KiCad 6 is coming! (has arrived!!)

[gnuarm]

I've never found any CAD tool to be intuitive. It's all complex software to achieve complex goals and requires a time investment to use effectively. Those unwilling to make a time investment will inevitably fail and complain loudly about how hard it all is.

There was never an affordable electric vehicle... until there was. 

Those who are unwilling to ask for better products will not see them improved unless others do the asking for them.

[Monkeh]

I've never found any CAD tool to be intuitive. It's all complex software to achieve complex goals and requires a time investment to use effectively. Those unwilling to make a time investment will inevitably fail and complain loudly about how hard it all is.

There was never an affordable electric vehicle... until there was.

Well, there still isn't, so..

You seem to confuse my point with "the software need not improve" - that's on you. Using tools is a skill, a skill one must learn and practice. This applies whether it's a CAD tool or a bloody hammer.

[CatalinaWOW]

A lot of bashing here in this thread that doesn't make sense to me. 

Any complex tool requires a lot of learning.  But I find that some user interfaces/workflows click with me.  Others don't.  Unfortunately KiCAD is one that doesn't.  In an ideal world there would be versions that did things in ways that please everybody, but that isn't going to happen for a variety of good reasons.  The net result is that it is much harder for me than for some others to come up the curve, and I am sure that applies to others.  The roadblock is often something trivial once you figure it out, but it can be quite hard to find the appropriate documentation to point you in the right direction.  Several posts in this thread have demonstrated that process.  The treatment of libraries is an example. 

I do find it interesting how many people are ready to jump on a bash Windows or Office when they change their interface in ways that aren't obvious, while the response in KiCAD's case is often to leap to their defense.  I'm not a fan of MS changing the interface all the time, but given the huge user base it usually only takes a couple of minutes on Google to find the solution to your frustration.  The much smaller user base of specialist software like KiCAD means that those resources are far more sparse.  A little venting after hours or days fighting what seems like an impossible problem is not unexpected, and probably should be greeted with some tolerance.

[JohnnyMalaria]

But I find that some user interfaces/workflows click with me.  Others don't.  Unfortunately KiCAD is one that doesn't.

So true. I spent a couple of weeks trying to get my head around Eagle/Fusion 360. In the end, I decided to give KiCAD a try. It took me less than a day to learn and successfully created schematics, PCBs and new 3D models.

[gnuarm]

I've never found any CAD tool to be intuitive. It's all complex software to achieve complex goals and requires a time investment to use effectively. Those unwilling to make a time investment will inevitably fail and complain loudly about how hard it all is.

There was never an affordable electric vehicle... until there was.

Well, there still isn't, so..

You seem to confuse my point with "the software need not improve" - that's on you. Using tools is a skill, a skill one must learn and practice. This applies whether it's a CAD tool or a bloody hammer.

Not going to go on an on about this with you, but the fact that a tool has to be learned is not justification for a user interface that needs to be "improved".  It is that simple in spite of your protestations. 

Schematic capture and layout are inherently simple processes that were done for a very long time with pencil, paper and tape.  That's how simple it is.  We use computers because it makes the process less eraser intensive.  In the meant time the UI has become enormously complex because the programming under the hood is complex.  The goal of any UI is to hide that complexity and present a simple interface to the user. 

A perfect example is the lack of multi-page schematics in KiCAD.  They "emulate" pages by using a hierarchy where each drawing in the hierarchy is a page.  But you still can't move between pages, you can't go to the next page or the previous page or even know what page you are on easily.  The present handling of pages is clumsy because we have to deal with the complexity of the hierarchical structure KiCAD uses.  No doubt this will be fixed in a future release.  In the mean time people will complain about it just as they complain about other aspects of the tool that are needlessly messy or complex. 

The fact that you are satisfied with the tool is not the issue, just as your claim there are no affordable electric cars is wrong.  Currently there are nearly 2 million EV owners in the US who say you are wrong.

[thinkfat]

I felt the same when I tried KiCAD V4. It just didn't click. It was just quirky. I watched Daves video about KiCAD V4 when pcbnew didn't have an interactive push-and-shove router and footprints were called "modules". Decided it was not for me. Started to look at it again only after KiCAD V5 was released, which was vastly improved over V4.

There's an important BUT, though: back then when KiCAD V4 was new, I didn't have enough incentive to really dig into it. The whole "schematic and pcb layout" thing I mean. That only changed when services like OSHpark, SeeedStudio, DirtyPCBs, JLCPCB, PCBWay, Aisler etc came along. Before that time, it was nigh impossible for a beginner or electronics hobbyist to collect experience on a budget (save etching@home, which is largely wife-incompatible). Nowadays, I can get 4 layer PCBs in decent quality with impedance control at almost negligible cost.

[thinkfat]

KiCAD's handling of hierarchical sheets feels similar to how Altium works. Also, meanwhile you can copy components between sheets, even without having their annotation reset.

Main advantage of using an integrated CAD tool for schematics and PCB is not in saving on pencil eraser but in keeping track of nets to be routed.

[Monkeh]

Not going to go on an on about this with you, but the fact that a tool has to be learned is not justification for a user interface that needs to be "improved".  It is that simple in spite of your protestations.

I have genuinely no idea what point you're trying to make. No tool is perfect, from the outset or after years of development, and all tools require a time investment to operate effectively.

just as your claim there are no affordable electric cars is wrong.  Currently there are nearly 2 million EV owners in the US who say you are wrong.

And they've all got bigger budgets than me or different requirements to me. Therefore your claim that there are affordable electric cars is wrong.. in my context. What a wonderful concept.

[phil from seattle]

Affordable is a relative term. Though, in the case of EVs, it won't be long before it is the only kind sold. Not sure why that got dragged into the argument, though.

I have yet to find a CAD program that is intuitive. Perhaps it is a lack of focus on UI by the developers.  Or, perhaps it just the nature of the task at hand. Eagle was a fight to learn. F360 was too (and no they aren't even close despite being pushed as a package). AutoCAD at every version was obscure and strange. Sketchup, too. FreeCAD, same. Blender, ditto. and yes, Kicad.

To be fair, some are easier to learn and having learned one makes the next a lot easier. I actually found Kicad 5 relatively easy to learn. The trick there is memorizing all the keyboard commands. And stuff is still spread out (like where is minimum trace width again? Not in board setup. Oh yeah, in DRC.)  Also, the developers managed to make libraries really complicated.  Once I mastered them, I appreciated the power but that pool does not have a shallow end.  I think 6 is cleaning up a lot of issues so it is getting better.

[gnuarm]

I've used a layout tool that is great in terms of being intuitive.  There are a very few things that need to be learned and the rest is pretty obvious. 

But this conversation is getting old.  People have their opinions and seem to not be discussing so much as asserting their opinions are right.  So everyone enjoy what you enjoy.  Sorry to those who can't afford a good car. 

[Bassman59]

I do find it interesting how many people are ready to jump on a bash Windows or Office when they change their interface in ways that aren't obvious, while the response in KiCAD's case is often to leap to their defense.  I'm not a fan of MS changing the interface all the time, but given the huge user base it usually only takes a couple of minutes on Google to find the solution to your frustration.  The much smaller user base of specialist software like KiCAD means that those resources are far more sparse.  A little venting after hours or days fighting what seems like an impossible problem is not unexpected, and probably should be greeted with some tolerance.

See, the problems for both Kicad and Microsoft are that:

(i) some people don't like the interfaces and some people do, but the users get on with it and do the task at hand. 

(ii) if the user interface is changed to appease the people who didn't like the old interface, the other users complain, even if the new interface is better.

(iii) users who a few years ago tried the program and found the interface lacking in whatever manner still use that obsolete experience to complain about the interface -- even if the interface has changed to what might be more their liking.

The problem with CAD software, whether for mechanical design or for electronics design, is that there really is no "best" way to do it. If there was, every program would follow the same paradigm.

gnuarm's assertion that "schematic capture and layout are inherently simple processes that were done for a very long time with pencil, paper and tape.  That's how simple it is." is reductive. "Inherently" simple, perhaps, but the devil is in the details. Paper-based schematics and rubylith-based layouts were used when there was no other option, but for obvious reasons those processes have been abandoned. Can a paper-based schematic output a BOM for purchasing? Can you absolutely guarantee correspondence between all nets on the paper schematic and all traces on the rubylith layout? Can you manage the correspondence between a resistor symbol on your paper schematic and the footprint on the PCB and the part you order? The point here is that the tools have grown to manage that complexity, but of course that means that the tools themselves have gotten more complex.

[MadScientist]

Having not had any exposure to Kicad , ( being a long time DipTrace ) user. I sat down with my first Kicad V5 design and produced an acceptable SMD based design first go , this include designing new symbols , footprints and a 3D image or two. Of course I know about PCBs etc but I had no issues with Kicad and there’s plenty of support on the net.

Now that’s not bad for a piece of software , I would not say its " complicated " , certainly nothing like 3D or even Mech CAD etc

Are there things that could improve , of course.

But the package isn’t complex to use in the main. Fusions learning curve was far greater

By the way.  I learned with paper pcb layout. I never want to go back to that

[bdunham7]

just as your claim there are no affordable electric cars is wrong.  Currently there are nearly 2 million EV owners in the US who say you are wrong.

Logical fallacy alert!  You have no way of knowing whether those 2 million people agree or disagree with you just because they happen to own an EV.  And as an EV owner, if you will allow me to read practicality into the concept of affordability,  I would contend that for a very large majority of Americans (can't say elsewhere) an electric vehicle is not 'affordable', in the sense that they can't reasonably afford the extra expense of owning and operating an EV over a conventional gas car or hybrid.  Especially the hybrid.

b/t/w, glad to read your honest renditions of your experience with Tesla.  I know of people who have had repeated issues that more than qualify them for lemon-law protection but they won't even admit publicly that their cars have broken, let alone return them.

[gnuarm]

just as your claim there are no affordable electric cars is wrong.  Currently there are nearly 2 million EV owners in the US who say you are wrong.

Logical fallacy alert!  You have no way of knowing whether those 2 million people agree or disagree with you just because they happen to own an EV.  And as an EV owner, if you will allow me to read practicality into the concept of affordability,  I would contend that for a very large majority of Americans (can't say elsewhere) an electric vehicle is not 'affordable', in the sense that they can't reasonably afford the extra expense of owning and operating an EV over a conventional gas car or hybrid.  Especially the hybrid.

You ain't out here for the huntin', are yuh? 

I'll ignore the issue of 2 million car owners thinking their cars are not affordable.  The issue of the "extra" expense of an EV is a fallacy.  EVs have lower operating costs including lower repair costs, lower maintenance costs and lower fuel costs making the total cost of ownership lower than an equivalent ICE.  That's not me talking, that is many sources including government agencies that have them and track the costs as they wear them out including police.

b/t/w, glad to read your honest renditions of your experience with Tesla.  I know of people who have had repeated issues that more than qualify them for lemon-law protection but they won't even admit publicly that their cars have broken, let alone return them.

I only wish I could get them to fix the many problems or give all of my money back.  My car was no where near "affordable", lol.  It was my toy.  But it's not nearly the joy toy people make them out to be.  I expect by 2025 when nearly every car maker will have many models available Tesla won't be looking so good.  I read recently (maybe here) they are at the bottom of the list, even below Cadillac, for reliability.  That is quite the statement.

[Monkeh]

I'll ignore the issue of 2 million car owners thinking their cars are not affordable.  The issue of the "extra" expense of an EV is a fallacy.  EVs have lower operating costs including lower repair costs, lower maintenance costs and lower fuel costs making the total cost of ownership lower than an equivalent ICE.  That's not me talking, that is many sources including government agencies that have them and track the costs as they wear them out including police.

An EV to meet my needs would cost three to four times what my car cost, and would not in my current (excluding pandemic-induced changes) usage pattern recoup this in the next 10 years. This is not 'affordable', this is 'waste of money'. My needs are not your needs, my means are not your means. Your truth is not the only truth.

[nigelwright7557]

On a more serious note: it looks like a lot of interface changes have occurred, I'll have to see how they feel in-person.  I really hope eeschema's background colour hasn't changed to grey as the screenshots suggest.

I would assume it's configurable. The default in the older versions is blinding white, I always change it to black first thing after installing, I'd be shocked (and really annoyed) if they took away the ability to customize colors.

I found a bug today in kicad in regards to keeping schematic layout when converting to a pcb.
At least on my version it just puts components along top of pcb to place.
I prefer components already placed where they were on schematic.
Associated components then stay next to each other which makes laying out better on medium to large sized pcb's.
After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing they eventually accepted it was a bug.
Bug ticket number 5480 !!!!!!

A few hours later they came back with a statement saying that due to hierarchical sheets they couldn't find a way around it.

[Monkeh]

On a more serious note: it looks like a lot of interface changes have occurred, I'll have to see how they feel in-person.  I really hope eeschema's background colour hasn't changed to grey as the screenshots suggest.

I would assume it's configurable. The default in the older versions is blinding white, I always change it to black first thing after installing, I'd be shocked (and really annoyed) if they took away the ability to customize colors.

I found a bug today in kicad in regards to keeping schematic layout when converting to a pcb.
At least on my version it just puts components along top of pcb to place.
I prefer components already placed where they were on schematic.
Associated components then stay next to each other which makes laying out better on medium to large sized pcb's.
After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing they eventually accepted it was a bug.
Bug ticket number 5480 !!!!!!

A few hours later they came back with a statement saying that due to hierarchical sheets they couldn't find a way around it.

That they did no such thing is a matter of public record.. in issue 7480, for those wondering what a five month old bug about multi-line comments has to do with component autoplacement.

[nigelwright7557]

Well, there still isn't, so..

You seem to confuse my point with "the software need not improve" - that's on you. Using tools is a skill, a skill one must learn and practice. This applies whether it's a CAD tool or a bloody hammer.

I sell PCB design software (well a little bit) and software can quickly get out of control if you arent careful and become a monster.
Seems to be a happy medium between too simple with not enough functions to millions of icons with too many functions that you cant see the wood for the tree's.

I suffer from 2 bad types of software buyers.
1/ Those who spend £5 on mine but are expecting Eagle ($300) functionality for the same price.
2/ Old fart syndrome where they cant get their head around it. This is despite a demo video on how to do it and a manual.

I get many more complaints now my software has much more functionality than I ever did when it was very simple.

Just no longer worth the hassle so took up hardware sales instead.

[nigelwright7557]

That they did no such thing is a matter of public record.. in issue 7480, for those wondering what a five month old bug about multi-line comments has to do with component autoplacement.

Sorry quoted wrong message !

[gnuarm]

I do find it interesting how many people are ready to jump on a bash Windows or Office when they change their interface in ways that aren't obvious, while the response in KiCAD's case is often to leap to their defense.  I'm not a fan of MS changing the interface all the time, but given the huge user base it usually only takes a couple of minutes on Google to find the solution to your frustration.  The much smaller user base of specialist software like KiCAD means that those resources are far more sparse.  A little venting after hours or days fighting what seems like an impossible problem is not unexpected, and probably should be greeted with some tolerance.

See, the problems for both Kicad and Microsoft are that:

(i) some people don't like the interfaces and some people do, but the users get on with it and do the task at hand. 

(ii) if the user interface is changed to appease the people who didn't like the old interface, the other users complain, even if the new interface is better.

(iii) users who a few years ago tried the program and found the interface lacking in whatever manner still use that obsolete experience to complain about the interface -- even if the interface has changed to what might be more their liking.

The problem with CAD software, whether for mechanical design or for electronics design, is that there really is no "best" way to do it. If there was, every program would follow the same paradigm.

gnuarm's assertion that "schematic capture and layout are inherently simple processes that were done for a very long time with pencil, paper and tape.  That's how simple it is." is reductive. "Inherently" simple, perhaps, but the devil is in the details. Paper-based schematics and rubylith-based layouts were used when there was no other option, but for obvious reasons those processes have been abandoned. Can a paper-based schematic output a BOM for purchasing? Can you absolutely guarantee correspondence between all nets on the paper schematic and all traces on the rubylith layout? Can you manage the correspondence between a resistor symbol on your paper schematic and the footprint on the PCB and the part you order? The point here is that the tools have grown to manage that complexity, but of course that means that the tools themselves have gotten more complex.

You seem to think the process of design is complex because the tool can provide a BoM or track connectivity.  None of that is complex.  What is complex is constructing an internal data base that accurately reflects every aspect of the design while allowing users to make changes in ways that make intuitive sense.  It is the INTERNAL complexity that needs to be hidden from the user, because the mental image of what the user wants to construct is not complex.  It is the tool that is complex and the tool must shield the user from all of that as a good tool does.  A poor tool demands that the user see behind the curtain and work behind the curtain where he needs to be the Wizard of Oz rather than a Dorothy user.

It's no different from the automobile.  100 years ago cars were complicated, difficult to use machines.  You had to know how to set the choke, how to retard the spark, how to manage the gears, the throttle, the steering, the brakes because none of that was simple back then.  Now cars are even more complex, but to the user they are trivial.  Any 16 year old can operate one.  So much in a car is there to prevent the user from having to even know the car is shifting gears or applying the choke or controlling ignition timing.  You just point the steering wheel and step on the gas or the brake.... or use the accelerator to do both! 

That's the kind of simplicity that should be the goal in designing a PCB, not making excuses for how inherently complex a schematic capture and layout tool *has* to be.  pffft!   

[gnuarm]

I'll ignore the issue of 2 million car owners thinking their cars are not affordable.  The issue of the "extra" expense of an EV is a fallacy.  EVs have lower operating costs including lower repair costs, lower maintenance costs and lower fuel costs making the total cost of ownership lower than an equivalent ICE.  That's not me talking, that is many sources including government agencies that have them and track the costs as they wear them out including police.

An EV to meet my needs would cost three to four times what my car cost, and would not in my current (excluding pandemic-induced changes) usage pattern recoup this in the next 10 years. This is not 'affordable', this is 'waste of money'. My needs are not your needs, my means are not your means. Your truth is not the only truth.

I don't want to keep discussing EVs as it is off topic in this thread.  If someone starts another thread somewhere I'll jump in.

[emece67]

.

[gnuarm]

Wouldn't be possible to have a single thread in this forum where EVs are not mentioned?

What do you expect in the EVDA group?  ;-)

[Bassman59]

On a more serious note: it looks like a lot of interface changes have occurred, I'll have to see how they feel in-person.  I really hope eeschema's background colour hasn't changed to grey as the screenshots suggest.

I would assume it's configurable. The default in the older versions is blinding white, I always change it to black first thing after installing, I'd be shocked (and really annoyed) if they took away the ability to customize colors.

I found a bug today in kicad in regards to keeping schematic layout when converting to a pcb.
At least on my version it just puts components along top of pcb to place.
I prefer components already placed where they were on schematic.
Associated components then stay next to each other which makes laying out better on medium to large sized pcb's.
After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing they eventually accepted it was a bug.
Bug ticket number 5480 !!!!!!

A few hours later they came back with a statement saying that due to hierarchical sheets they couldn't find a way around it.

OK, I shouldn't bother, but ...

Your preference for a specific way of doing something doesn't mean it's a bug that when the software does it another way.

It's just that. A preference.

I actually don't care how the tool plops down the parts on first import into the layout. Generally, once they're there, I have the schematic open on one monitor and the layout on the other, and I start selecting the "big stuff" (connectors and other things whose locations must meet mechanical constraints, the big chips, etc) and place them. Then I get the support stuff from the schematic and place it.

In any case, you're still selecting and moving parts, so whether you do it as a group and fiddle, or whether you do it one by one and fiddle, there's not much time difference in the end.

[Karel]

In any case, you're still selecting and moving parts, so whether you do it as a group and fiddle, or whether you do it one by one and fiddle, there's not much time difference in the end.

Pcbnew's shortcut 't' ("Get and Move Footprint) comes to mind...