General > General Technical Chat

are drawing normal schematics a dying art?

<< < (3/14) > >>

ebclr:
The old legible and structural view schematics is an art, Today's schematics are like a component datasheet, just show pin names and numbers only, no connection, no structural view, no nothing. Even power isn't there, It's pure garbage.  Or we are old, and the new generation just like that #$%%

penfold:

--- Quote from: Bud on November 15, 2021, 10:23:45 pm ---At least people draw proper point to point connections with it. Not like the army of new generation dummies who drops parts on the schematic sheet and terminates every single pin with ports.

--- End quote ---

In defence of the army of dummies, let's not make provocative statements. The nature of the schematic itself is changing, it's significantly easier to navigate hierarchy with modern tools, most designs being handled electronically makes it less favourable to use A1 sheets that are totally illegible when zoomed to fit a screen etc etc. So why not use hierarchy to provide some abstraction to sub-circuits and separate functions or find ways to make the design more flexible with less drafting effort and chances for mistakes?

Learning to read or draw a schematic is honestly something I've forgotten how or when it happened, but I remember it being described like reading sheet music and one day, years later, I was thinking how right that guy was. When you (maybe not, but I do at least) think about it, in reading a schematic you need to have a lot of stuff running through your mind at once to get from straight wires drawn at reasonably arbitrary locations, some connections omitted for clarity and components that are drawn to look nothing like their physical entity to "something" that's comprehendible and imaginable as a real system... at least from that perspective I see Fritzing as a more logical choice than studying loads of theory first and going for the intentional hard-way, maybe that approach will lead to a better understanding perhaps.

I totally agree from being used to a formal schematic approach it can be more difficult to follow... but surely by offering assistance one assumes the responsibility of meeting them halfway with the means by which they communicate the problem?

T3sl4co1l:

--- Quote from: ebclr on November 15, 2021, 11:18:05 pm ---The old legible and structural view schematics is an art, Today's schematics are like a component datasheet, just show pin names and numbers only, no connection, no structural view, no nothing. Even power isn't there, It's pure garbage.  Or we are old, and the new generation just like that #$%%

--- End quote ---

To be fair, the old generation never had to deal with 2,000 pin vacuum tubes. Modern problems require modern solutions. :)

Tim

fourfathom:

--- Quote from: Bud on November 15, 2021, 10:23:45 pm ---At least people draw proper point to point connections with it. Not like the army of new generation dummies who drops parts on the schematic sheet and terminates every single pin with ports.
--- End quote ---

I tend to agree with you, but in my last big project (where I led a team of excellent engineers) we had some schematic pages that were just that.  These were for boards with multiple 1000-pin BGA custom ASICs, and there was no reasonable way to show the connections or generate the netlists.  In fact, much of this was automated, and those schematics and netlists were generated by software. We had human-drawn upper level block diagrams that showed the gist of the thing.

But for more normal schematics I definitely like (where practical) signal flow from left to right, power on top and ground at the bottom, and connections plainly shown.

I don't like the Fritzing diagrams, but I don't get upset about them -- I'm just happy that someone is dipping their toes in electronics.  If they enjoy it they may eventually advance to real schematics (etc).

VK3DRB:
Yes, it is dying as an ART. I create schematics, PCB layouts and coding for a living. I consider these to be treated as ARTWORK, not just output files.

I often have to read others' schematics, layouts and code; including those from reputable companies. Pet gripes:
1. Inheriting schematics done by lazy engineers.
2. Inheriting PCB layouts done by lazy engineers.
3. Inheriting firmware written by lazy engineers or programmers.

I say lazy, because often that is the reason things are incomplete, ambiguous and even unreadable. But sometime management does not provide the time to do things properly. I see it a lot. Lack of test points, lack of net labels, dodgy track layout, or no ground test points - the latter should be be punishable by death. Poorly named or inconsistently named schematic sheets is very common. The ad-hoc use of underscores and upper/lower case is a pet gripe. Using underscores in net labels is plain bloody stupid when using Altium.

This can be all prevented ensuring there are company standards (schematic, layout and C/C#/C++ coding standards). It's hard work to create them, but it is a good investment.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod