Schematic capture, anyone?
What do people use these days for schematic capture (and just possibly PCB
layout), for low-budget homebrew stuff? It's been so long since I did this, I
still own a T-square and a pile of contemporary relics like rules and triangles.
I'll get out my pencil sharpener if I have to. But really, this must be a
solved problem by now. For less than $300? I only need TTL, not striplines or
any black magic like that.
I'm a Mac shop, but can of course run Windows if need be. And to make matters
worse, I prefer ANSI logic symbology over shovels-and-spades (or, really, over
plain rectangles where you're expected to know what the part number means).
This comes from exposure to Control Data, who were big on it back in the day. I
even used to be on the mailing list of the standards committee. I suppose that
all sank without a trace? If it's still controversial, I apologize in advance
for trolling.
Jim...
There is a free package called Eagleware that you might find suitable. Or
maybe it is just Eagle; it's been a while.
A little quality time with Google should find it for you easily. It is for
Windows, but there might be a Mac version as well.
Tom Holmes, N8ZM
Tipp City, OH
EM79
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Jim Hickstein
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 7:39 PM
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: [time-nuts] Schematic capture, anyone?
What do people use these days for schematic capture (and just possibly PCB
layout), for low-budget homebrew stuff? It's been so long since I did
this, I still
own a T-square and a pile of contemporary relics like rules and triangles.
I'll get out my pencil sharpener if I have to. But really, this must be
a solved
problem by now. For less than $300? I only need TTL, not striplines or
any black
magic like that.
I'm a Mac shop, but can of course run Windows if need be. And to make
matters
worse, I prefer ANSI logic symbology over shovels-and-spades (or, really,
over
plain rectangles where you're expected to know what the part number
means).
This comes from exposure to Control Data, who were big on it back in the
day. I
even used to be on the mailing list of the standards committee. I suppose
that all
sank without a trace? If it's still controversial, I apologize in advance
for trolling.
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Jim Hickstein jxh@jxh.com wrote:
What do people use these days for schematic capture (and just possibly PCB
layout), for low-budget homebrew stuff?
"Eagle" is popular. It is a commercial product but there is a free
version that limits you to "smallish" PCBs. If you out grow it the
next step up is not that much more than free.
http://www.cadsoftusa.com/
here is a very complete, if not up to date list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_EDA_software
Of the free systems gEDA and KiCAD have large active user bases.
Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California
There are a bunch of choices, some free and some limited to working with
a certain PCB shop, but I like Eagle (http://www.cadsoftusa.com)
because, among other things, it's cross-platform running on Windows,
Mac, and Linux (I use the Linux version). There's a free version and a
couple of steps of paid versions which allow larger board sizes and more
layers.
John
Jim Hickstein said the following on 02/23/2012 07:38 PM:
What do people use these days for schematic capture (and just possibly
PCB layout), for low-budget homebrew stuff? It's been so long since I
did this, I still own a T-square and a pile of contemporary relics like
rules and triangles. I'll get out my pencil sharpener if I have to. But
really, this must be a solved problem by now. For less than $300? I only
need TTL, not striplines or any black magic like that.
I'm a Mac shop, but can of course run Windows if need be. And to make
matters worse, I prefer ANSI logic symbology over shovels-and-spades
(or, really, over plain rectangles where you're expected to know what
the part number means). This comes from exposure to Control Data, who
were big on it back in the day. I even used to be on the mailing list of
the standards committee. I suppose that all sank without a trace? If
it's still controversial, I apologize in advance for trolling.
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
Jim Hickstein wrote:
What do people use these days for schematic capture (and just possibly PCB
worse, I prefer ANSI logic symbology over shovels-and-spades (or, really,
over
plain rectangles where you're expected to know what the part number
means).
I'll add another vote for Eagle. It is a German program written in
Unix, and ported to Windows. Therefore, you select the action
first then click on the object of the action. It takes some getting
used to. There has been a pattern of PC layout companies getting
cobbled up leaving you with an orphan program, or an upgrade
to some very expensive program. Orcad and Protel go gobbled up.
Eagle did too, but by a distributor, Newark. They just came out
with a new improved version. You can finally draw arbitrary SMT
footprints. I think that was the major limitation of the old
version. You can of course draw your own symbols any way you like.
I have been using Eagle for 5 years now and never looked back.
One other drawback of Eagle is that it is difficult to move a design
between computers, and there are issues with the way preferences
are stored. If you use a part from a library in a design, you are
forever locked into that library. Many other CAD systems have these
issues. Mentor used to be terrible about having absolute path names, etc.
Rick N6RK
Good eve,
I must be the exception... I've tried Eagle, most recently about three months back. I can't stand it. I find it, for my purposes, to be about as intuitive as a Salvador Dali painting.
I've not yet tried DesignSpark, but it looks very promising.
Personally, I use an old version of OrCAD (9-dot-something, I think).
Happy tweaking.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 23-Feb-12 at 18:38 Jim Hickstein wrote:
What do people use these days for schematic capture (and just possibly
PCB layout), for low-budget homebrew stuff?
<snippage>
It's been so long since I did
this, I
still own a T-square and a pile of contemporary relics like rules and
triangles.
I'll get out my pencil sharpener if I have to. But really, this must be
a
solved problem by now. For less than $300? I only need TTL, not
striplines or
any black magic like that.
I'm a Mac shop, but can of course run Windows if need be. And to make
matters
worse, I prefer ANSI logic symbology over shovels-and-spades (or, really,
over
plain rectangles where you're expected to know what the part number
means).
This comes from exposure to Control Data, who were big on it back in the
day. I
even used to be on the mailing list of the standards committee. I suppose
that
all sank without a trace? If it's still controversial, I apologize in
advance
for trolling.
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Owner & Head Hardware Heavy,
Blue Feather Technologies -- http://www.bluefeathertech.com
kyrrin (at) bluefeathertech do/t c=o=m
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped with surreal ports?"
I favor ExpressPCs free schematic generation and board layout....
But Now I have a whole new list to go looking for.
More time-nuts trouble ahead.
Regards
Paul
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Bruce Lane kyrrin@bluefeathertech.comwrote:
Good eve,
I must be the exception... I've tried Eagle, most recently about
three months back. I can't stand it. I find it, for my purposes, to be
about as intuitive as a Salvador Dali painting.
I've not yet tried DesignSpark, but it looks very promising.
Personally, I use an old version of OrCAD (9-dot-something, I
think).
Happy tweaking.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 23-Feb-12 at 18:38 Jim Hickstein wrote:
What do people use these days for schematic capture (and just possibly
PCB layout), for low-budget homebrew stuff?
<snippage>
It's been so long since I did
this, I
still own a T-square and a pile of contemporary relics like rules and
triangles.
I'll get out my pencil sharpener if I have to. But really, this must be
a
solved problem by now. For less than $300? I only need TTL, not
striplines or
any black magic like that.
I'm a Mac shop, but can of course run Windows if need be. And to make
matters
worse, I prefer ANSI logic symbology over shovels-and-spades (or, really,
over
plain rectangles where you're expected to know what the part number
means).
This comes from exposure to Control Data, who were big on it back in the
day. I
even used to be on the mailing list of the standards committee. I suppose
that
all sank without a trace? If it's still controversial, I apologize in
advance
for trolling.
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Owner & Head Hardware Heavy,
Blue Feather Technologies -- http://www.bluefeathertech.com
kyrrin (at) bluefeathertech do/t c=o=m
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped with
surreal ports?"
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
Bruce,
You are not alone. After 20 years of OrCAD, currently using 9.1, I agree
completely. Eagle just seemed...weird. (I should add that I'm a RPN calculator
fan - where one chooses data before selecting the operator.)
That said, I will probably learn to use Eagle, as that seems to be the darling
of the DIY and Sparkfun type folks.
Bob LaJeunesse
From: Bruce Lane kyrrin@bluefeathertech.com
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Thu, February 23, 2012 8:36:54 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Schematic capture, anyone?
Good eve,
I must be the exception... I've tried Eagle, most recently about three
months back. I can't stand it. I find it, for my purposes, to be about as
intuitive as a Salvador Dali painting.
I've not yet tried DesignSpark, but it looks very promising.
Personally, I use an old version of OrCAD (9-dot-something, I think).
Happy tweaking.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 23-Feb-12 at 18:38 Jim Hickstein wrote:
What do people use these days for schematic capture (and just possibly
PCB layout), for low-budget homebrew stuff?
<snippage>
It's been so long since I did
this, I
still own a T-square and a pile of contemporary relics like rules and
triangles.
I'll get out my pencil sharpener if I have to. But really, this must be
a
solved problem by now. For less than $300? I only need TTL, not
striplines or
any black magic like that.
I'm a Mac shop, but can of course run Windows if need be. And to make
matters
worse, I prefer ANSI logic symbology over shovels-and-spades (or, really,
over
plain rectangles where you're expected to know what the part number
means).
This comes from exposure to Control Data, who were big on it back in the
day. I
even used to be on the mailing list of the standards committee. I suppose
that
all sank without a trace? If it's still controversial, I apologize in
advance
for trolling.
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Owner & Head Hardware Heavy,
Blue Feather Technologies -- http://www.bluefeathertech.com
kyrrin (at) bluefeathertech do/t c=o=m
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped with surreal
ports?"
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
I mostly use Target3001:
http://server.ibfriedrich.com/wiki/ibfwikien/index.php?title=Main_Page
It's commercial, but there are six different editions starting as low as
59€, with digital+analog, schematics, PCB, autorouting, simulation, it's
multilingual (German/English/French), and there is even a free
evaluation version somewhat limited in PCB size and pins numbers, but
nevertheless worth trying. They are also very responsive.
I also tried DesignSparks, which is free, but a lot less powerfull.
Just a satisfied user, standard disclaimers apply ! :-)
Jean-Louis
On 24/02/2012 01:52, paul swed wrote:
I favor ExpressPCs free schematic generation and board layout....
But Now I have a whole new list to go looking for.
More time-nuts trouble ahead.
Regards
Paul
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Bruce Lanekyrrin@bluefeathertech.comwrote:
Good eve,
I must be the exception... I've tried Eagle, most recently about
three months back. I can't stand it. I find it, for my purposes, to be
about as intuitive as a Salvador Dali painting.
I've not yet tried DesignSpark, but it looks very promising.
Personally, I use an old version of OrCAD (9-dot-something, I
think).
Happy tweaking.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 23-Feb-12 at 18:38 Jim Hickstein wrote:
What do people use these days for schematic capture (and just possibly
PCB layout), for low-budget homebrew stuff?
<snippage>
It's been so long since I did
this, I
still own a T-square and a pile of contemporary relics like rules and
triangles.
I'll get out my pencil sharpener if I have to. But really, this must be
a
solved problem by now. For less than $300? I only need TTL, not
striplines or
any black magic like that.
I'm a Mac shop, but can of course run Windows if need be. And to make
matters
worse, I prefer ANSI logic symbology over shovels-and-spades (or, really,
over
plain rectangles where you're expected to know what the part number
means).
This comes from exposure to Control Data, who were big on it back in the
day. I
even used to be on the mailing list of the standards committee. I suppose
that
all sank without a trace? If it's still controversial, I apologize in
advance
for trolling.
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Owner& Head Hardware Heavy,
Blue Feather Technologies -- http://www.bluefeathertech.com
kyrrin (at) bluefeathertech do/t c=o=m
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped with
surreal ports?"
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
--
Jean-Louis Oneto
OCA GeoAzur - Avenue Nicolas Copernic
06130 Grasse - France
e-mail: jean-louis.oneto@obs-azur.fr
I'll add another vote for Eagle. It is a German program written in
Unix, and ported to Windows. Therefore, you select the action
first then click on the object of the action. It takes some getting
used to. There has been a pattern of PC layout companies getting
cobbled up leaving you with an orphan program, or an upgrade
to some very expensive program. Orcad and Protel go gobbled up.
Eagle did too, but by a distributor, Newark. They just came out
with a new improved version. You can finally draw arbitrary SMT
footprints. I think that was the major limitation of the old
version. You can of course draw your own symbols any way you like.
I have been using Eagle for 5 years now and never looked back.
One other drawback of Eagle is that it is difficult to move a design
between computers, and there are issues with the way preferences
are stored. If you use a part from a library in a design, you are
forever locked into that library. Many other CAD systems have these
issues. Mentor used to be terrible about having absolute path names, etc.
It's worth noting as well that Eagle has just moved to a more "open"
XML-based format for their data files. Assuming they've done a good job (I
have no experience with the new version yet), I wouldn't be surprised to see
it become the lingua franca of EDA, with a lot of third-party support in the
future. Eagle is quirky but it's also inexpensive, reliable, and highly
functional, making it accessible to a lot of users at a lot of different
levels. Their new public file formats could be a major selling point.
I use Sunstone for PCBs myself, but I don't use PCB 123 because I don't want
the board house to 'own' my data. In most serious projects you spend a lot
of time not only drawing schematics and routing traces, but also building
part definitions and writing various scripts. This all adds up to a
long-term commitment to whatever tool you select. In most cases you should
use Eagle or another program that can generate standard RS-274X Gerbers, and
you should always double-check those Gerbers in a third-party viewer before
hitting the big green button. The free GEDA Gerber viewer (gerbv) is pretty
good; there are plenty of others.
All that being said, Eagle V6 is brand new, and historically it's been
painful to use brand new major versions of Eagle. Everything went smoothly
on a recent project with the last version of Eagle V5, but if you look back
at CadSoft's support forum posts dating from the initial V5 release era,
there were a lot of unhappy campers. The downside of the new XML file
formats is that migrating back to V5 will be difficult or impossible, so you
should take some time to be sure that V6 is really ready for your
application before going with it. I can't overemphasize how important it is
to read their support forums to learn what to expect with any new Eagle
version, and what to watch out for.
-- john
I used Eagle for years, but can't say I really warmed to it. I recently
changed to DipTrace. Their pricing model seems to work better for
me (large but sparse boards in Eagle require $$$ license) as it's based
on pin count, not board size.
It's really hard to quantify usability, but I no longer find myself dreading
drafting a symbol from scratch and things work more like how I would
expect them to work. I watched their video demo, found that it made a lot
of sense to me, tried it, and was hooked.
Scott
On Feb 23, 2012, at 6:38 PM, John Miles wrote:
I'll add another vote for Eagle. It is a German program written in
Unix, and ported to Windows. Therefore, you select the action
first then click on the object of the action. It takes some getting
used to. There has been a pattern of PC layout companies getting
cobbled up leaving you with an orphan program, or an upgrade
to some very expensive program. Orcad and Protel go gobbled up.
Eagle did too, but by a distributor, Newark. They just came out
with a new improved version. You can finally draw arbitrary SMT
footprints. I think that was the major limitation of the old
version. You can of course draw your own symbols any way you like.
I have been using Eagle for 5 years now and never looked back.
One other drawback of Eagle is that it is difficult to move a design
between computers, and there are issues with the way preferences
are stored. If you use a part from a library in a design, you are
forever locked into that library. Many other CAD systems have these
issues. Mentor used to be terrible about having absolute path names, etc.
It's worth noting as well that Eagle has just moved to a more "open"
XML-based format for their data files. Assuming they've done a good job (I
have no experience with the new version yet), I wouldn't be surprised to see
it become the lingua franca of EDA, with a lot of third-party support in the
future. Eagle is quirky but it's also inexpensive, reliable, and highly
functional, making it accessible to a lot of users at a lot of different
levels. Their new public file formats could be a major selling point.
I use Sunstone for PCBs myself, but I don't use PCB 123 because I don't want
the board house to 'own' my data. In most serious projects you spend a lot
of time not only drawing schematics and routing traces, but also building
part definitions and writing various scripts. This all adds up to a
long-term commitment to whatever tool you select. In most cases you should
use Eagle or another program that can generate standard RS-274X Gerbers, and
you should always double-check those Gerbers in a third-party viewer before
hitting the big green button. The free GEDA Gerber viewer (gerbv) is pretty
good; there are plenty of others.
All that being said, Eagle V6 is brand new, and historically it's been
painful to use brand new major versions of Eagle. Everything went smoothly
on a recent project with the last version of Eagle V5, but if you look back
at CadSoft's support forum posts dating from the initial V5 release era,
there were a lot of unhappy campers. The downside of the new XML file
formats is that migrating back to V5 will be difficult or impossible, so you
should take some time to be sure that V6 is really ready for your
application before going with it. I can't overemphasize how important it is
to read their support forums to learn what to expect with any new Eagle
version, and what to watch out for.
-- john
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
In case you haven't already had enough suggestions: KiCad is an open-source option. It is much less popular/well known than Eagle, but it is free, has no* limitations on layers, parts, or board size. Runs on Linux and Windows. All design files are in plain text format, hence easy to parse by eye or other tools as desired. There is some learning curve, as with all CAD tools. I laid out this simple decade divider PCB using KiCad: http://bealecorner.com/pcb/dd1/ and it wasn't too bad. It has an active user's group list.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kicad-users/ <- user's group mailing list
http://kicad.sourceforge.net/wiki/Main_Page <- main project page
http://teholabs.com/knowledge/kicad.html <- tutorial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkQ0nVX1q1k <- video tutorial
*actually, a maximum of 16 layers, and 44 x 44 inches in size. Usually that is not a limitation :-)
Like others here, I recommend against "free" single-vendor lock-in tools that won't give you Gerber output and easy design portability.
I've been using LTspice for schematic capture and simulation at
home. Will the PCB CAD tools being discussed (Eagle, DesignSpark,
FreePCB, etc.) import netlists from LTspice? Or do folks prefer to
do the schematic capture in a CAD tool and export that netlist to
LTspice for simulation?
Best regards,
Charles
I've also used KiCAD. The inability to do 100x160mm Eurocards on the free version of Eagle was the killer for me. I also have a british program called EasyPC.
Robert G8RPI.
From: beale beale@bealecorner.com
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Friday, 24 February 2012, 6:16
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Schematic capture: KiCad?
In case you haven't already had enough suggestions: KiCad is an open-source option. It is much less popular/well known than Eagle, but it is free, has no* limitations on layers, parts, or board size. Runs on Linux and Windows. All design files are in plain text format, hence easy to parse by eye or other tools as desired. There is some learning curve, as with all CAD tools. I laid out this simple decade divider PCB using KiCad: http://bealecorner.com/pcb/dd1/ and it wasn't too bad. It has an active user's group list.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kicad-users/ <- user's group mailing list
http://kicad.sourceforge.net/wiki/Main_Page <- main project page
http://teholabs.com/knowledge/kicad.html <- tutorial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkQ0nVX1q1k <- video tutorial
*actually, a maximum of 16 layers, and 44 x 44 inches in size. Usually that is not a limitation :-)
Like others here, I recommend against "free" single-vendor lock-in tools that won't give you Gerber output and easy design portability.
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Charles P. Steinmetz
charles_steinmetz@lavabit.com wrote:
I've been using LTspice for schematic capture and simulation at home. Will
the PCB CAD tools being discussed (Eagle, DesignSpark, FreePCB, etc.) import
netlists from LTspice? Or do folks prefer to do the schematic capture in a
CAD tool and export that netlist to LTspice for simulation?
LT Spice is basically just the normal Spice simulator with a schematic
capture program acting as a front end. LTspice can export standard
Spice net lists and can save to it's own file format too. The spice
net lists don't have any graphical information and don't have
footprints.
I find I don't need to move data from a simulation to a design
program because to rarely simulate exactly the target circuit. You
usually have to Spice specific stuff components like signal generators
or maybe some parasitic capacitance for realism. These parts only
exist in a simulation not on the PCB.
Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California
I'll add my $0.01 (depreciated).
I am working on a project with Eagle. I started with the Gnu cad
stuff but like many free software projects, it has multiple user
interfaces and clunks. I tired of it and switched to Eagle.
Eagle also has quirks but has the ability to switch back and forth
between schematic and layout. I have added parts with the XML format
and while painful, it's not impossible. Also, the user library of
scripts is very useful: there is one that converts the schematic to a
SPICE netlist (suitable for LTSpice with a little massaging).
If/when I need a larger board than the free version then I'll have to
decide what to do. But for the time being, it's OK.
(And, as I like to say, when it comes to advice, you get what you pay for).
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Chris Albertson
albertson.chris@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Charles P. Steinmetz
charles_steinmetz@lavabit.com wrote:
I've been using LTspice for schematic capture and simulation at home. Will
the PCB CAD tools being discussed (Eagle, DesignSpark, FreePCB, etc.) import
netlists from LTspice? Or do folks prefer to do the schematic capture in a
CAD tool and export that netlist to LTspice for simulation?
LT Spice is basically just the normal Spice simulator with a schematic
capture program acting as a front end. LTspice can export standard
Spice net lists and can save to it's own file format too. The spice
net lists don't have any graphical information and don't have
footprints.
I find I don't need to move data from a simulation to a design
program because to rarely simulate exactly the target circuit. You
usually have to Spice specific stuff components like signal generators
or maybe some parasitic capacitance for realism. These parts only
exist in a simulation not on the PCB.
Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
On Feb 23, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Jim Hickstein wrote:
What do people use these days for schematic capture (and just possibly PCB layout), for low-budget homebrew stuff?
[snip]
I'm a Mac shop, but can of course run Windows if need be.
Basically there are only two reasonable choices for schematic capture on the Mac:
Capilano's DesignWorks: http://www.capilano.com/dwm_features. Available only from the Mac App Store.
VAMP's McCAD: http://www.mccad.com/
Years ago, DesignWorks fit my budget much better than McCAD, but today I think they both offer free versions that can handle small hobby projects.
For PCB layout on the Mac: Osmond PCB http://www.osmondpcb.com/
Again, the Osmond free trial handles small hobby-sized boards. The price for the full version is quite reasonable.
For spice, see http://www.macspice.com/
There are some open-source apps using cross-platform GUI frameworks that compile on the Mac:
KiCad: http://kicad.sourceforge.net/wiki/Main_Page
If you can stomach Xwindows applications, then there are many open-source applications such as the Chipmunk system:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/chipmunk/index.html
Best regards,
-Steve
--
Steve Byan stevebyan@me.com
Littleton, MA 01460
I have been using OrCad SDT and PCB 386+ since the middle 1980's.
It is a DOS based classic, and runs very nicely using the DOSEMU
emulator on linux. It also runs nicely on Windows machines using
their various dosbox incantations.
The full package is available in the files section of the yahoo
DosOrCad group. It has no really important limitations, and is
still being used commercially by hundreds of users... most of which
occupy the DosOrCad group. One of the users I know used it to
develop PC motherboards.
-Chuck Harris
Mark Kahrs wrote:
I'll add my $0.01 (depreciated).
I am working on a project with Eagle. I started with the Gnu cad
stuff but like many free software projects, it has multiple user
interfaces and clunks. I tired of it and switched to Eagle.
Charles P. Steinmetz wrote:
I've been using LTspice for schematic capture and simulation at
home. Will the PCB CAD tools being discussed (Eagle, DesignSpark,
FreePCB, etc.) import netlists from LTspice? Or do folks prefer to
do the schematic capture in a CAD tool and export that netlist to
LTspice for simulation?
Best regards,
Charles
"Beige Bag" Spice is designed to interchange schematics with Eagle.
I recently evaluated it against LTspice and decided to use LTspice
on the basis that it is more important to get the right Spice tool
than have schematic exchange capability. Whatever I am going to
simulate, I can usually draw the schematic in 5 minutes anyway.
LTspice is very retro, being just an engine with very little GUI.
Anything beyond the simplest stuff is done by "playing SPICE cards",
which I used to do years ago, so I was already familiar with that
paradigm. It was actually very refreshing, because I again felt
like I was in control, not trying to figure out what the program
was going to do. It's kind of like driving a car with a stick shift
vs automatic.
Rick N6RK
Hi
One very basic question to ask yourself:
Do you want / need a program that checks the schematic against the layout?
It's a feature that probably isn't needed for a really simple circuit. It's
something that will save you a hundred dollars (one PCB run) pretty quick on
things of even moderate complexity.
You can indeed do the schematic on the back of an envelope and do the layout
from that. Print out the layout and get out the colored pencils. Color this
here and that there as you check it. Been there done that. Gets old pretty
quick.
Next basic question:
How big are the built in / available libraries? If not built in are they
free or an extra cost option?
All of these programs have the very basic stuff in them. Even simple designs
seem to get past the basics pretty fast. RF connectors, regulators, stuff
from Mini Circuits, something gets in there. Even a big library won't have
everything. Doing two things instead of ten is a lot less tiring.
The library thing goes to both ends. Having a schematic with a bunch of
numbered boxes in it isn't very helpful. Having a layout made up of a random
bunch of pads makes changes (and checking) tough. Again, loose one PCB run
to a mistake and you have paid for a license to some of these programs or
the library upgrade.
No, I'm not trying to sell you on any specific program. I'm just trying to
complicate the decision process. It's better to look at all the issues
before you spend a couple months learning how a package works than to run
through three or four packages (and a years worth of agony).
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Jim Hickstein
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 7:39 PM
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: [time-nuts] Schematic capture, anyone?
What do people use these days for schematic capture (and just possibly PCB
layout), for low-budget homebrew stuff? It's been so long since I did this,
I
still own a T-square and a pile of contemporary relics like rules and
triangles.
I'll get out my pencil sharpener if I have to. But really, this must be a
solved problem by now. For less than $300? I only need TTL, not striplines
or
any black magic like that.
I'm a Mac shop, but can of course run Windows if need be. And to make
matters
worse, I prefer ANSI logic symbology over shovels-and-spades (or, really,
over
plain rectangles where you're expected to know what the part number means).
This comes from exposure to Control Data, who were big on it back in the
day. I
even used to be on the mailing list of the standards committee. I suppose
that
all sank without a trace? If it's still controversial, I apologize in
advance
for trolling.
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.