Hello,
A simple PCB is basically a simple structure, there is no earthly reason why laying out a simple PCB in a ‘high-end’ PCB layout program should be difficult.
(By ‘high-end PCB layout program”, I mean one of the more expensive ones which features things like “Differential pair bus routing”, “Track-pushing” and the kinds of features that are needed to lay out a large, high speed signal, microprocessor board.)
If laying out a simple PCB in the Eagle PCB layout program is simple (which it certainly is), then why is this not simple to do in a ‘high-end’ PCB layout program?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve just been sacked from a PCB layout job after a two-day trial. The PCB layout package concerned was a “high-end” package, that is, one of the more expensive ones.
Why is it that simple PCBs are very difficult to lay out in the “high-end” PCB layout packages?
I can, however, use the Eagle PCB Layout program without problems, Eagle is very very different than other packages –much simpler. Anyone who understands a PCB’s basic structure, and can use a windows PC, will easily be able to use Eagle. This is not the case with any of the other “high-end”, proprietory PCB layout packages.
The “high-end” PCB layout packages are only useable to people who…
1…have very good I.T. skills, akin to those of a Compute Hacker, or…
2…are “in the know”, or….
3…have lots of highly expensive Applications visits.
It may sound cynical but I believe that the “high-end” packages deliberately avoid publishing effective “simplified guides” to their packages, because it would diminish their income from overly-expensive applications visits. It’s the only reason I can find for the fact that a PCB that is a doddle in Eagle is a considerable struggle in the “high-end” packages. Another point is that no-one will use a bootlegged “high-end” package without a licence if there’s a high chance of them getting totally stuck and needing help from the PCB software company. This is why there are no good “simplified guides” to using them. It encourages people to use a (non-bootlegged) licenced version and also purchase the maintenance contract and renew it each year.
Also, I believe that the “high-end” packages deliberately put bugs in the software, so that users dare not work on bootlegged unlicenced versions and also users keep up paying the maintenance fees. The existence of these bugs, means that the “high-end” packages need users to be possessed of very good I.T. skills. Due to this situation of the “High-end” packages being deliberately made more difficult than they should be, the type of person needed to operate them tends to either be “in the know”, or someone with very good I.T. skills. –In fact, the I.T. skills needed to operate a “High-end” PCB layout package are akin to the skills of a Computer Hacker.
In the big companies, you often find that the PCB layout guy is an ex-electronics technician or SMD machine operator who knows components, and just has an excellent flare for I.T and the “computer hacking” type way of working.
Unfortunately, though Eagle is simple to use, it lacks certain features such as 'Track pusher' and 'Differential pair bus router' etc etc. What would be best is if Eagle were to get augmented with these features. Does anyone know if there are User Language Programs that can be used with Eagle to achieve Bus Routing capability?
I once spent 8 weeks in a company that was using a “High-end” PCB layout package, even though all their PCBs were simple types. Their layout guy had been using that package for 10 year plus, and had done all the company’s PCBs. In spite of this, during my time at this company, the Package Apps Engineer was in the company for 3 whole days during my time there (at great expense), and this was a regular occurrence. It shows the bad state of affairs regarding the “high end” packages that people still need ‘hand-holding’ after that much time (10 years!), especially when all their PCBs were just simple ones. I actually asked their PCB guy if I should change the “workspace” for a PCB job, and he replied “I don’t know, I never use workspaces”. –This just highlighted everything about “high-end” PCB layout packages, because in that package, you are always in a “workspace”, the “workspace” is the epicentre of the package, it’s just not possible to “not use” them…What this guy meant was, that he hadn’t a clue what a ‘workspace’ was, (because the layout package is so confusing) and that he was just relying on repeated visits from the Apps guy in order to allow him to survive using it.
These kind of situations are common in many companies.
Many companies, perhaps if they only have a few simple PCBs, actually like the fact that their PCB layout program is overly confusing. This is because it supposedly reduces the chance of any competitor being able to do anything with the layout/schem files if they were ever to get hold of them.
In earlier days, I lost a few jobs by not being able to manage whichever company’s “high-end” PCB program. It was no consolation when I eventually happened on the Eagle PCB software package, which is very simple, and would have allowed me to succeed in those previous failures if I’d known about it then. One great feature of Eagle, (aswell as its great intuitiveness & simplicity of use) not shared by almost any other package, is that if someone is testing a PCB and needs the schem and board files…then Eagle has a free viewer that allows anyone to fully interrogate both schem and board. The free Eagle viewer actually allows the user to have full access to all the Eagle features, so viewing is made effective, as well as incredibly simple.
The only way to describe the currently available “high-end” PCB layout packages is that they are gross, tangled leviathans, made unnecessarily complicated. This though, is sometimes their attraction..Whilst at Jesmond Ltd, we had some driver PCBs designed by a Rotherham company. They had done all the designs in a certain PCB package. However, after finding out that we also used that same package at Jesmond Ltd, they then decided to re-do all the designs in a different “high-end” PCB layout package. –This, presumably, to reduce the chances of us being able to modify the boards ourselves if necessary…instead probably having to pay the Rotherham company to do any modification work for us.
And by the way, I watched a PhD Electronics guy struggle to lay out a simple lighting test board in the company’s “high-end” PCB program at one company..after three days he managed nothing, and had to ask for help from the PCB CAD operator guy (who , incidentally, used to be a SMD machine operator)….it just shows that its often just a case of being “in the know”
Once someone has learned a high end PCB package, they then defend it to the hilt regardless of whether its good or bad..after all, once you’ve learned it and are using it, it’s a nice little earner to say the least…and due to the ridiculous difficulty of learning these high-end PCB packages, you can be guaranteed that you’ll never suffer much competition in the labour market, so yes , I can quite see why someone who has ended up learning it would say it’s the be all and end all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt then , that all would agree to the following test to see if high end PCB layout programs really are hard or easy……
In order to see if High end PCB Layout programs are not more difficult than they should be, a test should be done as follows….
PCB LAYOUT PROGRAM TEST
Thirty electronics graduates should be chosen at random, none of whom should have any prior experience of using a high end PCB layout program…
They should each be given the task (over 8 hours in a day) of making a 2cm by 2cm PCB (1.6mm thick) comprising nothing more than a 0805 resistor and 0603 capacitor connected in parallel on the top layer. The bottom layer should be completely covered in copper, to within 1mm of the edge of the PCB and should be connected by three vias (round, 0.6mm hole diameter, 1.2mm total diameter) to the net of one terminal of the resistor/capacitor. The components should be named “R1” and “C1” in silkscreen.
There should be solder resist correctly covering the top layer, except for over the solder mask, which would be outside 0.2mm outside the copper of the resistor/capacitor pads.
There should be a solder paste layer, covering each pad of the R and C to within 0.2mm of the pad’s edges.
A rectangular silkscreen “box” of 0.3mm line thickness should surround each component. Any silkscreen should never be nearer than 0.3mm to a pad.
Different net copper should be at least 0.3mm apart.
No part of any pad should be nearer than 1mm to a via hole.
Via holes should be at least 1mm apart.
No hole should be nearer than 1mm from the board edge.
Each of the components should be correctly placed into a library named “TEST”. The components should have their centres correctly centred so that a file of pick-n-place coordinates can be delivered to the PCB assemblers.
There should be no solder resist on the bottom layer.
After finishing the PCB, the gerber files should be correctly produced, to include layers as follows…top copper, bottom copper, silkscreen, solder mask, solder paste.
The trial people will each be given a pre-made version of this PCB , so they have a better idea of what it is they are meant to do.
Let’s get this test done with a high end PCB layout program, and lets see just how easy these high end PCB layout programs are not!
The result of all this, will be that the Government works out what a shambles the high end PCB layout fraternity is, and realises that this is holding up the country’s industry, meaning a reduction in tax revenue due to lower productivity….then the government will sort it out…By either askin for proper “simplified guides” to be made, or a new PCB layout program made, or rather, just stick with Eagle for simple boards, and make an augmented Eagle for the DDR3 type boards.
A PCB is a simple structure, there is no earthly reason why laying out a simple PCB in a high end PCB layout program should be difficult.
If laying out a simple PCB in Eagle is simple (which it is), then why is this not simple to do in a high end PCB layout program?
(by the way, the above trialees should have internet access throughout the 8 hours)
A simple PCB is basically a simple structure, there is no earthly reason why laying out a simple PCB in a ‘high-end’ PCB layout program should be difficult.
(By ‘high-end PCB layout program”, I mean one of the more expensive ones which features things like “Differential pair bus routing”, “Track-pushing” and the kinds of features that are needed to lay out a large, high speed signal, microprocessor board.)
If laying out a simple PCB in the Eagle PCB layout program is simple (which it certainly is), then why is this not simple to do in a ‘high-end’ PCB layout program?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve just been sacked from a PCB layout job after a two-day trial. The PCB layout package concerned was a “high-end” package, that is, one of the more expensive ones.
Why is it that simple PCBs are very difficult to lay out in the “high-end” PCB layout packages?
I can, however, use the Eagle PCB Layout program without problems, Eagle is very very different than other packages –much simpler. Anyone who understands a PCB’s basic structure, and can use a windows PC, will easily be able to use Eagle. This is not the case with any of the other “high-end”, proprietory PCB layout packages.
The “high-end” PCB layout packages are only useable to people who…
1…have very good I.T. skills, akin to those of a Compute Hacker, or…
2…are “in the know”, or….
3…have lots of highly expensive Applications visits.
It may sound cynical but I believe that the “high-end” packages deliberately avoid publishing effective “simplified guides” to their packages, because it would diminish their income from overly-expensive applications visits. It’s the only reason I can find for the fact that a PCB that is a doddle in Eagle is a considerable struggle in the “high-end” packages. Another point is that no-one will use a bootlegged “high-end” package without a licence if there’s a high chance of them getting totally stuck and needing help from the PCB software company. This is why there are no good “simplified guides” to using them. It encourages people to use a (non-bootlegged) licenced version and also purchase the maintenance contract and renew it each year.
Also, I believe that the “high-end” packages deliberately put bugs in the software, so that users dare not work on bootlegged unlicenced versions and also users keep up paying the maintenance fees. The existence of these bugs, means that the “high-end” packages need users to be possessed of very good I.T. skills. Due to this situation of the “High-end” packages being deliberately made more difficult than they should be, the type of person needed to operate them tends to either be “in the know”, or someone with very good I.T. skills. –In fact, the I.T. skills needed to operate a “High-end” PCB layout package are akin to the skills of a Computer Hacker.
In the big companies, you often find that the PCB layout guy is an ex-electronics technician or SMD machine operator who knows components, and just has an excellent flare for I.T and the “computer hacking” type way of working.
Unfortunately, though Eagle is simple to use, it lacks certain features such as 'Track pusher' and 'Differential pair bus router' etc etc. What would be best is if Eagle were to get augmented with these features. Does anyone know if there are User Language Programs that can be used with Eagle to achieve Bus Routing capability?
I once spent 8 weeks in a company that was using a “High-end” PCB layout package, even though all their PCBs were simple types. Their layout guy had been using that package for 10 year plus, and had done all the company’s PCBs. In spite of this, during my time at this company, the Package Apps Engineer was in the company for 3 whole days during my time there (at great expense), and this was a regular occurrence. It shows the bad state of affairs regarding the “high end” packages that people still need ‘hand-holding’ after that much time (10 years!), especially when all their PCBs were just simple ones. I actually asked their PCB guy if I should change the “workspace” for a PCB job, and he replied “I don’t know, I never use workspaces”. –This just highlighted everything about “high-end” PCB layout packages, because in that package, you are always in a “workspace”, the “workspace” is the epicentre of the package, it’s just not possible to “not use” them…What this guy meant was, that he hadn’t a clue what a ‘workspace’ was, (because the layout package is so confusing) and that he was just relying on repeated visits from the Apps guy in order to allow him to survive using it.
These kind of situations are common in many companies.
Many companies, perhaps if they only have a few simple PCBs, actually like the fact that their PCB layout program is overly confusing. This is because it supposedly reduces the chance of any competitor being able to do anything with the layout/schem files if they were ever to get hold of them.
In earlier days, I lost a few jobs by not being able to manage whichever company’s “high-end” PCB program. It was no consolation when I eventually happened on the Eagle PCB software package, which is very simple, and would have allowed me to succeed in those previous failures if I’d known about it then. One great feature of Eagle, (aswell as its great intuitiveness & simplicity of use) not shared by almost any other package, is that if someone is testing a PCB and needs the schem and board files…then Eagle has a free viewer that allows anyone to fully interrogate both schem and board. The free Eagle viewer actually allows the user to have full access to all the Eagle features, so viewing is made effective, as well as incredibly simple.
The only way to describe the currently available “high-end” PCB layout packages is that they are gross, tangled leviathans, made unnecessarily complicated. This though, is sometimes their attraction..Whilst at Jesmond Ltd, we had some driver PCBs designed by a Rotherham company. They had done all the designs in a certain PCB package. However, after finding out that we also used that same package at Jesmond Ltd, they then decided to re-do all the designs in a different “high-end” PCB layout package. –This, presumably, to reduce the chances of us being able to modify the boards ourselves if necessary…instead probably having to pay the Rotherham company to do any modification work for us.
And by the way, I watched a PhD Electronics guy struggle to lay out a simple lighting test board in the company’s “high-end” PCB program at one company..after three days he managed nothing, and had to ask for help from the PCB CAD operator guy (who , incidentally, used to be a SMD machine operator)….it just shows that its often just a case of being “in the know”
Once someone has learned a high end PCB package, they then defend it to the hilt regardless of whether its good or bad..after all, once you’ve learned it and are using it, it’s a nice little earner to say the least…and due to the ridiculous difficulty of learning these high-end PCB packages, you can be guaranteed that you’ll never suffer much competition in the labour market, so yes , I can quite see why someone who has ended up learning it would say it’s the be all and end all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt then , that all would agree to the following test to see if high end PCB layout programs really are hard or easy……
In order to see if High end PCB Layout programs are not more difficult than they should be, a test should be done as follows….
PCB LAYOUT PROGRAM TEST
Thirty electronics graduates should be chosen at random, none of whom should have any prior experience of using a high end PCB layout program…
They should each be given the task (over 8 hours in a day) of making a 2cm by 2cm PCB (1.6mm thick) comprising nothing more than a 0805 resistor and 0603 capacitor connected in parallel on the top layer. The bottom layer should be completely covered in copper, to within 1mm of the edge of the PCB and should be connected by three vias (round, 0.6mm hole diameter, 1.2mm total diameter) to the net of one terminal of the resistor/capacitor. The components should be named “R1” and “C1” in silkscreen.
There should be solder resist correctly covering the top layer, except for over the solder mask, which would be outside 0.2mm outside the copper of the resistor/capacitor pads.
There should be a solder paste layer, covering each pad of the R and C to within 0.2mm of the pad’s edges.
A rectangular silkscreen “box” of 0.3mm line thickness should surround each component. Any silkscreen should never be nearer than 0.3mm to a pad.
Different net copper should be at least 0.3mm apart.
No part of any pad should be nearer than 1mm to a via hole.
Via holes should be at least 1mm apart.
No hole should be nearer than 1mm from the board edge.
Each of the components should be correctly placed into a library named “TEST”. The components should have their centres correctly centred so that a file of pick-n-place coordinates can be delivered to the PCB assemblers.
There should be no solder resist on the bottom layer.
After finishing the PCB, the gerber files should be correctly produced, to include layers as follows…top copper, bottom copper, silkscreen, solder mask, solder paste.
The trial people will each be given a pre-made version of this PCB , so they have a better idea of what it is they are meant to do.
Let’s get this test done with a high end PCB layout program, and lets see just how easy these high end PCB layout programs are not!
The result of all this, will be that the Government works out what a shambles the high end PCB layout fraternity is, and realises that this is holding up the country’s industry, meaning a reduction in tax revenue due to lower productivity….then the government will sort it out…By either askin for proper “simplified guides” to be made, or a new PCB layout program made, or rather, just stick with Eagle for simple boards, and make an augmented Eagle for the DDR3 type boards.
A PCB is a simple structure, there is no earthly reason why laying out a simple PCB in a high end PCB layout program should be difficult.
If laying out a simple PCB in Eagle is simple (which it is), then why is this not simple to do in a high end PCB layout program?
(by the way, the above trialees should have internet access throughout the 8 hours)
Last edited: