Anybody tried Advanced Circuit's "PCB Artist"?

[Joel Kolstad]

Just curious... we have boards done at Advanced Circuits every now and again,
and I'm noticing they now have their own free schematic capture/layout
software -- presumably to compete with ExpressPCB. Their angle is that *after
you buy your initial prototypes from Advanced Circuits*, you do get the option
to generate Gerber files so that you could take your production to anyone
(whereas ExpressPCB ties you into their system forever).

Web link: http://www.4pcb.com/index.php?load=content&page_id=46

---Joel

 

[Joerg]

Just curious... we have boards done at Advanced Circuits every now and again,
and I'm noticing they now have their own free schematic capture/layout
software -- presumably to compete with ExpressPCB. Their angle is that *after
you buy your initial prototypes from Advanced Circuits*, you do get the option
to generate Gerber files so that you could take your production to anyone
(whereas ExpressPCB ties you into their system forever).

Web link: http://www.4pcb.com/index.php?load=content&page_id=46

But when you want to do the slightest circuit change or re-layout you
have to start over and order proto boards there again? And when you need
a highly specialized base material that 4PCB doesn't offer you might
have placed yourself between a rock and a hard spot.

Nothing against the company, I've done several PCB fabs at Advanced and
they usually did a nice job at reasonable cost. But I prefer to remain
independent. After all, a software like Eagle ain't that expensive.
Usually less than one of our proto runs.

BTW I almost hit a snag with Advanced but caught it just in time. Back
then their proto runs were "upgraded" to lead free which I absolutely
positively did not want to mess with. We had to do a mini production run
to get around that. However, they staff is really helpful in solving
such pickles.

Hey, and now they give you Outback Steak House gift cards for referrals.
That's kind of cool. Not so cool for people with high cholesterol though.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

But when you want to do the slightest circuit change or re-layout you have
to start over and order proto boards there again?

Yes, I would imagine so.

And when you need a highly specialized base material that 4PCB doesn't offer
you might have placed yourself between a rock and a hard spot.

Agreed, 4PCB is great for relatively straightforward boards, but they're
definitely not a high-end fab. I once called them about their then-new flex
circuit capabilities, and it was clear they didn't have the foggiest notion as
to what they actually could or couldn't do with them yet (but perhaps by now
they do!).

Nothing against the company, I've done several PCB fabs at Advanced and they
usually did a nice job at reasonable cost. But I prefer to remain
independent. After all, a software like Eagle ain't that expensive.

Ditto... Pulsonix is also quite reasonably priced IMO for what you get.

Hey, and now they give you Outback Steak House gift cards for referrals.
That's kind of cool. Not so cool for people with high cholesterol though.

Maybe they'll start baking the Bloomin' Onions rather than deep-frying them?

 

[Joerg]

Yes, I would imagine so.




Agreed, 4PCB is great for relatively straightforward boards, but they're
definitely not a high-end fab. I once called them about their then-new flex
circuit capabilities, and it was clear they didn't have the foggiest notion as
to what they actually could or couldn't do with them yet (but perhaps by now
they do!).




Ditto... Pulsonix is also quite reasonably priced IMO for what you get.

Eagle is $400 each for schem, layout, autorouter. Since us analog guys
can't use an autorouter that's $800 for the full-blown package, less if
you can live with limitations such as 4-layer. Huge downside IMHO is
that they have not hierarchical sheets structure and don't seem to
understand why that is a show-stopper for many potential buyers.

Maybe they'll start baking the Bloomin' Onions rather than deep-frying them?

I avoid deep-fried stuff.

 

[DJ Delorie]

Huge downside IMHO is that they have not hierarchical sheets
structure and don't seem to understand why that is a show-stopper
for many potential buyers.

AFAIK, geda has heirarchical sheets, but I've never used them. The
relevant hot topic these days is figuring out what works best for
everyone wrt hierarchical refdes's and netlisting, plus slotting
across blocks.

 

[Joerg]

AFAIK, geda has heirarchical sheets, but I've never used them. The
relevant hot topic these days is figuring out what works best for
everyone wrt hierarchical refdes's and netlisting, plus slotting
across blocks.

Most of all it's (usually) best to stick with what you've got and accept
that no system is ideal. Changing horses too often costs too much time.

 

[Joerg]

AFAIK, geda has heirarchical sheets, but I've never used them. The
relevant hot topic these days is figuring out what works best for
everyone wrt hierarchical refdes's and netlisting, plus slotting
across blocks.

Also, gEDA only runs under Unix/Linux AFAIK. That precludes the majority
of users including me.

 

[DJ Delorie]

Also, gEDA only runs under Unix/Linux AFAIK. That precludes the
majority of users including me.

Unix, Linux, MacOS, and Windows. It's not pretty under Windows, but
that's mostly a packaging issue. We're hoping to get a
windows-centric developer to help clean it up and package it nicely.

I think it runs on Amiga too, but not the official version.

 

[Joerg]

Unix, Linux, MacOS, and Windows. It's not pretty under Windows, but
that's mostly a packaging issue. We're hoping to get a
windows-centric developer to help clean it up and package it nicely.

I think it runs on Amiga too, but not the official version.

Thanks, it didn't say that on the gEDA web site. Maybe I should give it
a shot then. The fact that Eagle doesn't allow sheet hierarchies really
irks me.

And it doesn't have to be pretty. I would have kept old DOS Orcad were
it not for printing issues and the like.

 

[JeffM]

gEDA only runs under Unix/Linux AFAIK.

For OS X: (I guess that's pretty much *n?x.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci....-*-*-*-fink-packages+qq+*-OS-X-*-*-*-platform
..
..
As DJ said:
:It's not pretty under Windows, but that's mostly a packaging issue.

**Creating a Windoze Installer is a Thankless Job**
http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...ons-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+point-and-click-*-installer
http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...s+port+the.moment.they.released.a+2006+binary

This is the best that currently exists in that realm:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Dan+build_pcb.script+Dan+OR+McMahill+site:seul.org&num=100
....and folks *have* gotten gEDA working under Windows this way.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...d+2007+missing.dependencies+*-*-despair+Linux

 

[DJ Delorie]

Thanks, it didn't say that on the gEDA web site.

Because it's still not clean enough to be worth it for us to try to
help users get it running

Maybe I should give it a shot then. The fact that Eagle doesn't
allow sheet hierarchies really irks me.

Before you commit to it, check the geda mail archives to see if the
instructions for building it (probably under Cygwin) are readily
available. The biggest hurdle is gathering all the other packages
you'll need to build it (cygwin, gtk, guile, etc).

And it doesn't have to be pretty. I would have kept old DOS Orcad
were it not for printing issues and the like.

As for printing under Windows, you'll probably have to export to pdf
and print that. Windows doesn't have the "all printers are
postscript" meme.

Like I said, we're hoping to get a Windows-centric developer to help
clean up these things.

 

[DJ Delorie]

For OS X: (I guess that's pretty much *n?x.)

Yes. It pretty much "just works" under OS/X due to the unix
underpinnings.

**Creating a Windoze Installer is a Thankless Job**

We also have a fear of opening the floodgates of clueless windows
users in order to provide packages for the minority of clueful ones.
It's not that we think windows users are more clueless than Linux
users, it's just that there's SO MANY OF THEM that the clueless among
them would overwhelm us.

Nonetheless, we do keep talking about how to support Windows without
losing our sanity.

 

[Joerg]

Yes. It pretty much "just works" under OS/X due to the unix
underpinnings.




We also have a fear of opening the floodgates of clueless windows
users in order to provide packages for the minority of clueful ones.
It's not that we think windows users are more clueless than Linux
users, it's just that there's SO MANY OF THEM that the clueless among
them would overwhelm us.

Nonetheless, we do keep talking about how to support Windows without
losing our sanity.

Well, then I better leave it alone for now. Got to be honest here. WRT
Windows I am probably closer to the category "clueless" than I should be
in order to get this up and running.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Eagle is $400 each for schem, layout, autorouter. Since us analog guys can't
use an autorouter that's $800 for the full-blown package, less if you can
live with limitations such as 4-layer.

That is inexpensive. I'm not sure of the exact pricing, but Pulsonix -- who
does pricing based on the number of pins rather than the number of layers --
ranges from approx. US$2500 (1000 pins) to $6500 (unlimited) for schematic
capture & manual routing (I believe the actually prices are a little lower
than this). For the autorouter they get another $1000 to $7000 depending on
pin *and* layer count. That's definitely somewhat outside of the "cheap"
ballpark, but still considerably less than the likes of, e.g., an ORCAD- or
PADS-based solution.

I think a savvy user is typically more proficient in a well-done "suite" such
as Pulsonix or Eagle than when you choose, e.g., ORCAD for schematic capture
and PADS for layout and only have the lowest common denominator of a netlist
to link them together. (Want to mark some traces as, e.g., 50 ohms and others
as 10A power traces and others as clock signals that need to be routed in a
specific order from ORCAD and get it into PADS? You're out of luck unless you
buy various third-party "helper" programs such as Precience!)

Speaking of which... I'd be curious to learn how many people here do use
schematic attributes to guide layout? I make extensive use of them for
getting layot to automatically choose the correct default trace width (e.g.,
"generic" signals, power signals, and controlled impedance traces), but often
don't bother with the fancier stuff like routing order.

Huge downside IMHO is that they have not hierarchical sheets structure and
don't seem to understand why that is a show-stopper for many potential
buyers.

Pulsonix does do hierarchical sheets pretty well.

I avoid deep-fried stuff.

They should give you a discount on your life insurance policy for this.

---Joel

 

[Joerg]

That is inexpensive. I'm not sure of the exact pricing, but Pulsonix -- who
does pricing based on the number of pins rather than the number of layers --
ranges from approx. US$2500 (1000 pins) to $6500 (unlimited) for schematic
capture & manual routing (I believe the actually prices are a little lower
than this). For the autorouter they get another $1000 to $7000 depending on
pin *and* layer count. That's definitely somewhat outside of the "cheap"
ballpark, but still considerably less than the likes of, e.g., an ORCAD- or
PADS-based solution.

$6500? Yikes! One of the well-trodden paths is to keep using older CAD
software. AFAIR my layouter's SW is 5+ years old and just fine. It does
whatever I ask of him. My old DOS Orcad served me very well for over
eight years and the only reason I switched to Eagle was that it became
ever harder to link printers to it. The new OrCad was way too pricey IMHO.

I think a savvy user is typically more proficient in a well-done "suite" such
as Pulsonix or Eagle than when you choose, e.g., ORCAD for schematic capture
and PADS for layout and only have the lowest common denominator of a netlist
to link them together. (Want to mark some traces as, e.g., 50 ohms and others
as 10A power traces and others as clock signals that need to be routed in a
specific order from ORCAD and get it into PADS? You're out of luck unless you
buy various third-party "helper" programs such as Precience!)

Speaking of which... I'd be curious to learn how many people here do use
schematic attributes to guide layout? I make extensive use of them for
getting layot to automatically choose the correct default trace width (e.g.,
"generic" signals, power signals, and controlled impedance traces), but often
don't bother with the fancier stuff like routing order.

Old fashioned here: I sketch it onto a paper, scan that and send it over
to the layouter.

Pulsonix does do hierarchical sheets pretty well.

At those prices it better ;-)

They should give you a discount on your life insurance policy for this.

I don't have life insurance. My life insurance policy is spelled out in
the bible here on the shelf ;-)

But we all have our weaknesses. Mine will be a nice ice-cold margarita
tonight.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

$6500? Yikes!

If you really want to tempt a heart attack, take a look at the prices of,
e.g., Microwave Office, Agilent's ADS, Ansoft Designer, or similar microwave
design packages.

I'm told that IC design/layout tools are pretty spendy as well... last I
heard, full-blown HSpice was >$10k...

One of the well-trodden paths is to keep using older CAD software.

All the vendors get you on the "subscription" plan whereby financially it is
difficult to switch, especially once you have more than a small number of
licenses.

I don't have life insurance. My life insurance policy is spelled out in the
bible here on the shelf ;-)

Your wife might benefit more from some greenbacks than just a nice eulogy,
though.

Enjoy your margarita,
---Joel

 

[Joerg]

If you really want to tempt a heart attack, take a look at the prices of,
e.g., Microwave Office, Agilent's ADS, Ansoft Designer, or similar microwave
design packages.

And it is surprising what an RF guy can get done without them ;-)

I'm told that IC design/layout tools are pretty spendy as well... last I
heard, full-blown HSpice was >$10k...




All the vendors get you on the "subscription" plan whereby financially it is
difficult to switch, especially once you have more than a small number of
licenses.

You can get most packages sans subscription to some expensive "service
plan". If not, I would not buy.

Your wife might benefit more from some greenbacks than just a nice eulogy,
though.

But what about me, who makes my margaritas if I'm the survivor ...?

Enjoy your margarita,

Thanks, I will. But first I've got a job to do. Fire up the Weber and
grill a nice steak.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

And it is surprising what an RF guy can get done without them ;-)

Yeah, but when even RF power amplifier guru Steve Cripps makes extensive use
of them, I figure they must be worth at least a little!

You can get most packages sans subscription to some expensive "service
plan". If not, I would not buy.

Good point... at least for those >$10k packages they do usually seem to have a
"lease" option. In fact, an ADS salesguy told me that realistically almost no
one actually buys ADS anymore, since it starts at something like $35k and can
easily be >$70k "nicely configured."

But what about me, who makes my margaritas if I'm the survivor ...?

Mmmm... find yourself a nice widow? Assuming your interpretation of religion
condones that?

 

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

whatever I ask of him. My old DOS Orcad served me very well for over
eight years and the only reason I switched to Eagle was that it became
ever harder to link printers to it.

I used the Postscript plotter driver that worked nicely with a
NEC Silentwriter LC890 and Laserjet 6MP.
I'd expect it to work with Acrobat.

regards, Gerhard

 

[Andy Peters]

For OS X: (I guess that's pretty much *n?x.)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.cad/browse_frm/thread/...

In the months since I wrote that post, there have been some major
improvements to gEDA. Yes, the dependency issues still exist (and the
biggest issue is guile, which uses gmp library, whose developer is
apparently a rabid anti-Mac person who refuses to even support other
developers' patches that let gmp build on Intel OS X machines), but
the latest snapshot (1.1.1) does build and runs fine in OS X (at least
10.4).

BTW: http://www.rudix.org/ has a proper OS X package that contains pre-
built guile and gmp so there's no need to deal with darwinports or
fink.

-a