How's CS progressing? Is it no longer "beta"?

[Pack34]

You also mentioned 'find similar objects' which does not exist in CS unfortunately.
'Filters' are OK but not as powerful (or maybe I'm using them wrong?)

If you have a PCB already, cross-probing can sometimes help with selecting similar schematic components from the pcb, as decribed by user songshome:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/circuit-studio/globally-changing-footprint-references/msg1328518/#msg1328518

That's really unfortunate. It was a saviour when it came to configuring the default silk text to be more compact. I'm quite partial to 25mil height and 5mil thickness as a standard.

[voltsandjolts]

That's still easy if you want all silk text the same size (select silk layer, shift-s, filter text, select all), just a bit of pain if you want several different sizes for different components.

[jmarkwolf]

Well, this thread blew up...

I've been playing around with the trial and the delta between AD and CS was a bit more than I was expecting. I thought it would be more-or-less a slightly different GUI (Ribbon) then have the Vault, Draftsman, and any simulator hooks stripped out.

Am I missing something or is the "Properties" pane and the "Find Similar" tool not in CS?

Yes, unfortunately the "Find Similar" function does not exist in CS. You can, however, do a similar function with the inspectors panels.

I used Protel/Altium for 20+ years when I was working. Bought CS when I retired for the occasional consulting job. It's not AD but it's close enough for 95% of what I need it to do. 20 years of files and libraries are all compatible. Menus are different and this has been my main complaint. I wish they had simply turned off (grayed out) some AD features rather than making the wholesale changes to the CS menus.

Aside from that I would recommend CS, particularly if it's still only $500.

[Simon]

I expect the people that got ripped off for $2500 for what was widely criticised as a buggy version 1.0 are very pissed off now. I think a lot of bugs have come out of the hacking apart of AD. They still won't admit that one software with tiered licensing is the way to go but then they want to make sure people feel like the rejects they are until they stump up the cash for AD. Proteus is tiered and that works great for them.

[Pack34]

I expect the people that got ripped off for $2500 for what was widely criticised as a buggy version 1.0 are very pissed off now. I think a lot of bugs have come out of the hacking apart of AD. They still won't admit that one software with tiered licensing is the way to go but then they want to make sure people feel like the rejects they are until they stump up the cash for AD. Proteus is tiered and that works great for them.

That would depend on the software and the pricing tiers. In the lower-cost space it's hundreds and the business space it's expected to cost thousands.

It would be smart to have the same backend, but different branding and limited functionality. Remove the vault, simulators, limit the size so you can't do large backplanes, limit depth to 8-10 layers, maybe simplify the GUI some, etc etc. Convert files UP to the premium but limit conversions down.

Inexpensive CAD tools are great, but it just doesn't make business sense to cannibalize the primary product. The low-cost variant should be a lead-in and draw to the premium and not divert people away.

[Kaziq]

Sadly still in beta...

[Simon]

Yea the autorouter is not that great.

[Kaziq]

Not autorouter. It's a hatched polygon with two clearance rules for different net classes.

[Simon]

Oh, well if AD has 2500 bugs then good luck with CS.

[ahbushnell]

Sadly still in beta...

I don't understand the issue?

[Simon]

Sadly still in beta...

I don't understand the issue?

It's buggy! for example every project I do i have problews with importing from schematic to PCB, I now realize that most of the errors are false and it will still work. CS is a joke!

[Kaziq]

I don't understand the issue?

The hatched areas belong to a polygon, which should go smoothly around the traces and pads at a constant distance from them. Instead the grating lines stick weirdly out of the edges, and the edge shape itself is wrong. Here is the picture of how it looks (correctly) with the polygon set to solid.

[Simon]

If you want a good example of how redicolously shit it is: Yesterday I made a copy of a whole load of net labels I wanted to use again. They were in a long vertical line. I made the mistake of moving them from the top net and pushed the bottom ones off the sheet. While it is possible to put stuff off the sheet like this you then can't do anything with them once off the sheet. So I had to hit back and go again. Not a disaster but an example of how pittyfully raw it is in places.

[Simon]

the so called autorouter, these rule violations are so simply fixed yet the software is incapable.

[Simon]

Also i have wasted over and hour trying to understand why the autorouter was executing with no errors but not placing any tracks. Aftor placing a via manually I found that my hole size and via size were back to front making a via impossible to place. So why could the numbskull fuck halfwitts at altium not program in checks and error messages for these basic setup rules.

[voltsandjolts]

Sadly still in beta...

AD had some issues with that too. A workaround was to use multiple pours, solid near 'problem' areas and hatch fill elsewhere.

What's your reason for using hatch fill?

[Simon]

The fact is the hatch fill crearly does not work. It's the sort of thing i expect from the likes of KiCAD not a near $10'000 pragram. If altium at $10'000 has 2500 bugs does that mean that the new fancy software they are launching will have a few thousand of it's own too? what on earth are they doing at altium? sitting around drinking coffe and having meetings about having meetings?

[Simon]

so at the moment I am trying to edit the board shape. All that happens is that I get locked into some mode that won't allow me to edit the board or go back! even using the back buttons. Yep, very betary shit that I paid for. If only that update had been an update!!!!

[Kaziq]

What's your reason for using hatch fill?

The PCB manufacturer complained about uneven copper distribution on the layer, which could lead to copper being too thin in some areas, and to thick in others. By using hatched polygon I tried to reduce the copper density in the polygon area. But in the end I managed to solve the issue differently.

[Simon]

At the end of the day if they put the hatched feature in it should bloody well work. Free stuff like KiCAD can get away with that sort of shit but this is supposed to be professional software and yet it is a joke.

[ahbushnell]

At the end of the day if they put the hatched feature in it should bloody well work. Free stuff like KiCAD can get away with that sort of shit but this is supposed to be professional software and yet it is a joke.

Deja vu
Quit using circuit studio. 

[Simon]

At the end of the day if they put the hatched feature in it should bloody well work. Free stuff like KiCAD can get away with that sort of shit but this is supposed to be professional software and yet it is a joke.

Deja vu
Quit using circuit studio. 

If i take that attitude there is little i can use. I paid my money for a product and it does not work as described. If i walked into a shop and handed money over for something that was brand new only to find it was brocken I could go back for a refund or replacement and if they refused it would be called fraud. It does not work like that with software, you pay your money and take your chances because there are no laws to cover the suitability of software for the advertised purpose. Apparently AD has 2500 bugs so really I suppose we are supposd to be lucky CS fires up at all!

[ahbushnell]

At the end of the day if they put the hatched feature in it should bloody well work. Free stuff like KiCAD can get away with that sort of shit but this is supposed to be professional software and yet it is a joke.

Deja vu
Quit using circuit studio. 

If i take that attitude there is little i can use. I paid my money for a product and it does not work as described. If i walked into a shop and handed money over for something that was brand new only to find it was brocken I could go back for a refund or replacement and if they refused it would be called fraud. It does not work like that with software, you pay your money and take your chances because there are no laws to cover the suitability of software for the advertised purpose. Apparently AD has 2500 bugs so really I suppose we are supposd to be lucky CS fires up at all!

My point is we understand your frustration but you are like a broken record. 

It's not perfect but I make boards with it and have learned to work around the problems. 

[Simon]

Of course I sound like a broken record! so do Altium and Farnell in their lies!

[IanJ]

Of course I sound like a broken record! so do Altium and Farnell in their lies!

Sounding like a broken record is sometimes the ONLY way to get things progressing.....so don't let up IMO!

Personally, I am dismayed that we haven't had any updates or notices about whats happeneing next in regard to CS updates. It's almost like Altium have drawn a line in the sand and that's it! I do know that resources at Altium are split between AD and CS......but it's been quite a while now!

I sooooo much want it to be better than it is in 3 or 4 areas, nothing drastic requiring NASA software engineers to get involved, just bug fixes and a bit of cleaning up some functionality.

Please Altium!

Ian.