours with a Russian also called Stanislav. He at one time
worked as a quality control engineer at a Russian semiconductor fab
plant. His specialty was x-ray diffraction crystallography. Claims to
have assisted to reverse engineer the i386 so it could be copied. I had
to interview him when he applied for an entry level job here in the
States. (You know, so many immigrants come over claiming ridiculously
inflated skills and education just to better their chances of gaining
entry.) I remember he was very nervous and there was stress in his
voice and his hands were shaking as he gestured. It was more like an
interrogation than an interview; I grilled him mercilessly on his
knowledge of solid state electronics. Lastly, I jotted down a calculus
expression I remembered from college and asked him to integrate. He did
so without error in under a minute. F-ing outstanding to answer all my
hideously technical questions while extremely stressed, in a second
language, quickly. We hired him as a full-time employee, of course, and
everyone was happy. He had been working at Wal-Mart on the shipping
dock running a fork-lift for the last two years putting his son through
a local state university. His wife was back in Russia, waiting for the
son to graduate and begin earning, before she came over.
Stanislav
Guest
Guest
Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:32 pm
Hi Dax
Dax wrote:
Quote:
Try it? I have a cracked copy if v1.20 in my collection and yes, I gave
it a good run-through.
it a good run-through.
This is very out-dated version. 1.20 and 1.23 are two big differences
(more than a year of work).
Yes, it was very buggy and hadn't many features at that time, because
that was one of the first releases made by single guy. Now there is a
group of people (developers and beta-testers) engaging in this software
and real sales were started from 1.21.r4 when we fix major problems.
Quote:
I also dug through Yahoo Group you use as a support forum. Looks like
you have big bug problems, my friend.
you have big bug problems, my friend.
Please let me know the software vendor who hadn't bug problems.
Some programs are for a long time at the market and they are very clear
if developers fix problems asap, but I'm sure they were not clear from
the beginning.
Quote:
To your credit, it appears they
are being fixed as fast as they're found.
are being fixed as fast as they're found.
Best regards!
Dax
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:38 pm
Oh, I'm sorry, I understand now:
According to you, DipTrace v1.20 was unusable crap but v1.23 is great
stuff. I see. Thanks for clearing this up.
Stanislav
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:14 pm
Hi Dax,
No, it was not unusable crap, but one of the first versions. It was
also possible to use it and some people do that today because it was
the last cracked version
, then we've bought protection solution
(first one was home-made). 1.23 also has some issues of course, however
it is much better than 1.20 (1.20 was unprofitable for single person
because of its issues, today there is a profitable company engaging in
DipTrace).
If you don't like DipTrace and think it is lowest of the low-end, this
is your point and your right (there are people who share your opinion),
however just to let you know there are many others who have a different
thinking and switched to DipTrace from other programs (for example
search google for something like "diptrace eagle" for opinions on
forums).
Best regards!
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - EDA CAD Electronics - advice on selecting new PCB design package
