How to know which software has created an electrical scheme?

[Kaio Macedo]

Hello, how to know which software was the creator of a schematic?

[BravoV]

Hello, how to know which software was the creator of a schematic?

Do you mean this one ? Easy, just use any drawing program.

[Kaio Macedo]

Hello, how to know which software was the creator of a schematic?

Do you mean this one ? Easy, just use any drawing program.

No. For example: I have a schematic, and I would like to know which software created it, whether it was altium, orcad, etc ...

[BravoV]

No. For example: I have a schematic, and I would like to know which software created it, whether it was altium, orcad, etc ...

No one here I believe can read your mind remotely, as its obvious you don't want to post the exact schematic that you're questioning.

Are you asking people here to "guess" how that schematic looks like ?

[ataradov]

The only way to know is to know. Post a sample here, there is a good selection of people working with all sorts of software, someone will recognize it.

[Kaio Macedo]

It is not a specific scheme, I would like to know how to identify in any scheme.

But I'll post an example>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BypMuG80jnSOaWp5T3VsRmd5ZzA1aTJPRU5PaXlBTEVQbk80/view

What software created this scheme?

[ataradov]

Well, this one is easy. It says right in the document properties "Allegro Design Publisher". So this one was created using Cadence tools.

There is no general way to know.

[Kaio Macedo]

Thanks for replying, the big problem I encounter is that when viewing the properties of most schemas shows the PDF editor as creator ...

For example: http://www.mediafire.com/file/ow44fapa7kxwuzp/iPhone+6+Plus+Schematic+Full_vietmobile.vn.rar

Because of this, I'm researching a new method to discover the schema creator.

[BravoV]

I'm guessing you're so reluctant to reveal the schematic at the 1st place, until you're forced to, as all your examples are stolen schematics.

Just curious what are you planning actually ? To make "modifications" so it looks like the schematic is like untouched/original ?

[Kaio Macedo]

I'm guessing you're so reluctant to reveal the schematic at the 1st place, until you're forced to, as all your examples are stolen schematics.

Just curious what are you planning actually ? To make "modifications" so it looks like the schematic is like untouched/original ?

Just studying, as I mentioned previously, nothing specific.

It may seem simple, but it's important to me.

It has a saying that: Curiosity killed the cat.

[ataradov]

but it's important to me.

Why? What practical difference does it make what software is used to create schematics?

[Kaio Macedo]

Why? What practical difference does it make what software is used to create schematics?

I'm studying smartphone schemes.
With this information I could study a specific software.

[ataradov]

With this information I could study a specific software.

I don't understand. You can create designs like this in any modern EDA. Just assume that it is Altium and go with that.

[T3sl4co1l]

Simple: obtain a good sampling of output from every single EDA tool in existence.  Examine the design of the output:
- If headers are set, then you probably have the information for free, in plain text.  Example: the Allegro document above.
- If that is unavailable, then examining the output visually may be helpful.  Most tools have distinctive defaults, and most users / organizations don't stray far from the defaults.  Examples: Altium https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/AltiumBufferModel.png (the components are mostly from user libraries, but the shapes of primitives like supply/ground symbols, and the behavior of wires and pins, cannot be changed), Eagle's ugly defaults, OrCAD's relatively small text and odd positioning of it, etc.
Some aspects may be obvious in vector (PDF) format, especially when zoomed in; others may be artifacts of screenshots (like the above picture).  There's an outside chance that you'll see a PDF with an embedded raster image, instead of direct vector format, which can be studied similarly.
- Even if the visual styles are inconclusive, it's very likely the graphical primitives used are distinctive of the output generator that created them.  You would need a PDF decompiler / extractor / dumping tool, and probably, a good knowledge of how PDF itself works.  Some generators will use polylines to draw wires; others, individual line segments.  The line sizes may be magic numbers (Altium only supports four preset line widths, for example).  The segments might be written or draw in raster order, in order of creation, in drawing order, etc.  Components might be drawn as exploded primitives, or linked shapes.  Area fills might be made from flood fills, filled polygons, triangles, line segments, etc.  (Line fill is probably not used with SCH PDF, but some PCB tools use lines to fill polygons, and so the PCB PDF output has lines as well.  PADS does this.)

This identification process will also apply to any other modestly complex output: Gerbers and ODB++, for example.

So, hey, you didn't say how in-depth you wanted to go!   Probably, if you wanted to go this deep, you would've done so already: it's not an easy analysis to perform, but it's an obvious enough route, to someone who truly wants to know the ultimate depths of these things.

Now, if you were simply curious about what created a file, and nothing else, and you absolutely don't want any of this extraneous information... sorry, you can't get to there from here, without going through that! 

Tim