Circuitmaker vs Eagle vs KiCad vs ??

[Dago]

I don't know why anyone would recommend diptrace, it's a night mare. Progress on it is so slow and it has a way to go. Same for KiCAD (but that is free so you can't complain), for £180 you can get proteus if your desperate to be cheap.

I really don't understand how anyone could say the progress is slow on DipTrace. Off the top off my head features added within a year or so include: Differential pair routing, trace length matching, custom hotkey support, class-to-class rule support for pours (I made a wishlist request about it and they added it). I also recall seeing some demo videos of push & shove routing for DipTrace which itself is massive feature to implement. If they really do have just one developer then it is a fantastically fast speed of development... Compare that to say eagle which has gotten pretty much nothing in a decade. I guess they fiddled with the UI a bit for version 7 and added some kind of awful license server requirement that was immediately lifted (if I recall correctly) after releasing because people got upset because it was so retarded.

Never had to call any support for any software so cannot comment on that. Bug reports/wishlist requests I've submitted to DipTrace were fixed/included in the next version so no complaints about that.

[Simon]

The diptrace autorouter sucks and there are problems when trying to deal with multiple copper pours that make up nets and should have traces connected to them. Either you allow all traces to plough into the copper pour or you prevent any trace including those belonging to the same net from connecting. It is an extreme elevation of stupidity but they would not acknowledge the problem and said it was fine. Proteus can cope with this situation fine and the autorouter is better.

[Simon]

So power design in Diptrace are a waste of time

[Dago]

The diptrace autorouter sucks and there are problems when trying to deal with multiple copper pours that make up nets and should have traces connected to them. Either you allow all traces to plough into the copper pour or you prevent any trace including those belonging to the same net from connecting. It is an extreme elevation of stupidity but they would not acknowledge the problem and said it was fine. Proteus can cope with this situation fine and the autorouter is better.

Autorouter is not really used in professional design so no wonder it is a low priority for the developers. It is only useful for extremely large and complex boards with large amount of requirements (length matching, differential impedance, crosstalk requirements etc.). And only with an autorouter that supports specifying these requirements, meaning a software with most likely a six digit price.

[Simon]

Not really. I use autorouter all the time (professionally). But not like a child. I don't just dump my parts on the board and expect magic. I lay the parts out on the board. Hit autorouter get an idea of if I have done the placement right. Move a few things around. Do the important traces myself and let the auto router do the rest. Naturally my boards are not high speed etc. A judicious use of an autorouter can save time. But the diptrace autorouter was not made for real use. If you have no copper pours it is ok.

[kasbah]

When I tried to add a common part to my test project it was lacking a footprint.  My thought was "do I have to build every part from scratch?! I'd gladly pay to have them already created."

As with everything with KiCAD, it's a community effort. Check out my super repo of KiCAD footprints I have sound so far: https://github.com/kasbah/kicad_footprints.

It hase become really useful with the upcoming feature of being able to properly search for footprints when assigning them (if you run the product/alpha version you have this ability).

[Galaxyrise]

I have tried diptrace, eagle, and kicad.  I initially tried kicad, then eagle, then diptrace.  Diptrace was the only one I was able to use initially.

I disagree with Tooki, I found diptrace to have the most "conventional" ui (for a Windows user.)  Everything I wanted to do, I was able to figure out. (Though I didn't use auto-routing at all.)  The new key shortcuts feature addressed my biggest problem with Diptrace.  However, I have still switched away from diptrace looking for something that supports more external automation (I want to generate schematic and pcb images or gerbers.)

So I tried kicad again.  I was able to actually make a board this time, and there were certain aspects of the experience I liked once I got the hang of it. But I generated a pretty big list of things that really irritated me about it.  The UI inconsistencies between schematic, part editing, and pcb editing can be especially frustrating. 

Most recently I used Eagle.  There are a lot of things I want to do that aren't there by default, but can be done via scripting.  (Like getting a 3d preview, which is not a built-in feature!) I'm going to try using Eagle for a few more boards to see how it goes, and if I can script my way to an environment that works for me.   I'm still too new to Eagle to know if you could add the library integration you want via scripting.

[Simon]

the 3D modelling support in Diptrace is crap. So many models from suppliers won't work and corrupt the whole model.

[Gyro]

Starting to get the merest hint of an impression that you don't like Diptrace Simon. 

[Simon]

Starting to get the merest hint of an impression that you don't like Diptrace Simon. 

Yes I am just a little disinclined to use it

[MarkF]

I disagree with Tooki, I found diptrace to have the most "conventional" ui (for a Windows user.)  Everything I wanted to do, I was able to figure out. (Though I didn't use auto-routing at all.)  The new key shortcuts feature addressed my biggest problem with Diptrace.  However, I have still switched away from diptrace looking for something that supports more external automation (I want to generate schematic and pcb images or gerbers.)

Diiptrace does all of that.  The Schematic is a separate tool.  Four tools in total (schematic capture, pcb layout, component editor and pattern editor).  Run the Diptrace launcher.

The "Schematic Capture" lets you draw the circuit.  The "PCB Layout" will let you save a BMP of any/all layers, show 3D visualization of the PCB and generate the Gerber files.  The "Component Editor" and "Pattern Editor" allow you to create your own components.

You may be able to do automation via the import Diptrace Ascii script file???  That is how you import Eagle files.

[Galaxyrise]

I disagree with Tooki, I found diptrace to have the most "conventional" ui (for a Windows user.)  Everything I wanted to do, I was able to figure out. (Though I didn't use auto-routing at all.)  The new key shortcuts feature addressed my biggest problem with Diptrace.  However, I have still switched away from diptrace looking for something that supports more external automation (I want to generate schematic and pcb images or gerbers.)

Diiptrace does all of that.  The Schematic is a separate tool.  Four tools in total (schematic capture, pcb layout, component editor and pattern editor).  Run the Diptrace launcher.

The "Schematic Capture" lets you draw the circuit.  The "PCB Layout" will let you save a BMP of any/all layers, show 3D visualization of the PCB and generate the Gerber files.  The "Component Editor" and "Pattern Editor" allow you to create your own components.

You may be able to do automation via the import Diptrace Ascii script file???  That is how you import Eagle files.

Sorry if I wasn't clear; what I want to do is run a tool on the dch or dip and have it generate a png.  Specfically, I want to do it from revision control to compare different versions of my project.  I don't want to do it from the diptrace UI.  I will look into this "ascii script"! I hadn't heard of that before.

Edit: Did you mean the ascii import/export?  I don't see a way to use that for my purposes, but I'm happy to be wrong.

[jsi]

Hi, OP here
So the fan/hate boys have had their say and this thread had devolved into the uselessness that happens to many of these threads.  To the newbe that might be reading this let me tell you how this newbe reached the conclusion to do his first projects with diptrace.  First let me start with what I want to do.  I have a couple of ideas for potentially commercial projects.  The software has to be fairly polished in how it works and be able to produce an output that can be used to create product in a timely manner.  It also needs to be able to grow with me as my needs and skills improve.   

Circuitmaker: While I absolutely love open source projects, I want to choose when I give my projects to the cause. Because Circuitmaker removes that choice it is eliminated from the get go.  I also don't like how circuit makers locks you into their proprietary system.  It's kind of strange given their open source bent, but I understand how they might want to do that. 

KiCad: Ah KiCad.  Ah, that open source software that we all love . . .  to hate, and to love, and to hate.  I've been using linux since 98 so I am oh so familiar with open source.  KiCad is "free", but the user interface,    I am more than willing to climb a learning curve.  But, open source software is often times saddled with an interface designed by a techy.  I'm a techy myself, but at least I know enough to not to design interfaces.

Eagle:  Eagle suffers from a common problem of older software.  It was originally designed in the 80's/90's and it hasn't evolved since, kind of like that weird guy down the street that still wears a mullet.   It happens all the time because a system has a base of users so if the changes from version to version are too big the company risks losing them.  But, at time wears on, the competition doesn't have to keep a base happy and can create a better system. 

Circuit Studio:  This one never really got out of the blocks.  With no free version or opportunity to grow with the user over time I didn't do much more than look at the videos.  It might be great, but I don't have a thousand dollars to gamble on a license.  Some may argue that it is less expensive at the top end than the other paid options, which it maybe.  For the young player I'd say it's just an expensive risk.

All of the other players in this market:  Ain't nobody got time for that.  My goal is to create PCB's, not evaluate software.  There are at least 20 other systems out there, sorry.

So my choice is - Diptrace.  Why? For a couple of reasons.  First while running it through the creation of my test project it just seemed to click with me.  Second, it has the least expensive commercial license, which will be good enough for my first projects.  If in the future I do outgrow it, I'll probably be at a place where $$,$$$ for Altium will seem like a reasonable price.

For the fan/hate boys thanks for your input.  I'm sure I've made the best/worst choice of my life 

[Landrew2390]

I've worked with both Eagle and KiCAD.  In my opinion, KiCAD is more flexible than Eagle, but it's got some serious interface issues.  Once you learn the keyboard commands, this becomes a much smaller issue and KiCAD becomes relatively easy to run.  Having said that, I do 90% of my designs in Eagle.  The biggest reasons I use Eagle are the automatic forward/back annotation and the fact that I got a Eagle Ultimate License from a professor who moved to Altium.  They're both decent programs, but they're never going to be a six figure piece of software.

If I had to start over, I'd go with KiCAD because that's what I have experience with.  It's probably not the best of the bunch, but I don't want to spend months to learn a half dozen software packages just so I can make a fully informed decision.  I would rather spend those months learning to drive a functional piece of software proficiently.

[jesuscf]

Am I the only one using Ultiboard?

[hendorog]

I started with Eagle and am now migrating to KiCAD.

First a comment on the UI as it is a pain point for newbies - and it was for me:
Eagle's UI actually makes a lot of sense for CAD type operations. First you select the Tool or operation and then apply it to the object - standard MS Windows UI is the opposite, i.e. you select the object and then select the tool.
The Eagle way means you can - for example - select a drill size and then just run around clicking each via you want to apply it to.
The Windows UI way would mean you have to multi-select all of the vias first and then select the tool. It would work fine but the Eagle way is just neater and much faster.

Secondly why I am migrating to KiCAD:
I decided to pay for Eagle so I could create 4 layer boards, it was a bit of an impulse purchase. Annoyingly I didn't realise there was a discount deal on until _just_ after I paid for it - if I had known then with the discount I would have only had to pay a little more to get the next license up.
I contacted Eagle straight way, and then again a few days later, asking them for the discount and they just ignored my emails.
I also realised that the area limitations of the license would quickly become an issue. Coupled with the personal use only limitation I concluded that I had screwed up by going with Eagle, despite the investment in time and money I'd made.

So I thought I'd give KiCAD a serious go, I had dabbled with it before but never really got stuck in.
KiCad is tough to learn, and several times I almost binned it. I'm glad I didn't though as despite it being well seriously funky in some places, ultimately it is very usable and worth investing time in.

A few key points for getting started with KiCad:
* Drawing a schematic is pretty straightforward - the pain comes later
* You need to allocate a footprint to each of the parts in your schematic - google it.
* Libraries in two parts and are configured separately - the schematic part (Component Libraries) and the PCB footprint part (Footprint Libraries which must live in directories named *.pretty).
* Export the Netlist from the Schematic editor and import it into the PCB editor.
* The 'Canvas' selection options in the PCB tool are _not_ just rendering options - they are completely different PCB layout engines and change the way the PCB tool works. Read this: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/kicad/default-opengl-and-cairo-what-are-these/
* Create a via component you can use like in Eagle for stitching ground planes without having to route to all of the vias. Google this.
* Before you can select a specific track width or a drill size first you need to define it in the Design Rules.

[Simon]

The problem with chosing software based on price is that because of that one reason for choice you are forever locked into it's good or bad things. I am now running a system where by every part has a symbol so if it's a 1K resistor or a 1.2K resistor it's a different part. This make generating the BOM a breeze but it takes a long time to setup. not something I'd like to do multiple times because i took the cheap option and stuck with it until i found it untenable,

[tooki]

I have tried diptrace, eagle, and kicad.  I initially tried kicad, then eagle, then diptrace.  Diptrace was the only one I was able to use initially.

I disagree with Tooki, I found diptrace to have the most "conventional" ui (for a Windows user.)  Everything I wanted to do, I was able to figure out. (Though I didn't use auto-routing at all.)  The new key shortcuts feature addressed my biggest problem with Diptrace.  However, I have still switched away from diptrace looking for something that supports more external automation (I want to generate schematic and pcb images or gerbers.)

So I tried kicad again.  I was able to actually make a board this time, and there were certain aspects of the experience I liked once I got the hang of it. But I generated a pretty big list of things that really irritated me about it.  The UI inconsistencies between schematic, part editing, and pcb editing can be especially frustrating. 

Most recently I used Eagle.  There are a lot of things I want to do that aren't there by default, but can be done via scripting.  (Like getting a 3d preview, which is not a built-in feature!) I'm going to try using Eagle for a few more boards to see how it goes, and if I can script my way to an environment that works for me.   I'm still too new to Eagle to know if you could add the library integration you want via scripting.

Slight misunderstanding perhaps; it was Eagle that I found so frustrating. I haven't tried DipTrace again, especially now that you say it's more intuitive. (For all the whining that happens in the Mac vs PC wars, the conventions of those platforms are more similar than they are different!!)

[MarkF]

Hi, OP here

So my choice is - Diptrace.  Why? For a couple of reasons.  First while running it through the creation of my test project it just seemed to click with me.  Second, it has the least expensive commercial license, which will be good enough for my first projects.  If in the future I do outgrow it, I'll probably be at a place where $$,$$$ for Altium will seem like a reasonable price.

For the fan/hate boys thanks for your input.  I'm sure I've made the best/worst choice of my life 

Request the Lite version.   It's free and gives you 500 pins instead of the 300 in the Freeware version.

[obiwanjacobi]

I would really like Schematic and PCB software that does not copy the cookie-cutter standard from the 80's and provide a modern UI that supports a modern workflow.
Working with component libraries is the most mind-boggling twisted piece of logic in most packages. I always feel that these packages are made by EE's and not by software engineers (and user experience/graphic designers)...

I have, at one time, tried to join the KiCad dev team, but I aborted after seeing the code. That is one of the most unreadable coding standards I have ever seen. Oh, and there are no dev-docs, no info on the architecture, design choices, no class diagrams etc...

Unfortunately, I am one of the few, because most EEs are set in their ways and (most) do not embrace change...

[JacquesBBB]

Eagle works well on a mac.
It is free for boards up tp 80 * 100 mm.

Yes, it "works". But the usability is simply atrociously bad. After a half hour I was borderline suicidal!

Maybe 1/2 hour was not enough !

Eagle interface is not usual, so it needs  some practice. After looking to various softwares, I  went through the tutorial widely available on the web, and ends up using Eagle.
Once you grasp the general philosophy of the interface, things get much better.

What I like in Eagle, is that you know that you will  be able to  do (nearly) anything,
and  you can shorten task by  scripting them.
Eagle files for parts are widely available, and all files are stored in readable text files, which is a bonus.

[zapta]

Eagle works well on a mac.
It is free for boards up tp 80 * 100 mm.

Yes, it "works". But the usability is simply atrociously bad. After a half hour I was borderline suicidal!

Maybe 1/2 hour was not enough !

'You get what you pay for' applies also to time investment.

Eagle has many advantages. I am yet to find a free PCB software that I will like more than eagle.

[tooki]

I already said in another comment that professional software is entitled to a steeper/longer learning curve than software for novices. But that doesn't absolve the developers from needing to make an effort at intuitiveness!! Eagle's UI shows zero attention to detail — they haven't even fixed trivial low-hanging fruit that users have complained about for years, like renaming and adding a confirmation to the idiotic "drop" button in the component chooser dialog.

My point isn't that Eagle is unlearnable. It's simply that it's far harder to use than it needs to be. There's no reason software cannot be powerful and intuitive — it's been done before in many other fields. It just takes some effort on the developers' part. (For example, when Final Cut Pro came out originally, one reason it became so popular was that it was far, far more intuitive than Avid, the industry standard at the time. And it wasn't because it was dumbed down — it was a powerful tool even in 1.0. But it took a beginner 30 minutes of training in Final Cut Pro to be at the same level as someone with 6 hours' training on Avid. It was that big a difference.)

And furthermore, any time a program requires you to learn "its way", it means it's a poor UI that departs from platform conventions. Adhering to platform conventions makes it faster to learn a new program, and pays dividends for long-term users in reduced errors and mental load. (If you constantly have to switch between mental modes for different apps, it's a higher burden than if everything works alike.)

[Muxr]

KiCad has some learning curve.. a few things can be hurdles.. like creating that first project specific footprint or component, you have to muck around with creating a new library, which couldn't be more unintuitive if they tried. Luckily there are guides and youtube videos explaining the process.

However once you're passed these flaws.. KiCad is amazing. The actual UI is really not bad, everything has a keyboard shortcut and those are consistent across all the modules, like hover above a trace and hit M and you can move that trace, things like that. I find it very fast and efficient once you give it a few runs.

I've designed 6-7 boards so far with it, and it all feels second nature now.

It's open source, no restrictions, file formats are human readable and very easy to script. It's a worthwhile investment learning how to use it.

[Simon]

What puts me off Ki CAD for a 2nd time was the library organisation. I installed it on my PC and on my laptop. With difficulty I set up the PCB libraries in 2 different ways unintentionally. On one machine it would work and connect to the server on the other machine it wouldn't. One fine day they switched roles in this respect. The library management is clearly not yet ready and unfit for purpose. Neither as a hobbyist or somebody designing professionally to I want to have this sort of interference from above from people who think they are very clever. I do not want to get up one day and suddenly find my designs are trashed by a moron who keeps changing things because he thinks it better. Hence I decided to go out and pay for software so that I would have guaranteed support and increased reliability.