Learning schematic layout - Orcard or PADS?

[[email protected]]

Hi All,

I'm a VHDL designer (of sorts) using FPGA's. Short of specifying pin
outs for FPGA's I haven't got involved in board level layout, so far...

I'm thinking of taking the plunge and buying Orcad or PADS, but as
these are both expensive packages, I'd like to know first, just how
difficult is schematic layout at the board level?

What areas of knowledge do I have to learn? Primarily I'm designing PCI
cards.

I don't want to learn PCB design, that certainly seems to be a large
area best left to experts! But I think being able to do my own layouts
will save me some money... providing it's not to difficult and doesn't
take a long time to learn.

Any advice would be great.

Thanks,

Andy

 

[James Morrison]

Andy,

If you just want to learn about PCB layout then there are much cheaper
options than PADS or Orcad. I use Cadsoft Eagle and I like it. It
takes a bit of getting used to but its not bad. Its really no different
than any other system I've used: Once you know how to do things its
pretty good. It has some limitations but for the price you can't beat
it. There are also various license arrangements from free to the full
blown professional. There is a not-for-profit license that you would
qualify for if you're just tinkering around.

I'm not sure that you will be able to avoid learning PCB design if you
want to do layout. That's sort of like saying you want to drive but you
don't want to study to get a license. Sure in the end you may be able
to point the car somewhere at you'll probably move if you know just a
little bit. But the results will be less than desirable. If your PCB
isn't designed correctly you can completely negate a well designed FPGA
or ASIC and cause the whole assembly to not even function.

There are other free packages out there as well that will allow you to
learn. Someone has a list of over 60 packages that are reviewed and
linked. I can't recall off the top of my head but its been posted
either here or in sci.electronics.design. Try google to find it.

Cheers.

 

[Leon Heller]

Hi All,

I'm a VHDL designer (of sorts) using FPGA's. Short of specifying pin
outs for FPGA's I haven't got involved in board level layout, so far...

I'm thinking of taking the plunge and buying Orcad or PADS, but as
these are both expensive packages, I'd like to know first, just how
difficult is schematic layout at the board level?

What areas of knowledge do I have to learn? Primarily I'm designing PCI
cards.

I don't want to learn PCB design, that certainly seems to be a large
area best left to experts! But I think being able to do my own layouts
will save me some money... providing it's not to difficult and doesn't
take a long time to learn.

Have a look at Pulsonix: http://www.pulsonix.com

It's cheaper than Orcad and PADS, and is much easier to use.

Leon

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Andy,

There are other free packages out there as well that will allow you to
learn. Someone has a list of over 60 packages that are reviewed and
linked. I can't recall off the top of my head but its been posted
either here or in sci.electronics.design. Try google to find it.

That would be my notes and links to some 60 ECAD programs at
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/ECADList.html

Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

 

[James Morrison]

That would be my notes and links to some 60 ECAD programs at
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/ECADList.html

That's the one. Sorry Terry, I just couldn't remember. I'll bookmark
it this time

 

[Joel Kolstad]

A few quick comments; I've only used Protel, Accel, OrCAD, and PADS.

Protel: If you find a "stable" version, it's actually pretty good and the
price is right. Unfortunately, there are often main unstable,
buggy-as-all-get-out versions inbetween the good ones! Protel runs schematic
capture, PCB layout, SPICE simulation, etc. all within its own window. This
makes it feel "well integrated."

Accel: Bah. Gets the job done, not as "user friendly" as Protel, but has
better database connectivity if you want to extract design details externally.
Accel feels a lot like a "design by committe" -- on paper it looks quite good,
but in practice it's spendy for what you get and doesn't feel particularly
"slick."

OrCAD: OrCAD seems to be in serious need of some _good_ programmers (as well
as some good technical writers!). Things like tree view hierarchies don't
support, say, renaming "in place" (selecting a line item and hitting F2 to
rename it), the hierarchy itself is somewhat "fixed" and not completely "free
form" (i.e., you can add any type of files you feel like) like most newer
development environments are, etc. OrCAD's strength is its database
connectivity -- this seems somewhat better documented and developed than other
tools. Likewise, the strong database backend lets you do some pretty nice
"multi-select editing" in one fell sweoop. Still, for the price I think OrCAD
is not very impressive -- I'd almost bet a nickel that OrCAD is one of the
slowest growing packages out there these days and that OrCAD is more just
banking on the users they've had for years and years -- ten years ago, OrCAD
386 was a sight to behold!

PADS: I don't have that much experience with it yet, but their motto of being
"designed to meet the needs of the power user while keeping the beginner is
mind" strikes me as fitting. It really does seem to have more "power tools"
than Accel or OrCAD (and probably Protel, but Protel made it pretty easy to
write your own extensions if you wanted to). So far I like it... but I'm not
having to pay for the license!

So far Protel is my favorite, but with more experience I might shift towards
PADS. Pulsonix does look very attractive, but I've never had the opportunity
to use it.

Unless you have plenty of money around, I'd suggest starting out with one of
the cheaper schematic capture/PCB layout packages (something preferably under
$1K?) to see what you like and don't like. Or even use some of the free
packages for some "trial" project, and then get a few 30 day free evals from
the commercial vendors to see what you like. I've been quite impressed with
how sophisticated some projects on the really cheap and even free packages
are.

---Joel Kolstad

 

[Boris Mohar]

OrCAD: OrCAD seems to be in serious need of some _good_ programmers (as well
as some good technical writers!). Things like tree view hierarchies don't
support, say, renaming "in place" (selecting a line item and hitting F2 to
rename it), the hierarchy itself is somewhat "fixed" and not completely "free
form" (i.e., you can add any type of files you feel like) like most newer
development environments are, etc. OrCAD's strength is its database
connectivity -- this seems somewhat better documented and developed than other
tools. Likewise, the strong database backend lets you do some pretty nice
"multi-select editing" in one fell sweoop. Still, for the price I think OrCAD
is not very impressive -- I'd almost bet a nickel that OrCAD is one of the
slowest growing packages out there these days and that OrCAD is more just
banking on the users they've had for years and years --

I couldn't agree more. You wouldn't believe how many expensive invitations I
get for Orcad tutorials and seminars.

ten years ago, OrCAD
386 was a sight to behold!

It still is. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OldDosOrcad/

I use PCB386+ to make some rather complex boards.

Capture will make correct EDIF netlist for PCB386.




Regards,

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs (among other things) http://www.viatrack.ca

 

[Jim Thompson]

I couldn't agree more. You wouldn't believe how many expensive invitations I
get for Orcad tutorials and seminars.


It still is. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OldDosOrcad/

I use PCB386+ to make some rather complex boards.

Capture will make correct EDIF netlist for PCB386.




Regards,

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs (among other things) http://www.viatrack.ca

Maybe the crap is going to fall. In the past two days, two different
sales-types at EMA-EDA called trying to get me to sign up for a
tutorial.

I said...

(1) Capture is crap.

(2) And I could teach the course ;-)

...Jim Thompson