OrCAD

[electrolust]

Why no love for OrCAD here? (no dedicated forum for it). Currently promoted for only $750!!! Wow! (list $3000) perpetual license w/ 1 year maintenance.

I find all of the available PCB EDA softwares to be ... awful. Each in their own awful way. I've tried most of them. Not gEDA but from the looks of it, no thanks.

Proteus is the best I've found. Price point is acceptable, the flaws are acceptable. Library mgmt is horrid but livable (barely). I like it enough that I've been keeping my maintenance payments up for years now.

Altium is obviously more powerful but it's just too horrible for me to use, even if it were the same price as Proteus. I actually bought a 2yr license, regrettably, for CS but it has way too many flaws and I abandoned it quickly.

I'd never considered OrCAD b/c the price was touching Altium but at sub-$1000 I want to give it a shot. What's the consensus on its usability? I wonder if it doesn't get much love because of the pricing, or because it stinks like the rest.

I recently had a bout of anger with Proteus and ventured into KiCad again. What a joke. Just coincidence, but the day I tried it (for the 3rd time over last few years), the support forum's cert had expired the day prior. Come on guys. Also on first-run it spews out all the errors from obsolete (moved or unavailable) footprint or device libs. I uninstalled. I got desperate and re-installed and on second installation it just hangs forever when launching eeschema. Some leftover turd from that just-prior installation must have ruined things. So I didn't even get to the point to be newly dissatisfied with the schema editor.

thanks for letting me get a rant in along with my question.

[asmi]

As someone who used Orcad Pro for 3 years, and used Altium for the last few months, here is my opinion:
Orcad PCB editor is excellent! Altium is not even in the same league for features, convenience, speed and especially stability. Altium's "rules editor" is utter garbage compared to Orcad's "Constraints Editor".
In Altium it's not easy to see what is the final effect all your rules have on a specific net. In Orcad constraints manager show it in the form of convenient spreadsheet, and you can adjust these parameters on the fly for specific net if you so desire, in Altium you will have to fight with that stupid "rules" editor.
Orcad SI simulation (sigXplorer or something like that) is also a major advantage if you work with anything hi-speed.
Footprint creation - got to give a plus to Altium. In general it's a pain in Orcad, because it forces you to create padstacks for each (different) pad structure you're going to have. For standard packages, you can use free Library Expert to generate footprints and 3D models for Orcad, but for oddball parts (like a lot of modern power parts like hi-current DC-DC converters, output stages and stuff like that) creating a custom padstack for these oddball pads is super-annoying. These pads are still a pain in Altium, but at least it doesn't force you to muck around with padstacks. Also Altium has built-in IPC footprint/3d model generator, even if it isn't as good as Library Expert, but still better than nothing.
One major (for me) annoyance of Orcad PCB Editor is that it doesn't allow opening more than one board at once (if you've got only one seat license), though it does let you open it to work with multiple footprints at the same time.
Library management - I'd say it's about on par, but I like Orcad's way of storing each footprint as a separate file. I didn't try Altium 365 yet (as I don't like idea of being forced to stay on subscription), but Orcad has CIS option, which, from what I heard, is above and beyond Altium's cloud, and it doesn't require any subscriptions to function. On another hand, it's a paid option.
Schematics - I prefer Altium, but I'd say they are on par feature-wise.
Overal impressions - Altium seems more cohesive, it "feels" like a single product, when Orcad Capture and PCB Editor are two separate things - different shortcuts, GUI layout and philosophy, etc. Though there are efforts to make UX more consistent. Also Altium is Windows-only, while Orcad natively works in Linux (and from what I heard, it works better on Linux than on Windows). Altium is also more expensive than even Orcad Professional if you compare MSRP. Orcad provides a growth path, when you have the same UX from the basic Standard edition all the way to ultra high-end Allegro, which is a double-edged sword. Altium has built-in support for panelization, Orcad doesn't.
So at the end of the day, each of them has strengths and weaknesses.

[olkipukki]

Altium has built-in support for panelization, Orcad doesn't.

OrCAD has separete product - Panel Editor

https://www.orcad.com/resources/library/orcad-panel-editor-overview


I didn't try it, but looks more impressive than Altium...

[olkipukki]

Library management - I'd say it's about on par, but I like Orcad's way of storing each footprint as a separate file.

Actually, I'm doing this in Altium with Sch/Pcb lib files and add these references to DbLib rather than to a project, much easy to manage overall compare to "pure" files.
Also, have an option add more than one footprint (high-density etc.) for same part into same PcbLib file if needed since Altium allows it by default.

[nctnico]

Also Altium is Windows-only, while Orcad natively works in Linux (and from what I heard, it works better on Linux than on Windows).

I don't know about the latest Orcad version but in version 17.2 only the PCB editor works in Linux (which is still a big plus).

I disagree about the pad-stack editor; it isn't difficult to deal with. Making parts is not a tedious process IMHO but again you need to get some routine. Most of my projects involve making several new footprints.

@electrolust: any CAD package has a steep learning curve and Orcad is not different. Orcad Capture is a relatively modern program but PCB Editor is a typical Unix mainframe application which takes some getting used to. But it is a very productive piece of software once you get the hang of it.

[electrolust]

thanks, i'll give it a go.

BTW I do enjoy the Altium IntLib format. I believe CS doesn't have the IPC footprint wizard of Designer, but I use PCBL anyway. I guess I'll have to get some experience with per-file footprints to see how I like that. It has to be better than Proteus anyway.

[asmi]

OrCAD has separete product - Panel Editor

https://www.orcad.com/resources/library/orcad-panel-editor-overview


I didn't try it, but looks more impressive than Altium...

Yes it has, but it costs extra $$$, so it's not fair to compare it to Altium's built-in functionality.

[asmi]

Actually, I'm doing this in Altium with Sch/Pcb lib files and add these references to DbLib rather than to a project, much easy to manage overall compare to "pure" files.
Also, have an option add more than one footprint (high-density etc.) for same part into same PcbLib file if needed since Altium allows it by default.

Orcad PCB doesn't have the concept of footprint library, all footprints are just a pair of files in the file system.

[asmi]

I disagree about the pad-stack editor; it isn't difficult to deal with. Making parts is not a tedious process IMHO but again you need to get some routine. Most of my projects involve making several new footprints.

Try creating a footprint for this part (don't forget custom solder and paste masks for bottom pads) and let us know how long did it take

[nctnico]

I disagree about the pad-stack editor; it isn't difficult to deal with. Making parts is not a tedious process IMHO but again you need to get some routine. Most of my projects involve making several new footprints.

Try creating a footprint for this part (don't forget custom solder and paste masks for bottom pads) and let us know how long did it take

Quick & dirty is to combine pads to form the odd shape. Otherwise create a custom pad shape and import that into the pad stack. I have not done the latter (yet) but I have modified pad stacks which where made this way.

[asmi]

Quick & dirty is to combine pads to form the odd shape. Otherwise create a custom pad shape and import that into the pad stack. I have not done the latter (yet) but I have modified pad stacks which where made this way.

I have. A lot. Hence my opinion ("super-annoying"). The worst part is that when you create custom shapes for pad and masks, you can't see other layers as a reference. And to make things worse, you will need to remove & readd the padstack for changes to custom layers to become visible, because "refresh padstacks" didn't seem to reload these custom layers (other changes do become visible, so it's a clear bug).
In Altium you just draw custom shapes right in the footprint, and as long as your "copper" layer's shape intersects an actual "pad", it will be considered connected. I suppose you can do similar thing in Orcad, though I haven't tried that personally. The one thing I like in Altium is that you can edit pad parameters right in the footprint, so no need for back&forth between footprint editor and padstack editor. This is also useful for oddball pads, because you can easily get rid of "default" solder and paste masks which are a part of a padstack, as you're going to draw custom shapes for these layers too anyways.
Unfortunately (for me) these customs pads are becoming more common in power parts as manufacturers looking for ways to improve heat transfer from die to the board so that a part can withstand higher current without overheating. And I'm yet to see an eCAD which makes creating these kinds of footprints less of the PITA it is right now.

[electrolust]

OMFG. so far, so bad.

first, the orcad trial (and so I assume regular orcad) uses a non-standard installer. so orcad doesn't show up in the application control panel where you can see the size and remove it. ok, well as long as it's self contained in its own directory I suppose it's ok, but really this introduction screams that the entire suite is going to be super hacky.

the install eats quite a lot of disk space (22GB). the installer doesn't check to see if you have enough disk space. the install takes super long (1hr), i'm guessing mostly because it has to download 22GB from the internet. (the installer itself is just a shim to download the actual binary content.) i didn't have enough space. it took me 3 tries because i had to extend the disk, then realize that windows didn't see the added space yet, then do it again.

then i find that the tutorials are for 17.2, whereas the current version is 17.4. 17.2 dates back to 2016 and 17.4 looks different, with slightly different flows, at least in "tutorial #1", getting started. from the 30s that i've been able to use it, so far 17.4 does seem better than what is shown in the tutorial.

it actually launches Capture CIS, not Capture. (The Trial is the full bells and whistles version.) It takes >20s to launch ... to an empty start page with a webview. really? like the installer, no caching whatsoever.

tutorial 1. step 1. create a new project.

the flow is different than the tutorial, but close enough to understand how they improved it in 17.4. but then ... nothing. instead of opening to the new project, a window frame is drawn that is transparent (onto the start page) with no content. the new tab has no title. after some futzing I figured out i can create a second new project and then that second project tab still has no title but it does have the file hierarchy.  "page 1" the first schematic page is not created, contrary to the tutorial.

File > New > Design doesn't react.
Design > New Schematic is greyed out.

When I close the new project I don't get prompted to save, and nothing is written to disk. If I change the project location (when creating it), to an unwritable folder, I do get warned that Capture can't write to disk and it doesn't allow me to create it. So at creation time, it definitely is verifying writability but it isn't actually writing anything.

So, then of course I go to the orcad site. Where it's hard to find the forum link. When I get there ... "forum shut for maintenance".

i guess it's cadence and they are in no risk of going under, but really?

So then I try to save the project in C: drive instead of a network drive. It works, I think. The tab for the project still has no title, but the first schematic page is created. I still can't do Design>New Schematic to create a new page. The page itself is an absolutely horrible fucking combination of dark mode and light mode.

EDIT: the dark/light thing can be toggled. (overall UI and schematic have independent settings). it's just the defaults are bad. Judging from the 17.2 tutorial, 17.4 is their first foray into dark mode, so I guess it's understandable. But hey Cadence, what a waste of money. There are many better places to spend those development resources ... no one is buying your $3000 (starting price) suite for dark mode.

I also found that after creation, I can move the project from C: drive to the network drive, then open it and it works. Also, after doing that, I can subsequently create new projects on network drive.

The whole thing reeks of software developed by college interns. And I haven't yet even placed the first component on a schematic. It just reminds me of Linux, back when FreeBSD was still competitive and you had to find a modeline for your X Windows setting that would work with your monitor. Yes, after endless futzing you can get everything to work, and the control you have makes it powerful, albeit fragile. But come on, this is 2020.

[nctnico]

You are probably better off using version 17.2. I have not tried 17.4 yet but I have the feeling 17.4 is the beginning of redoing the schematics editor. On one hand maybe a good move since it hasn't changed much in over 20 years OTOH it means things will be in flux for a while.

[electrolust]

The trial is only available for 17.4. 17.2 isn't available via pirate locations I'm aware of (only 16.x). So for now at least I'm stuck with it.

I've gotten through a few more of the tutorials and am so far quite pleased with "capture". The aspects of library mgmt that they have exposed thus far are very nice vs what I'm used to.

I wouldn't really use "ultra librarian", but still disappointed that it apparently isn't in the same place in 17.4 and I can't find it.

I will let my previous vitriol stand, since it's still valid for what we call OOBE in software (out of box experience). So awful. But once over that hump, I like it and am likely to make the purchase.

[asmi]

I will let my previous vitriol stand, since it's still valid for what we call OOBE in software (out of box experience). So awful. But once over that hump, I like it and am likely to make the purchase.

Before you commit to transaction, make sure you understand & are OK with limitations of Standard edition of PCB editor (as I understand that's the license you're seeking to purchase). As far as I remember, that license level does not include things like length matching. This was a must for me, so I had to purchase Professional license (though I managed to negotiate an excellent price of $0 for the license + $1800 for one year's long maintenance subscription).
Also whatever license you end up buying, make sure to order a USB key (it's like $100 extra), as that will allow you to move software to a different computer without involving support to create a new license for new host. This service is free while your subscription is active, but it will cost quite a bit of money if you let your subscription lapse and then contact them.

[electrolust]

yup. i did notice that differential pair stuff only comes in pro.

vs proteus @ same price point, i will give up differential pair, and simulation. i'm not doing high speed stuff other than USB so diff pair is just a nice to have and not critical. i do question how strong proteus' diff pair is anyway, without SI features. Will I regret not having diff pair even for something like USB2.0? As long as the PCB editor can easily show the length in real-time or mouse hover, so that I can do manual length matching, I feel I can handle the other aspects. I've not done this yet in Proteus so I don't have a point of comparison.

simulation OTOH, i enjoy how proteus does simulation. i can crank out simple stuff even easier than using circuitlab/etc. and the MCU simulation can be helpful. OrCAD PSpice is waaaay too pricey for me. I'll have to find a workflow where I export the netlist and use ltspice/tina/etc.

[asmi]

yup. i did notice that differential pair stuff only comes in pro.

vs proteus @ same price point, i will give up differential pair, and simulation. i'm not doing high speed stuff other than USB so diff pair is just a nice to have and not critical. i do question how strong proteus' diff pair is anyway, without SI features. Will I regret not having diff pair even for something like USB2.0? As long as the PCB editor can easily show the length in real-time or mouse hover, so that I can do manual length matching, I feel I can handle the other aspects. I've not done this yet in Proteus so I don't have a point of comparison.

No, standard license includes differential pairs. I'm talking about length matching of regular traces, like for DDR3.

simulation OTOH, i enjoy how proteus does simulation. i can crank out simple stuff even easier than using circuitlab/etc. and the MCU simulation can be helpful. OrCAD PSpice is waaaay too pricey for me. I'll have to find a workflow where I export the netlist and use ltspice/tina/etc.

Again, standard license does include sigXplorer, so you can do post-routing signal integrity simulations, as well as pre-route reflection sims. This is a BIG thing for some use cases. You can't do parameter sweep though (you will need SI option for that), but you can do it manually if you so desire. This is helpful, for example, if you want to determine the best value of termination resistor.

[nctnico]

And let's not forget cross-talk simulation. I can see that being handy for audio applications too. Many years ago one of my fellow engineers had made a layout and by accident he put a long trace from an SPI bus parallel to a trace carrying an audio signal -> time for a respin! The result was a 'prrt prrtt prrrt' sound every time the SPI bus was active. Cross talk simulation would have likely caught that error at the PCB design stage.

[electrolust]

No, standard license includes differential pairs. I'm talking about length matching of regular traces, like for DDR3.

I can't find an english language page, but on all the other language pages, the features themselves are all in english, so:

https://www.orcad.com/pt/products/orcad-pcb-designer/compare

per that, diff pair support is not in standard, nor any SI. However on the "buy" page, it does say "diff pair routing" supported, and pre-routing SI included. It's too bad the trial version only comes "fully loaded", as I won't be sure what features I won't be getting.

https://store.ema-eda.com/pcb-products/orcad-pcb-designer-standard/

with pro adding "advanced" diff pair routing, and post-routing SI.

Again, standard license does include sigXplorer, so you can do post-routing signal integrity simulations, as well as pre-route reflection sims. This is a BIG thing for some use cases. You can't do parameter sweep though (you will need SI option for that), but you can do it manually if you so desire. This is helpful, for example, if you want to determine the best value of termination resistor.

I am having a hard time finding difference between SI and sigXplorer, do you have any brief description or a link where I would find it?

thanks so much, very very helpful.

[asmi]

I can't find an english language page, but on all the other language pages, the features themselves are all in english, so:

https://www.orcad.com/pt/products/orcad-pcb-designer/compare

per that, diff pair support is not in standard, nor any SI. However on the "buy" page, it does say "diff pair routing" supported, and pre-routing SI included.

Ask your sales rep to send you a comparison PDF which lists all features available at different license levels. The document I have is now outdated as they've added quite a bit of stuff since I was buying my version. For example, impedance and crosstalk analysis were Allegro-level features, but they added these to Pro at some point (not sure about Standard).

It's too bad the trial version only comes "fully loaded", as I won't be sure what features I won't be getting.

This is BS. Demand them to set up the trial license for exactly what are you going to buy. They can do so 100%, as they've done it for me (and that allowed me to determine that Standard license was not enough for me). This is the only way for you to truly evaluate if what you're getting is going to work for you.

I am having a hard time finding difference between SI and sigXplorer, do you have any brief description or a link where I would find it?

thanks so much, very very helpful.

sigXplorer is the name of a tool used to set up and run signal integrity simulations (you can launch it standalone if you want to just play around with it, you don't need any schematics nor board). That tool has different features enabled depending on your license level, see attachment for details, but remember that this list is out of date right now. Again, that picture is a screenshot from the PDF which compares features available at Standard, Professional and Allegro license levels.

[electrolust]

It's too bad the trial version only comes "fully loaded", as I won't be sure what features I won't be getting.

This is BS. Demand them to set up the trial license for exactly what are you going to buy. They can do so 100%, as they've done it for me (and that allowed me to determine that Standard license was not enough for me). This is the only way for you to truly evaluate if what you're getting is going to work for you.

ah great. i'll do that.

[electrolust]

Ah, there is a tutorial specific to 17.4. . I think I was actually viewing the 16.x tutorial before, not 17.2. Anyway, it's close enough and I get it. If you already have worked in other EDA packages, it's a breeze to get through.

[asmi]

When I made my purchase, they gave me free e-learning courses for Orcad Capture and PCB Editor basics as part of a deal. And these were very good to get me up and running quickly.

[bugblatter]

Hi,

Sorry about the thread resurrection. If I've posted in the wrong thread, my apologies in advance.

I was wondering what other people are experiencing at OrCad maintenance renewal time.

I purchased a standard license some years ago and towards the end of the current maintenance cycle, upgraded to the professional version. The cost of the upgrade was the difference in price between the licenses + the one year maintenance fee for pro. This was just a few months before my standard maintenance cycle was ending. I'm being told now that the pro maintenance expires at the same time as the standard, even though it is only a few months old.

Has anyone else run into this situation? It doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't the pro maintenance last a year from purchase?

Thanks

[RomDump]

I purchased a standard license some years ago and towards the end of the current maintenance cycle, upgraded to the professional version. The cost of the upgrade was the difference in price between the licenses + the one year maintenance fee for pro. This was just a few months before my standard maintenance cycle was ending. I'm being told now that the pro maintenance expires at the same time as the standard, even though it is only a few months old.

Has anyone else run into this situation? It doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't the pro maintenance last a year from purchase?

Are you sure you paid for maintenance when you went from Standard to Professional?

Yes I ran into a similar situation.