Continue to Site

Welcome to our site!

Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

  • Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Why are poorly supported pcb layout packages so popular?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Flyback

Well-Known Member
Eagle PCB layout software is relatively cheap and undoubtedly has the best support structure of all of the PCB layout packages.

If you get stuck doing something in Eagle, then if you google the problem , or write to one of hundreds of online electronics forums, then you will likely receive help for your problem…This applies more to Eagle than any other PCB layout software package and is undisputable.

I’ve just completed a four layer Emergency lighting PCB in eagle which comprised two SMPS’s, one 64 pin microcontroller and some opamps, comparators and logic IC’s etc.
It was a joy doing it in Eagle, because free support was so easy to get from the web, as discussed. I didn’t get stuck trying to find where the various features were buried etc.

With Eagle, I was a little disappointed that there wasn’t enough warning about avoiding “proportional” text and always using “vector” text on the actual PCB silk lettering. –But I’m over that now. Also, it would be nice to be able to actually highlight more than one net at a time. Also, being able to have the tracks automatically stop when they get closer than the set clearance distance from different-net copper would be nice. And and ODB++ output format would also be nice…(though I’m told for $25 I can by a ULP which can do this for me)

However, the massive availability of free online support for actually using Eagle made it a sheer joy to use.
Most of the expensive pcb layout packages (i.e. not Eagle) don’t appear to have things like “getting started guides”. Its almost as if they want people to struggle, perhaps so that they have to keep contacting the company’s applications engineers, who can then check if they’ve payed their license fee.

The professional PCB Layout consultancies are scathing about Eagle, -no doubt because they realise that its ease of use makes it a genuine competitor to themselves……after all, any of their customers could just do the job themselves if they used Eagle. They always seem to use an expensive package, so that customers are less likely to make changes to it (the schematic and layout) themselves, and are more likely to keep having to go back and pay the consultancy to make the changes.

One place where I worked, we had one consultancy lay a board out for us and they did it in Altium….then when they found out that Altium was actually our company’s in-house package, they put it all into Cadstar instead…..needless to say, we weren’t able to make adjustments to it unless we contacted them and payed them.

Given that Eagle is so superior to use (especially for a design engineer who simply doesnt have time to delve deeply into a complex labyrinth of pcb layout features), how is it that so few companies actually use Eagle?

It just doesn’t make sense. Is the reason that more complex, expensive packages are used because companies are scared of having their designs copied by poor start-up companies?

I solemnly believe that managing directors of electronics companies are being hoodwinked here, -they are being fooled into coughing up way too much money for unnecessarily complex pcb layout packages.

I think that its time to contact our local Government and get something done, as industry is being strangled by not having enough PCB layout engineers, because they simply can’t manage the complexity of these complex pcb layout packages……………if Eagle is used, anybody with some electronics knowledge (and a knowledge of pcb structure) could quickly lay out PCBs.

Altogether, I have used four PCB layout packages other than Eagle……….and they were far inferior in that they were not really “tools” as they should be, but rather , were a science all to themselves. I think “Keep It Simple” really is a wise phrase where PCB layout packages are concerned. (unless of course you are hoodwinking people into paying you lots to use an overly complex pcb layout package.)

So why is Eagle so uncommon in industry? (I believe its quite common in Chinese companys?)
 
Last edited:
Also, it would be nice to be able to actually highlight more than one net at a time.

Look up "show" in the help menu. It will give you some key sequences for showing multiple nets. Eagle has a powerful command language that offers much more than the icon-based tools. It is worthwhile learning the common ones you use.

An easy way to highlight multiple nets is to type in a command such as, Show N$10 GND +5V (or whatever nets you want to show). I tried to export an image, but the highlighting was lost in the export. I believe you can probably set a multiple show command as a hot key too, but I haven't needed to do that. I do keep a hot key template for +5V, GND, etc.

As for using the free and/or non-commercial versions for commercial use, I hope no one does that. It would be a simple matter for Element14 to turn off access to those versions if abuse becomes widespread.

Regards,

John
 
So why is Eagle so uncommon?
If you use a $10,000 piece of software with $10,000us worth of upgrades and have invested 10 years in using it, are you really going to switch to a $200 program?

I like eagle librarys. There are millions of parts...saves time.
 
If you use a $10,000 piece of software with $10,000us worth of upgrades and have invested 10 years in using it, are you really going to switch to a $200 program?
....I think you would maybe if you wanted to cut down on those maintenance costs...which are high with the top end packages..also, if your pcb layout staff retired or left, you then have to find these highly trained pcb layout people...which may prove impossible.
A word on highly trained pcb layout people.........some of them are expert at handling the $10000 pcb softwares, but cant for example identify the power switch loop and the rectifier loop on an smps.................i'd say its a waste of time employing such people to layout smps's with their high faluting software......just use eagle and get an engineer who knows these things to do it.
 
you can thank Mr Gates for introducing the whole idea that "expensive software good, inexpensive (or free) software bad".... up to that point (and computers were still in their infancy) many machines used either an operating system that came with them, or an operating system that was public domain. either way, there was no such thing as paying hundreds of dollars for each copy of the operating system, or paying for applications that ran on those machines.
 
There were both good points and bad points made here. I've been doing board layouts on CAD systems for 30 years now.

1) If you're paying a consulting firm to do board layout, YOU, not they, decide the format it is done in. Why would you pay someone for a cadstar layout when you have altium in house? Direct that the layout be done in altium, or find another consultant. Have them come in house and use your system, that way, you can monitor their progress. If you're station is too busy, have them use theirs. I would never pay for a layout that wasn't done to my specifications, on any CAD package.

2) The high end systems have their usefullness. If you're doing a basic layout, then a basic CAD system, like Eagle, is all you need. But if you're doing a high end video imager with HD 1080p @ 60 fps, storing in DDR-3 ram and interfacing in high speed USB, then you need a high end package to correctly layout the 10 layers of signals going to and from the processor, USB, and DDR chips. You can calculate all those skew values yourself, but if you change anything then you have to redo all of the calculations yourself. When you do 10-12 of these boards per year, like we do, the high end software pays for itself.

3) If you want to have the traces stop automatically when you get to the proper minimum spacing decided by your design rules, then you need the high end software. This may not seem like too big a deal with a couple hundred traces, but when you get to the couple thousand point, then again, the software pays for itself.

4) High end software doesn't come with a 'getting started' overview, because if you're using it, you better already know what you're doing. Any monkey can learn to use a CAD system, how to enter a trace, route it, etc... but to know HOW to route it, what size it should be, areas to avoid, etc, comes from years of experience, not some help menu.

5) Different CAD packages have different design philosophies, not to confuse the user, but they are different packages because their inventors had different ideas about how to tackle this problem, neither one being more correct. After using PADS for 26 years, I recently switched to CADStar. At first, I was like, how come Cadstar doesn't do this or why don't they do this (like PADS). But after being fully trained (over 6 months of use, I was routing imager boards with .5mm BGAs my third day), now I'm like, how come PADS can't be more like CADStar. They each have advantages over the other in the way they do certain things. You just have to learn the quirks of any system and go with the flow.

6) I've owned my own PADS system for 10 years now, and it's not on maintenance. Once they fixed the bugs I didn't like, and I could live with the ones they introduced, I took it off maintenance, not because I don't want to pay the $1200 a year, but because I want it to work like this and STAY LIKE THIS. I don't like them changing it every year. I like the way PADS does the padstacks, but I love the way CADStar routes. I currently do layouts in both.
 
2) The high end systems have their usefullness. If you're doing a basic layout, then a basic CAD system, like Eagle, is all you need. But if you're doing a high end video imager with HD 1080p @ 60 fps, storing in DDR-3 ram and interfacing in high speed USB, then you need a high end package to correctly layout the 10 layers of signals going to and from the processor, USB, and DDR chips. You can calculate all those skew values yourself, but if you change anything then you have to redo all of the calculations yourself. When you do 10-12 of these boards per year, like we do, the high end software pays for itself.
-I agree with this, this is where Altium shines....of course I used to work for a led lighting company that used to make 5W led driver boards.....and they used Altium. -Because I never did all that 12 layer stuff, I never really used those features of altium, and thus never got used to it. -but because I was using altium, all those facilities just got in the way of the basic job.
I never really new where I was in the altium package, because I never used to have to do that 12 layer stuff, and so never got used to it, but because I was using altium, it seemed like i was having to carry all that complexity around.
 
After a year or two of using Protel99SE/Altium (I have briefly used CadStar, and some other packages), followed by a shift to Labcentre's Proteus due to changing job, I found Eagles GUI to be absolutely horrendous. I wanted a cheap or free package for personal projects, in the end I just ended up using the works software out of work hours! The simplest of things required me to pickup a manual.

The big packages have some excellent features for simulation (without copying it all across to LTSpice or whatever!) and multi layer designs - especially with signal integrity. In addition to this, most designers build up their own libraries over the years, tweaking footprints for ease of assembly after each prototype etc. I know if I use my parts in a design, there are going to be no screw ups when it comes to assembly, and that is worth a million dollars to me.

As far as I am concerned it's time vs money - I trust my designs in Proteus now, I could use KiCAD/Eagle or whatever, but I would have to invest a lot of time to get the same level of trust and speed of design (doing simulations in other packages does NOT appeal to me at all - seems such a waste of time!). I guess a LOT of engineers get inadvertently tied into software for this reason, they trust the libraries they have built up over the years, and the associated design flow.

I really like Proteus, even if it is a mid range package, IMO it's very intuitive and that means a lot to me.
 
I looked at Eagle and the biggest issue I saw was the inability to import DXF files.

I have a case that requires a PCB with arcs. I'm having a hard time choosing a package, but I have looked at a few of them.

Two problems:
They make it look like it's easy until you have to draw a package. That's where most of the design software sucks. You seem to be drawing blind.

DXF import. It's tough to have a particular PCB (assume one with arcs) line up with a plastic case. You have to get all of the fiducials right.

Here is the challenge: Design a PCB with this case https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2013/08/145311290456668164.pdf where the penetrations to the case are not symetrical.
DXF files are available.

There is a case drawing, and two label drawings (one for printing and one for the outline). and a PCB drawing. Start with the label and then try to have everything line up.

Not simple when there are components on both sides of the board. The traditional TOP would consist mainly of switches and a LED. The "Bottom" would consist of most of the layout.

I guess it would be easier "mirroring" the switch layer.

I had a hard time visualizing dimensions when working with some programs. You can't tell your picking up the right pattern.

Maybe 20-25 components. Try doing it in Eagle.
 
I didn't realise eagle couldn't do dxf import...I have exported dxf from eagle,but never tried to do it to eagle....I wonder if there is some obscure ULP somewhere that allows it to be done in eagle (ULP = "user language program").

I know pulsonix does dxf import, and tridonic use it. I tried to use pulsonix once, at a led car lights company....I got the pcb done, but it was a painful process compared to eagle.....there was no google type support for pulsonix, no youtube like vids.......the only help I found for pulsonix was a forum called sparkfun, where a guy called Leon would answer by just telling me "its all in the manual".

I hear good things about EasyPC, but someone told me it was like pulsonix, so that puts paid to that.

I just find theres more free help and tutorial vids etc available for eagle. Theres so much help available for eagle, that if someone knows the basic structure of a pcb, then they'll definitely be able to use eagle to lay out a reasonably simple double sided pcb......you can say that confidently.....theres so much forum help etc...you just cant get stuck.

I must admit, I went to a guitar amp company some time ago, and because I hadn't mastered their pcb layout package within a day they thought I was useless, and therefore wouldn't possibly be able to design an smps for them. The thing is, smps's run by the laws of physics, pcb layout packages run by the fables and fancies of which ever software engineer designed it........add to that that I never used a computer till I was 30 years old, so my IT skills are rubbish, and I have trouble with pcb layout packages.................ive seriously seen people who can handle 'zuken 2000' in no time at all, yet they cant understand what is the rectifier loop in an smps...I don't believe such people can adequately layout an smps...even if they can utilise any feature on the pcb layout package.
 
Last edited:
Proper Smps design is a Dark Art....

Believe me. And I am not talking "garden variety" here. I am talking consistent reliability....I burnt my fingers years ago with the Viper series from Thomson I believe.

I (we) could not get the PCB and Chopper Tx reliable. After blowing up around 6 Viper SMPS IC's, I called it a day. I still have the other brand new genuine 90+ in storage for resale "one day when they are scarce".

Around year 2002. Never ever again designing SMPS. Even though I fix them every day of my life with TV's.

Designing and fixing SMPS are two very different fields.

Regards,
tvtech
 
Last edited:
Proper Smps design is a Dark Art....
id say proper microwave design is a dark art.....but standard hard switching smps is not so dark.....unless you meant the resonant side of it?

I went to a big lighting company and there smps were blowing up....all they were doing wrong, was not sandwich winding the primary...(which is needed to reduce the leakage in the flyback transformer)

tvtech, I bet I could teach you how to design any hard switching smps........start with a 30w offline flyback.......you would see that its not so hard.

I believe I could teach any number of willing participants how to design smps........and quickly.....as long as they had a few pre-requisites......like knowing that writing 1nF in an excel spread is 1e-9.........and not 0.000000001

as I remember trying to teach a guy once who had to type every zero every time and it was hopeless.....after he typed them he would then go finger to the screen and check he typed the right number of zeros........instead of just typing 1e-9.

then know v=Ldi/dt, and a few others.............and how to transpose it...........txfmr equations such as reluctance and B=phi/A etc, faradats law etc
the only good ref I ever really saw on txfmr design is on the powerintegrations website
 
Last edited:
I use eagle partly because it is small. I can walk into a new company, download eagle, use my key and be working in minutes. When I am done I set it back to the demo version so they can print the files. Usually next week an engineer calls and has questions about eagle. The price is such that it can be ordered form distribution along with parts. This way accounting does not know you bought software. There are a number of companies where the engineers use eagle for prototypes because the drifting department is so behind.

The large CAD programs have so many layers of keys that it is very hard to move around. They may require a empty hard drive.
 
ronsimpson I wish you were with me at the led company......maybe you could have convinced them to use eagle. with 4 layer boards of smps's etc, even quite detailed, you just cant get stuck......the forum help and online tutorial stuff is so great that you just cannot be stuck on a problem.......

https://tangentsoft.net/elec/movies/tt07.html

..the above is just one example of the type of crystal clear tutorials that only seem to exist for eagle.

I don't work for eagle, butmy job in electronics would be much easier if companies used eagle.....and it would benefit them in terms of increased workflow etc.

Obviously i am not talking about 12 layer boards with multiple 20 track busses all over the place etc etc...for that you do need your big packages.
 
I have a case that requires a PCB with arcs. I'm having a hard time choosing a package, but I have looked at a few of them.

Two problems:
They make it look like it's easy until you have to draw a package. That's where most of the design software sucks. You seem to be drawing blind.

DXF import. It's tough to have a particular PCB (assume one with arcs) line up with a plastic case. You have to get all of the fiducials right.

Here is the challenge: Design a PCB with this case https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2013/08/145311290456668164.pdf where the penetrations to the case are not symetrical.
DXF files are available.
I have been using DesignSpark for pcb creation lately. It has the DXF import feature which I have found critical to create arc shape copper pours, solder masks etc.

I start off with AutoSketch to create the radius shapes, array patterns, and geometry, then export as DXF file. Importing the DXF into DesignSpark then reassigning the individual elements to Board, or Top layer etc. is no problem.

Here is the DXF import board challenge with Design Spark.

Forum DXF Challenge.PNG
 

Attachments

  • ForumDXFChallenge.png
    ForumDXFChallenge.png
    16.9 KB · Views: 373
very nice:

I still had trouble creating footprints. Diptrace wasn't too bad for footprint creation. Target looks like a pretty nice package, but again it like creating footprints in the dark.
 
I hate Eagle. The user interface is bad. Overly complicated. The fact that you need constantly google up problems tells you that the software is crappy. Yes, you will get solutions easily because there are many people using the software and many people are having the same problems you have.. but if I buy a decent software all I have to do is read the manual and get to work. No need to google around random forums searching for solution to some problem that does not make sense. For hobbyists I recommend Labcenter Proteus. It is not free, but not expensive either. If someone is planning to pay for Eagle.. use the money to buy Proteus instead.
 
Last edited:
An easy way to highlight multiple nets is to type in a command such as, Show N$10 GND +5V (or whatever nets you want to show).

That is easy? You have to type in all the netcodes you want to higlight.. yeah.. easy. I just love to spend my time typing in cryptic codes when I am using graphical user interface. How about clicking on the nets holding shift key down? no.. you have type in a code. And before you do that you need to google around for 30 minutes to find out what the correct code is. Then you need pen and paper to make a list of the nets you want to highlight. One wrong move and you need to write the whole script again. Highlighting nets should be as natural as walking. You should not even need to think about it.. just concentrate to the main thing.. designing the PCB. I know it is satisfying to solve problems.. and Eagle gives you this illusion of success when the reality is that you should not have the problems in the first place.

Using Eagle is like reading YouTube comments.. you just have to work your way backwards to find out what the real issue is. Just bad design.. easy to fix, but nobody does nothing to fix it.
 
Last edited:
That is easy? You have to type in all the netcodes you want to higlight.. yeah.. easy. I just love to spend my time typing in cryptic codes when I am using graphical user interface. How about clicking on the nets holding shift key down? no.. you have type in a code. And before you do that you need to google around for 30 minutes to find out what the correct code is. Then you need pen and paper to make a list of the nets you want to highlight. One wrong move and you need to write the whole script again. Highlighting nets should be as natural as walking. You should not even need to think about it.. just concentrate to the main thing.. designing the PCB. I know it is satisfying to solve problems.. and Eagle gives you this illusion of success when the reality is that you should not have the problems in the first place.

Using Eagle is like reading YouTube comments.. you just have to work your way backwards to find out what the real issue is. Just bad design.. easy to fix, but nobody does nothing to fix it.

Did you read this part of the post?
Look up "show" in the help menu. It will give you some key sequences for showing multiple nets. Eagle has a powerful command language that offers much more than the icon-based tools. It is worthwhile learning the common ones you use.

Capture.PNG

Since the description was easily found in the program menu, I didn't bother reposting it. As it recall, it is something complicated like holding down the shift key.;) My program is set up with hot keys. That way,I don't have to live with someone else's idea of what I need. I can have, for example, F8 as show GND, F9 as show +5V, and F10 as show several nets, etc.

As for YouTube and Eagle, I almost never look at a YouTube link, so I cannot appreciate that comparison. I have found instructions in Eagle to be written accurately and logically. Maybe I am one of the few people in the world who liked the old cut and paste for "copy". To me it was an advantage to use cut and paste for multiple components,nets, etc. and to have copy for duplicating single components.

John
 
Last edited:
Graphical user interface should not have a "powerful command language" (that you need to learn). It is great when you learn it and you can feel like a guru. But in the end you need to get the work done.. and all you have done is learning how the tool works. Now you have all the actual work to do.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

New Articles From Microcontroller Tips

Back
Top