Circuitmaker vs Eagle vs KiCad vs ??

[jmelson]

Yes, Diptrace.
It's better in that it is supported for future OS changes, whereas P99SE is likely to stop working one day after an OS update. I needed to be able to transfer significant amounts of IP to a new system before this happens. Diptrace appears to be very close in functionality to P99SE, so the time to get started was very short. The evaluation exercise convinced me that it was an appropriate replacement as I managed to easily reproduce my schematic and PCB libs from P99SE to Diptrace and then reproduce a few designs (as an exercise in navigating the software). There are a few differences with schematic/PCB interaction which are relatively minor however overall the results have been satisfactory and PCB's have been manufactured from it now. I rarely use autorouter functionality so I cannot compare this adequately.

Well, I run a Linux desktop, and use VirtualBox to run various Windows versions as "guest" OS's under that.  So, I ought to be able to keep Windows XP or 7 running about as long as I care to.  Yeah, most low- to mid-budget autorouters are somewhere between awful and hysterically bad.  P99SE's autorouter seems to be in the latter category.  KiCad's actually doesn't look too bad.  I'll have to check out Diptrace.  Just the name seems to shout "old school" so I've never looked at it before.

Thanks,

Jon

[Simon]

My understanding is that it's a deliberate design decision, letting you choose components in the schematic before worrying about footprints. 

Honestly, I don't love it, especially since it's inconsistent - it works fine for generic components - passives, diodes, etc., but not for more complex ICs which are only available in a few packages and those packages may have different numbers of pins (necessitating different schematic symbols).

I also often start by thinking about footprints, especially if trying to fit a certain size budget.

But I can live with the annoyance.

It's an old fashioned way of working that may have worked when all through hole parts were the same and perhaps computers could not handle the data (I've done PCB design in DOS on a 486). As soon as you need to produce manufacturing data so that someone else can build your boards you will find this a pain in the arse. I select parts as I design the schematic. I can't afford the time and errors of manually assigning footprints and writing BOM's so yes KiCAD is out. Congratulations to the guy that made a computer with it, I'm sure he assembled that himself and had lots of time on his hands. For business I need something better.

[paulca]

It allows you do interesting stuff without redoing the schematic like have a switch on the schematic, but switch it to be a pin header on the PCB or change a THT design to be SMD without changing the schematic.

I also allows me to create new components in the schematic without having to worry about the footprint yet.

I like it, but I'm only a beginner.

Possibly the ability to assign a "default" footprint to components might be a compromise to appease both camps.

[Simon]

Like i say, wait until you are designing something for a customer and need to get a quote from an assembler.

[paulca]

Like i say, wait until you are designing something for a customer and need to get a quote from an assembler.

But, assuming you know the footprints as you kind of need to know them to design your schematic in you paradigm, then it only takes a few minutes to assign footprints.

I don't see the issue.  A few minutes cost over a design and layout that might take days.  I think those few minutes would be saved not having to hunt, select or remake components for different footprints every time.

Having the footprint coupled to the part means you have to have hundreds of different resistor and capacitor components.  One for each footprint.  That makes the parts library, HUGE, which in terms of the schematic which technically doesn't care what the physical properties of a component are.

[Simon]

It depends on the size of the design but for anything over 20 lines it becomes a nightmare getting it quoted. As soon as I pick a part I have the correct footprint, 3D model and MPN, the assembler does not care what you want, they want the MPN on the BOM to be exactly what you buy.

Yes It means I have to duplicate some parts, I have a resistor template and have 0805 and 1206 versions. Same for capacitors and make them quickly as I need them as the hard part is the footprint which is made once and reused over and over, the footprint data is linked so never duplicated.

[paulca]

I haven't used it, but KiCad supports BOM scripts which produce a BOM in whatever format you want.  I believe it requires scripts as it will produce different formats for different suppliers/assemblers so it decouples it and leaves it up to you.  I would imagine it provides your script with each component and footprint required + count in turn and lets you output whatever you want.

There might be some generic ones out there worth investigating.

[Simon]

My script ? all this to get around just assigning everything required when a part is set up ? like I say, try doing commercial design and you will see.

[paulca]

My script ? all this to get around just assigning everything required when a part is set up ? like I say, try doing commercial design and you will see.

I think it's just a different way of working and requires different procedures.  I expect if you took the time to learn it you'd find it was probably just as fast.

How does your current application create your BOM?  I expect it's a script or a length setup you had to setup originally.

I don't do commercial design, so it works for me.  I was able to change an entire board from THT to SMT without changing the schematic once.  I frequently change my mind about component footprints and change them.  Granted in commercial the BOM is already more or less decided and changing a component is more difficult if you buyers are already ordering 400,000 of them.

It also makes sense to me from an entity modelling and normalization point of view.  The relationship between component and footprint is many to many, so data doctrine would always point to a normalised join of two entities.  Thus you have ONE resistor and 100 different footprints.  Those same footprints can be used with a capacitor, meaning you only need ONE 0805 footprint.  KiCad actually has a resistor 0805 and a capacitor 0805 which is a bit weird, but I expect it's just to stop forum posts from people asking "Where are the 0805 capacitor footprints?"

[jgalak]

KiCad actually has a resistor 0805 and a capacitor 0805 which is a bit weird, but I expect it's just to stop forum posts from people asking "Where are the 0805 capacitor footprints?"

Since the footprint includes silkscreen and assembly layers, it might also be so that they can have different graphics?

[paulca]

KiCad actually has a resistor 0805 and a capacitor 0805 which is a bit weird, but I expect it's just to stop forum posts from people asking "Where are the 0805 capacitor footprints?"

Since the footprint includes silkscreen and assembly layers, it might also be so that they can have different graphics?

Good point.

[P_Doped]

I'll put my vote in for DipTrace.

I'm definitely a hobbyist level user.  I send out a board at most 1 time per 3 months.  I wanted a program that was easy to learn and return to.  I had used Protel many years ago.

I feel DipTrace has a reasonable price point for a light user as well as a reasonable upgrade path if/when your use becomes heavier.  I bought it at the Starter level (300 pins, 2 signal layers).

I like to have my designs stored wherever I like and the software developed for the current OS, so I feel I can comfortably continue to use the software, even if the company goes out of business.  I didn't want board physical size restrictions.  Once again, though, I'm a hobbyist with respect to PCB's, so the software doesn't represent my livelihood.

I can't comment on the quality of the copper pour for a heavy user or more than 2 layer capabilities.  I typically use the autorouter with perhaps a few nets hand routed beforehand, finishing with a copper pour for ground, say.  I'm not trying to have the program control impedances or define net classes; no power user here.

I tried Eagle & KiCad and found them too awkward for a casual user.  DipTrace hit the sweet spot for me.  I can make symbols, footprints, schematics, and PCB's with either a quick tutorial or the old copy/paste from existing, similar parts.  I send my boards out to Oshpark and have never had an issue with the process or the results.

[Bassman59]

Just downloaded KiCAD for a quick looksy at what progress has been made. Thing that i would have a problem with is the need to manually link footprints to the schematic. I'm at the point now where I pick the symbol, footprint, 3D model and MPN the moment I put a symbol on the schematic. that way design is much faster.

You don’t need to manually link footprints to schematic symbols. For the last few years, you have been able to create schematic symbols with footprint names embedded in them and store those symbols in libraries. When you place the part on the schematic, the footprint is included, and you don’t need to do that CvPCB step to match symbols and footprints.

Symbols with footprints and proper part numbers are called “Atomic parts,” and a lot of users rely on them. The latest KiCad-provided libraries use atomic parts, as does Digikey’s new library. The concept is well-supported.

Search the discussions on the user forum for more details.

[JPortici]

It allows you do interesting stuff without redoing the schematic like have a switch on the schematic, but switch it to be a pin header on the PCB or change a THT design to be SMD without changing the schematic.

on diptrace: right click on part in the schematic -> attached pattern -> change and rewire the pattern as you like. Problem solved.

KiCad actually has a resistor 0805 and a capacitor 0805 which is a bit weird

Not weird at all. there are a TON of polarized 0805 capacitors, so the CAP_0805 in diptrace (actually all che SMD cap patterns) has this line to tell orientation. same for LEDs and diodes in 0805

[cowana]

KiCad actually has a resistor 0805 and a capacitor 0805 which is a bit weird, but I expect it's just to stop forum posts from people asking "Where are the 0805 capacitor footprints?"

The actual reason (assuming both are unpolarised) is the different in height. Resistors are printed (thick/thin film), so are fairly low - this means the pads can be small and still get a good solder fillet on the outside of the lead. MLCC SMD capacitors are generally taller, so the pads are wider - this means the solder fillet will still wet to the entire outside of the part, and it'll be well mechanically attached to the board.

Have a look at the difference in dimensions between an 0805 resistor and 0805 capacitor footprint - you'll find the copper pattern is different!

[Simon]

And in the real non KiCAD world with linked libraries including 3D models the different footprint includes a correct and accurate model. there is a certain pleasure in picking a part versus a symbol and being able to produce a purchasable BOM and accurate 3D model. In CS even in 2D mode the 3D information is being used and physical clashese in 3 dimensions highlighted.

[Bassman59]

KiCad actually has a resistor 0805 and a capacitor 0805 which is a bit weird, but I expect it's just to stop forum posts from people asking "Where are the 0805 capacitor footprints?"

The actual reason (assuming both are unpolarised) is the different in height. Resistors are printed (thick/thin film), so are fairly low - this means the pads can be small and still get a good solder fillet on the outside of the lead. MLCC SMD capacitors are generally taller, so the pads are wider - this means the solder fillet will still wet to the entire outside of the part, and it'll be well mechanically attached to the board.

Have a look at the difference in dimensions between an 0805 resistor and 0805 capacitor footprint - you'll find the copper pattern is different!

Also, the footprints need to be different if they have 3D models attached.

[Bassman59]

And in the real non KiCAD world with linked libraries including 3D models the different footprint includes a correct and accurate model. there is a certain pleasure in picking a part versus a symbol and being able to produce a purchasable BOM and accurate 3D model. In CS even in 2D mode the 3D information is being used and physical clashese in 3 dimensions highlighted.

To whom are you replying? Kicad supports exactly what you want.

[fearless]

I'd like to see this thread re-opened, perhaps under a new title (perhaps citing KiCad 6.0?).  A lot has changed in the last four years...

[eugene]

Noooo!!

It's not a productive discussion, but there are fairly recent threads on eevblog if you search for them.