Actin group needed for effective PCB software tutorials

[Flyback]

How often do you see EE's coming in to a job...and for the first few months, they cant work well because they are struggling to use the PCB layout software?
This shouldnt ever be the case, if someone knows all the theory of PCB structure, and all the theory of PCB layout, then that should be them skilled up to pretty immediately use any pcb software package....because the PCB layout software packages should have good video tutorials which explain how to get up and running in the software, and explain all the warning things that you should never fall for etc etc.

At 50 secs onwards of this video

...the engineer suggests that most pcb layout packages are not at all clear to use....He is right....what is needed is an action group to give pressure on governments to get this sorted...since they will only reap more taxable income due to the improvement.

Any ideas on how to get this started off?

The attached for example, is the best thing written about how to use Altium...but is not written by Altium.....makes you wonder why not.....it would be better if it was video-ised, but the writer didnt yet have the time......and wasnt payed to write it

 

[For The Popcorn]

Always looking for excuses, eh?

It's not the government's job to dictate how software should work.

 

[Flyback]

There are times when the gov't needs to step in because the prolifery of companies in any country will simply act to totally suit themselves, to the ruin of their own country, and ultimately , to the ruin of themselves......take the company that sold British Steel off.....and then that company tried to close it down........the gov't should have stepped in there.......and finally now has.

Also, this isnt about dictating how software should work, but the gov't investing in co's better explaining their PCB layout software, and how it can most effectively be used.

How many EE jobs do you see where they specifiy a PCB layout program ...because they know if an engineer doesnt have experience in it, then they wont be able to do the job for the first few months. This shouldnt happen.

The guy in the top video obviously agrees that PCB layout programs are more opaque than they need to be, and he is a PCB layout expert.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

There are times when the gov't needs to step in because the prolifery of companies in any country will simply act to totally suit themselves, to the ruin of their own country, and ultimately , to the ruin of themselves......take the company that sold British Steel off.....and then that company tried to close it down........the gov't should have stepped in there.......and finally now has.

They certainly shouldn't be dictating software packages, that's a ludicrous idea - perhaps you should move to Russia?.

 

[Flyback]

I reckon if the UK (or...insert your country here) government invested in a good suite of training video for KICAD, then everyone would be able to do great work in KICAD, and KICAD is free, so the mass of elec companies in any country would benefit and it would be win win....the other pcb layout software packages would simply then die out.........except for eg Altium and co where they do some stuff that KICAD still cant......there wouldnt be any dictating involved....wouldnt need to be.

 

[danadak]

Flyback, no question there is a place for minimum demonstrated standards
by communities (eg. governments) for engineering training. There is a long
history of this already in many safety areas.

This may seem unrelated but I am a supporter of building a world class CEO
school all CEOs must pass thru in US. No more homeboy CEO appointments,
or CEOs severely deficient in general governance or lack of technology/finance
defects in their training. To include mental and health screening as well. As a stockholder /
401K participant I want best return, productivity, and security in operations. To be maximally
competitive in WW markets already investing in their people, research, focus, direction.

So it is with your point about basic training. We can seek random performance in the
belief independent un-synchronized development and expertise is best, the most pro-
ductive, competitive or realize when all pull on the rope simultaneously they
will generally prevail.

It all comes down to measuring, what is not measured is not managed. A company
is not serious if it does not have basic measurements and screening in its operations,
whether people focused or production focused. Both are needed. Same goes in
government and education.

If one needs a heart operation one does not seek a doc with paltry training, just a
Buick mechanic certificate on their wall (no offense to Buick mechanics, now well aged
I would add).

Regards, Dana.

 

[For The Popcorn]

Sounds like you've projecting your personal experience on to "everyone" – which I don't expect is true.

Aren't you in fact trying to create a government-directed monopoly? "We the government insist everybody use kicad for PCB layout, and government will provide training at every level to support that."

If this works as you say, all other layout software will cease to exist, putting those companies out of business.

Maybe all designs should be open-source too, for "the good of the people and so that others can 'improve' on products."

 

[For The Popcorn]

In addition to standards for CEOs, how about some for politians?

Ability to pass high school:

● reading comprehension tests
● civics test
● national and word history tests
● basis math test

And

● demonstrated non-selfserving public service

 

[danadak]

401K invested in index funds is not a "personal" experience. Its the same
experience you experience if your retirement is tied up in IRA's or 401K
of funds...

One does not have to force monopolies on CAD/CAM, just some basic standards.

If this works as you say, all other layout software will cease to exist, putting those companies out of business.

Of course we have the Microsoft example. One can legit argue not perfect result.
Same for Linux. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

Open source I dont think of as an example of common standards, quite the opposite.
And crazy stuff as well, where libs become obsolete and many not compatible in upgrade
process. The human race knows no shortage of badly run processes, both government
and non-government share in that result. But communities have strengths that random
individual efforts do not, and suffer at times from lack of creativity to their detriment.

Tradeoffs, always tradeoffs.....

 

[iggnator]

As for PCB software vendor choice, I'm retired from Collins Radio 13 years now.
I worked on small commercial aircraft (it morphed into business and regional systems, there was also air transport, and government systems). I was stuck using the tools that the Engineering services division would let us EE's or ME's use. When I started in 1984, only the drafting departments could use the tools they had at that time.
Understand they had external customers (like anal retentive Boeing) that drove our tools, and all PC design practices, like clearances. If any change were made, it had to go through extensive qualification testing (shake bake). So as all PC boards from the PC drafting department were per Boeing standards, I too had all my boards built and documented to that, and I had no touching other then audits. Much later in my career (last 10) they let me have access to a layout tool. But they ran it through their process, and messed with stuff. The problem is that 'designers' may have a two year lab technician degree requirement, but they never worked on any hardware, they went from school to board design. That's how they wanted to hire them. A few had aptitude for electronics, and liked being a board designer. I never got those few talented people, and could not get EMI layout techniques understood by the "luck of the draw" board designer from the drafting pool (in my case both susceptibility filters for HIRF, and emissions filters for my system of 19 microprocessors, all designed when 6MHz was the state of the art 80186 Intel). Also had lightning requirements for plastic airplanes (BeechCraft, Starship, Model 2000, It's a bird, It's a plane, It's a Dud! I was hired to work on the autopilot for that aircraft, I was well mentored, total ignorant kid from university). And I figured out clever HIRF filter techniques (600V/m).
Point is, the tool set of any real company, that has CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT, does not let a piss ant engineer design and release a product, unless you are the one person show, that is the total engineering department. Or they don't care to support any product outside of the prototype build and run.
If they let you design to the board level, then they better have training, unless you told them you have experience with xxxyCAD, and you now have to learn how to use it.
They use the tools they use as they morphed to the needed features, you come along, maybe some day you'll have input to the tool used, and write such a manual, that my read was for home brew person trying to order a board for their prototype, and not production standards as to release documentation.
So the biggest lesson I learned in my career, I did not make a working box that flew in the experimental aircraft, and then certified with Supplemental Type Certificate, no, my product was the documented design. Only so they could build more, not tell you why you did any of those things. But then that became the big thing, to put in all the requirements into a big data base (DOORS). I quit when they made it unfun.