advice on selecting new PCB design package

[Joel Kolstad]

Dax,

"Dax" <email_demonoid@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142437129.788063.308600@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

EasyPC is just the low-end hobbyist version of Pulsonix, isn't it?

Not really. My understanding is that EasyPC and Pulsonix started out as two
completely different codebases, different companies, different programmers.
At some point Pulsonix purchased EasyPC, development is now all done in the
same building, and therefore there's lots of sharing of bits of code between
the two. (Kinda like how PCAD started getting a lot of Protel features once
Protel purchased Altium.) Leon can surely provide more details...

It is surprising to me that EasyPC seems to have very little marketing (not
even its own web site!?)...

Many hobbyist share their Project designs on the net in Eagle format.
Yes, EasyPC is easier to use but Eagle is *free*.

EasyPC, even in its stripped down forms (e.g., the 1000 pin version) is still
spendy enough that you have a solid point. On the other hand, programs such
as RimuPCB are so cheap that I think they're still well within a hobbyist's
budget... and at least appear to still get you that "easier to use" feature.

---Joel

 

[RST Engineering (jw)]

I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.

Eagle is German
Pulsonix & EZPC are UK
Rimu is NZ
Protel is OZ

I'm just curious why?

Jim

 

[Joel Kolstad]

"RST Engineering (jw)" <jim@rstengineering.com> wrote in message
news:2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17281@DIALUPUSA.NET...

I'm just curious why?

It might have something to do with the labor market. Labor rates in the US
are quite high, so in a market where there isn't a whole lot of volume,
product prices end up high as well. It is surprising to me that in a country
like NZ -- which is a lot closer to China than the US is -- material goods
such as PCs, power tools, etc. cost noticeably more than in the US, yet labor
is a lot cheaper.

At this point, to some degree it's probably self-perpetuating... if you're in
the US and think you're going to write some EDA software, you're probably
immediately struck that your closest market (the US) is dominated by the
high-end, high-cost package, and that's very difficult to compete with. The
Internet has negated this to some extent, however.

Finally... there are a few low-end US vendors out there... or at least there
were! Ivex (Winboard) was US, no? And there's AMS down in Florida... I used
their software once, and it had some incredible limitations such as only
allowing 10 different pad shapes (!), but it did get the job done at the time
(a decade back -- these days freeware alternatives are far better).

 

[DJ Delorie]

"RST Engineering \(jw\)" <jim@rstengineering.com> writes:

I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.

gEDA is done primarily in the USA.

 

[Christian HOSTELET]

"RST Engineering (jw)" <jim@rstengineering.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17281@DIALUPUSA.NET...

I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.

Eagle is German
Pulsonix & EZPC are UK
Rimu is NZ
Protel is OZ

I'm just curious why?

Why what?

Why those non-US citizens are able to design and produce some good pieces of
software without the help of the great USA?
Are you suggesting this is not a "normal" situation? If yes, please think
twice.

Jim
--

Christian - Grenoble

 

[Brad Velander]

Joel,
Ivex has moved around a lot, originally they were just a few miles away
from me in the Vancouver, B.C., area. Then I had heard that they moved to
the States. However if it must be known, the original software was
originally written and designed in India by an Indian Telecom company (a
state company?). I heard a rumor at one point that the owners of Ivex had
moved the progamming/development to Korea but I never confirmed that.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:121gpa25ti3h7e7@corp.supernews.com...

"RST Engineering (jw)" <jim@rstengineering.com> wrote in message
news:2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17281@DIALUPUSA.NET...

Finally... there are a few low-end US vendors out there... or at least
there were! Ivex (Winboard) was US, no? And there's AMS down in
Florida... I used their software once, and it had some incredible
limitations such as only allowing 10 different pad shapes (!), but it did
get the job done at the time (a decade back -- these days freeware
alternatives are far better).

 

[Paul Burke]

Joel Kolstad wrote:

It is surprising to me that EasyPC seems to have very little marketing (not
even its own web site!?)...

<http://www.numberone.com/index.asp>

Typically, the url doesn't even mention EasyPC.

EasyPC, even in its stripped down forms (e.g., the 1000 pin version) is still
spendy enough that you have a solid point.

They really are daft. They used to do a 98UKP version, which was at
least within hobbyist/ microbusiness range. They've dropped that. The
free demo version is utterly unusable, as it can't load or save. It's as
though they really don't want to sell it. Rather typically British I'm
afraid.

Paul Burke

 

[colin_toogood@yahoo.com]

My thanks to everyone for giving this subject its best airing for a
long time.

Do people have strong opinions on which of the budget packages produce
the highest quality actual pcb, bugs and bad user interfaces not
withstanding. I need 6 layers in total with good control over split
planes and DRC and I need it to look good! I only need to use it once
as if on the off chance I made any money out of it I would probably buy
ORCAD simply because I have used it a lot over the last ten years or
so.

Colin

 

Some budget packages are not really useable for anything above the
hobbyist level boards. The problem they have is charge only a hundred
dollars or so for the product and have little or no money for support.
A good example is the AutoTRAX product from a one man operation in the
UK. You wouldn't risk a serious design to such a package.

Despite what the previous guy says, Easy-PC packs a big punch for the
money. Why should he be hung-up on there not being a free version or
that the Easy-PC website says Number One Systems....? If I search for
Windows, Excel, Powerpoint I get directed to a website that says
Microsoft.... If I seach for PADs I get directed to Mentor..... so
what's it got to do with being 'British'....?

OrCAD looks to be on the slippery slope. The schematics is still good
but the OrCAD layout product is from the stone age. It looks DOS to
me......! What little dev that remains is now coming from India - the
US OrCAD dev group is long gone. Cadence don't even sell it
nowadays..... all sales are through Distributors.

Prescott

 

[Lukas Louw]

I upgraded from Tango DOS to Accel Tech PCAD TANGO ( the limited version)
V12, circa 1996, and only one copper pour was allowed, which was relaxed in
later versions, don't ask me which, it's MUCH too long
ago...............................

Lukas

ACCEL Tango PCB vs. ACCEL P-CAD PCB from the old Accel website in 1999:

http://web.archive.org/web/19990202043848/www.acceltech.com/product_info/accel_eda/atpvsappv13.html

Nothing about pour limits. Just licensing, components and layers
limits.

Index page for snooping around the old Accel website using the Internet
Archive Wayback Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.acceltech.com

Some of the PDF brochure links are active into the archive so the old
sales lit can be viewed.

 

[DJ Delorie]

David Harmon <source@netcom.com> writes:

Silly, Play-Doh is no good for PCBs.

Actually, there's one company that came up with a way to make PCBs
using a play-doh like conductive goo. Mill/drill recesses in blank
(i.e. no copper) FR4 where you want "traces", squeegie the goo into
the recesses, bake so it hardens. Presto! Solderable traces, "plated
through" vias, etc, without etching.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anyone who commercialized the process.
It probably would have cost too much for the equipment anyway

 

[Brad Velander]

Well great job Dax,
I hadn't thought of trying the internet "wayback machine". Most
everytime I have tried it, they didn't have anything for the sites I was
looking for. After any number of unsuccessful tries I sort of gave up ever
looking.

So I guess most everything is answered, It was called "...Tango PCB", 6
routing/signal layer limit, 400 components confirmed, more than one pour (I
was quite sure I saw two inside the one board I looked at. Although I
thought it could have been a split plane or a pour/fill combination).

The real name configuration is closest to what Lukas had suggested with
The PCAD and Tango tools both being subproducts of the ACCEL EDA tool
family.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"Dax" <email_demonoid@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142951307.950271.80080@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

ACCEL Tango PCB vs. ACCEL P-CAD PCB from the old Accel website in 1999:

http://web.archive.org/web/19990202043848/www.acceltech.com/product_info/accel_eda/atpvsappv13.html

Nothing about pour limits. Just licensing, components and layers
limits.

Index page for snooping around the old Accel website using the Internet
Archive Wayback Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.acceltech.com

Some of the PDF brochure links are active into the archive so the old
sales lit can be viewed.

 

[Dax]

Listed from trash to gold:

Proteus v6.9
Hobbyist-grade capture and layout. Their claim to fame for hobbyists is
their interactive microcontroller simulation integrated in the capture
package. Capture is OK, layout "works", is all I'll say.

Eagle v4.16
Very nice little hobbyist-grade package. The interface is a little odd
but it gets the job done and the price is very reasonable. No frills,
just works good doing basic boards.

Electronics Workbench (MultiSim) v9 with UltiBoard & UltiRoute
I loved Electronics Workbench when I was a student and I still like
MultiSim but using it for capture and layout is just wrong. It's moved
out of the hobbyist-grade ranks but the layout section, called
UtilBoard, is a mess. The router is a joke. I have to say that I really
like the user interface for UltiBoard but the program is slow even on a
faster machine and...well, it's just a mess. They have a downloadable
v9 demo, try it for a laugh.

Pulsonix
A decent package with a fair price. The autorouter is acceptable. Not
bad at all. Suspect the software company has one principle
programmer/owner. Also comes with a one-man promoter and cheerleader
called Leon. Don't know his relationship with Pulsonix but the guy pops
up everywhere on the net with a good word for Pulsonix. (Google
keywords "Pulsonix" & "Leon" on the web and in the groups.)

OrCAD v10.5
Very respectable, professional package with the best autorouter
available. You could do a lot worse.

PADS 2005
A very respectable package. The low-end of the high-end packages. A
terrific value for the money but not cheap.

If money is not a problem, go with PADS. If it is, check out Orcad or
maybe Pulsonix.

 

[Dax]

Missed Protel and P-CAD, sorry.

Protel [16-bit v2.8; v3; 98; 99; 99SE SP6]
The multiple lives of Protel. The old 16-bit Advanced Schematic and PCB
in their later 2.x existence were solid programs you could get a lot
done with. It's a shame they're not available now, they were that good.
They're still available on some Chinese EDA warez distrubution sites so
if you Google hard enough, you can still ferret out a copy to compare
to the modern packages. At v3 Protel switched to the integrated
client/server scheme and things started to get buggy. v3, crap. 98,
crap. 99, not crap but buggy. Protel 99 SE with SP6, very good with few
bugs. This is a program that can handle most any everyday board. Highly
recommended. The autorouter is capable and the tight coupling between
schematic and layout should be a model for other vendors. The 30-day
unlimited demo and the all-important Service Pack 6 are still widely
available around the net (wink, hint, nudge, see below). When Protel
moved to DXP (2002 release), the product fell on it's face. SP1 helped
and SP2 makes it usable. The Situs autorouter was a disappointment. DXP
2004 introduced more problems. The current product is still DXP 2004
but it was renamed Altium Designer 6. The one thing to know about
Altium is that they are *always* adding more features before previous
problems have been fixed. This is their big, big problem. Altium
Designer 6 lets you flip the board and work on it from behind. Great,
but how about they get the Situs autorouter to follow its rules
correctly, *first*! The hardware requirements of Designer 6 are
absolutely ridiculous as is the multiple monitor recommendation.
DXP/Designer 6 looks like a hot product but dig deep and you'll see
that it comes up short, quickly. Explore the Protel Knowledge Base and
see for yourself. The last time I was following their open support
forum it sounded like many of the users wanted to sue. Leon, you've
commented on the user revolts at the Altium forum more than once,
haven't you? I'd really like DXP if it worked right. About Altium: I've
personally handled contacts with Altium sales to purchase tens of
thousands of dollars worth of licenses for their embedded compiler tool
chains and can tell you they really didn't seem to care if they sold a
license or not. I'd ask for a quote and it would take *days* to get a
response. Inevitably there would be an error on the quote, like if the
license was to be node-locked or floating. It would take days and phone
call reminders to get an ammended quote. People applying for welfare
get treated better than that. I just didn't understand it. Then it
would take another 7-10 days for the lady with the fricking license
generator to send me the license files after they confirmed payment had
cleared! This was in '02.

P-CAD
I don't have much experience with this other than evaluation so I can't
say anything other than it is a serious tool targeted toward layout
people. I'd like to hear from P-CAD users.

Comments have been made comparing the Electra autorouter to Specctra.
Electra is a decent router for the money but please, it can't compare
to Specctra at any level. It's like comparing a Cessna 170 to a flying
saucer. If Electra did better then Specctra on "moderately complex"
designs, then someone does not know how to control Specctra. Pushing
the "Go" button is not autorouting. It takes a considerable amount of
time and knowledge to set a design up for effective autorouting with
Specctra but it always pays off. This company sells Specctra training
videos. They want $995 USD for the beginner course and another $995 USD
for the advanced course. Probably worth every penny.

http://www.accelerated-designs.com/info/TrainingCDs.shtml

As a reply to the comments about Proteus, come on, it's
*hobbyist-grade*. In the layout (ARES) manual, instructions are given
for individuals how to output CAM data to a printer with drill-holes
shown so they can be used as manual drilling targets for people who
etch their own boards at home. ARES and ISIS were started well but
appear to be several years behind other products *except* for their
terrific microcontroller simulation. It's not simply an instruction set
simulator, the full microcontroller is modeled along with the A/D SPICE
in real time. If you're building a microcontroller widget, this is the
platform to develop the firmware on before real hardware exists. I know
I'm really bad for saying this but the default color scheme for the
schematic capture section of the product has that "circus came to town"
look. I load a color template carefully prepared to match Protel 99SE
colors (used a color-picker utility) so it looks presentable.

OrCAD Capture is simply the best in it's class. It looks great and
works great. OrCAD Layout is not the best but OK and is tightly
integrated with Specctra, king of autorouters. There is also a very
good public support forum at the Cadence website with some very helpful
Elmers. Compare that to the Cadence website where everything related to
support is under lock and key with a password unless you have a support
contract. I'm I right there or will just a license do to get an access
password? Yes, development has slowed and now should be called
maintenance. v9.2.3 was where it came of age as long as all the updates
are applied. I don't see anything to write home about in v10 and I
haven't tried v10.5 yet.

Sorry Leon, I shouldn't have stepped on your tail like that. While
researching Pulsonix last year I read just about every word you've
written on the net and know you're on the up and up.

I rated Electronics Workbench v9, the Frankenstein of EDA packages,
above Proteus and Eagle because EW is solidly in the professional
class. MultiSim has been bloated until it functions as a Capture
package and UltiBoard & UltiRoute have been bolted on and made to
integrate with MultiSim. It's crappy but it works and the feature set
puts it above hobbyist-grade. I don't like it there but it has to be.
I'd pick Proteus over EW to use for normal PTH designs if I had my
choice but overall, EW ranks higher on my scale. Sorry.

Mentor Graphics Expedition
I've never seen or studied this but a buddy has been promising for 6
months to give me a copy. It is supposedly the Holy Grail of PCB
systems. Exceedingly difficult to learn but all powerful and all
knowing. I'd love to hear comments from current users.

Another product I haven't used is Zuken Cadstar. I trialed it at v6 for
a couple of hours and wasn't impressed but I hear it is in the PADS
class or higher, now.

No-Brainers
If a teen hobbyist came to me and wanted to learn PCB design, I'd steer
them toward Eagle (free version.) If an Engineering intern wanted the
same thing I'd start them with Protel 99 SE SP6 (free, unlimited 30-day
trial). Anyone else has to decide for themselves.

Protel 99 SE SP6
http://vasy.dlug.hu/downloads/doc2/elektro/elektro/protel99se-trial/01-setup/protel99se_full_trial_version_.exe
http://www.altium.com/files/protel/downloads/files/protel99seservicepack6.exe
http://www.altium.com/files/protel/legacy/handbookp99se.pdf

 

[Leon]

Joel Kolstad wrote:

Dax,

I'm impressed by your broad experience with these difference CAD programs,
even if I don't agree with all of your opinions!

"Dax" <email_demonoid@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142400225.857041.79430@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
OrCAD Capture is simply the best in it's class. It looks great and
works great.

As you say, "oh, come on!" Here's a short list of things that are
annoying in OrCAD capture:

-- Tab-click works to select one of multiple overlapping objects, but this
doesn't work in conjunction with multiple select (ctrl+click)
-- The highest zoom level is artificially low
-- No means to set the "pick" radius
-- Pins for schematic symbols must be placed strictly around a rectangular
bounding box.
-- Pin styles are limited (there's a canned number of selections -- e.g.,
"short" and "long" for general purpose pin; no independent adjustment of pin
length)
-- Pin names can't be turned off on a pin-by-pin basis (it's all or
nothing! -- so you end up turning them all off and using text to display what
you want)
-- No ability to add or change keyboard mapping (!! -- this is, what, 2006?)
-- Macro language is half-baked; many functions you'd like to use (e.g., "zoom
area" with mouse input providing the bounding box) don't exist
-- No "area de-select" option
-- No polygon shape select
-- No way to toggle area select from "everything wholly within the selected
area" to "everything touching the selected area" from the keyboard
-- No tool-tips/status bar display/whatever of a net's name, class, etc. when
you select it (must double-click to bring up a modal dialog to obtain this
information)
-- Busses can only contain homogenous items, e.g., Data[0:7] -- you can't
create a "mixed" bus that also bundles in, e.g., CS, Rd, Wr!
-- No tabbed window view

I realize that many people aren's used to these features and therefore just
don't know what they're missing, but I find the biggest annoyance when using
multiple CAD programs is that you really start to miss nice features from one
in another. Better programs (e.g., those with full macros and keyboard
re-assignment) often let you emulate the other programs' functionality to a
large extent; such is not the case with OrCAD.

Compare that to the Cadence website where everything related to
support is under lock and key with a password unless you have a support
contract.

Did you mean Mentor? Mentor won't even let you access their web site
knowledge base for, e.g., PADS without a support contract. (I've mentioned
before that I really tend to think that PADS is somewhat like Oracle -- it's
really not that much better than the competition, but information about it is
purposely kept somewhat obscure so that there's an entire artificial industry
in training, support contracts, etc.)

I rated Electronics Workbench v9, the Frankenstein of EDA packages,
above Proteus and Eagle because EW is solidly in the professional
class.

Just curious -- what *does't* Proteus do that you'd like it to? I've never
used it, but on paper it looks pretty good. I certainly don't downgrade a
package because it also happens to cater to hobbyists (e.g., printing out
drill hole targets for manual PCB fabrication, as you mention).

A friend of mine uses Proteus where I used to work. It's full of bugs,
but he manages to get round them and produce decent designs with a
great deal of work. Sometimes he even has to get the PCB supplier to
pre-process the Gerbers (expensive) , because he can't get it to
produce the right shapes. Support is non-existent from the UK supplier.
I tried using it once to modify a board while he was on holiday - just
altering a few vias and tracks was a nightmare.

They got Eagle for everyone else but I refused to use it, and they let
me use my own copy of Pulsonix after a big row with management. Doing
anything in Eagle required about twice as many keystrokes and mouse
operations as with Pulsonix, agravating my RSI problems. I got them to
give in on Health and Safety grounds. It also kept crashing on me.
One of the engineers who knew Eagle well spent two weeks laying out a
PCB, I could have done it in one day with Pulsonix.

Leon

 

[Paul Burke]

RST Engineering (jw) wrote:

I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.

Business culture, if you select Protel and it's no good, it's Protel's
fault, but if you select Eagle and it's no good, it's your fault?

The attitude that "you get what you pay for" stronger in the USA?

Tax regime?

Paul Burke

 

[Dax]

"EDA for Dummies" ---> http://www.diptrace.com

For comparison, the lowest of the low end. Seems to be popular among
the kiddies. Has that Fisher-Price look. Does not come with Play Dough
desktop PCB fabrication machine

ROFL: "Try DipTrace and you will be surprised! DipTrace is a complete
state-of-the-art PCB Design System."

$145 for 500 pins, 2 layer version
$595 for unlimited version

 

[Robert Lacoste]

Appreciations are always personnal but here I strongly disagree with your
ranking : We moved from Electronic Workbench to Proteus for our
professionnal designs after a quite exaustive benchmark (including Orcad,
Pads and others), and concluded that Proteus was the best value for money,
in particular when comparing apples to apples in term of pricing. I mean
when comparing high-end Proteus configurations (with mixed mode advanced
simulation and the very good Electra autorouter option) with entry level
"expensive" packages (usually without autorouting at all nor simulation for
the same price). Of course a high level PADS is great, but at what price ?

Proteus's interface is quite unusual, but pleasant and homogeneous after
some hours. For our mixed-signal designs it has all the features we were
looking at : blind/buried vias, unlimited polygonal ground planes with real
time refresh and automatic island removal, backannotation, stacked pads,
panellisation, etc. The schematic side has very powerful "macro" features,
and is able to export the netlist in all common standards. The Electra
autorouter seems *very* good, quite as good for medium complexity designs
than the Specctra router we used before (we don't use the internal
autorouter). And lastly the technical support was really good the three
times we called them. Two drawbacks : the libraries are quite limited, and
no dedicated features for the routing of high speed busses.

Friendly yours,
Robert Lacoste
www.alciom.com




"Dax" <email_demonoid@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1142322650.273937.281350@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Listed from trash to gold:

Proteus v6.9
Hobbyist-grade capture and layout. Their claim to fame for hobbyists is
their interactive microcontroller simulation integrated in the capture
package. Capture is OK, layout "works", is all I'll say.

Eagle v4.16
Very nice little hobbyist-grade package. The interface is a little odd
but it gets the job done and the price is very reasonable. No frills,
just works good doing basic boards.

Electronics Workbench (MultiSim) v9 with UltiBoard & UltiRoute
I loved Electronics Workbench when I was a student and I still like
MultiSim but using it for capture and layout is just wrong. It's moved
out of the hobbyist-grade ranks but the layout section, called
UtilBoard, is a mess. The router is a joke. I have to say that I really
like the user interface for UltiBoard but the program is slow even on a
faster machine and...well, it's just a mess. They have a downloadable
v9 demo, try it for a laugh.

Pulsonix
A decent package with a fair price. The autorouter is acceptable. Not
bad at all. Suspect the software company has one principle
programmer/owner. Also comes with a one-man promoter and cheerleader
called Leon. Don't know his relationship with Pulsonix but the guy pops
up everywhere on the net with a good word for Pulsonix. (Google
keywords "Pulsonix" & "Leon" on the web and in the groups.)

OrCAD v10.5
Very respectable, professional package with the best autorouter
available. You could do a lot worse.

PADS 2005
A very respectable package. The low-end of the high-end packages. A
terrific value for the money but not cheap.

If money is not a problem, go with PADS. If it is, check out Orcad or
maybe Pulsonix.

 

[Leon]

Dax wrote:

Listed from trash to gold:

Proteus v6.9
Hobbyist-grade capture and layout. Their claim to fame for hobbyists is
their interactive microcontroller simulation integrated in the capture
package. Capture is OK, layout "works", is all I'll say.

Eagle v4.16
Very nice little hobbyist-grade package. The interface is a little odd
but it gets the job done and the price is very reasonable. No frills,
just works good doing basic boards.

Electronics Workbench (MultiSim) v9 with UltiBoard & UltiRoute
I loved Electronics Workbench when I was a student and I still like
MultiSim but using it for capture and layout is just wrong. It's moved
out of the hobbyist-grade ranks but the layout section, called
UtilBoard, is a mess. The router is a joke. I have to say that I really
like the user interface for UltiBoard but the program is slow even on a
faster machine and...well, it's just a mess. They have a downloadable
v9 demo, try it for a laugh.

Pulsonix
A decent package with a fair price. The autorouter is acceptable. Not
bad at all. Suspect the software company has one principle
programmer/owner. Also comes with a one-man promoter and cheerleader
called Leon. Don't know his relationship with Pulsonix but the guy pops
up everywhere on the net with a good word for Pulsonix. (Google
keywords "Pulsonix" & "Leon" on the web and in the groups.)

I'm just a user and beta-tester, and have used it since it first came
out. Pulsonix has quite a few programmers,each with many years of PCB
software design experience. I also run the Pulsonix Yahoo group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PulsonixUG/

Leon

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Hi Leon,

"Leon" <leon_heller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142444708.121931.183950@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

They got Eagle for everyone else but I refused to use it, and they let
me use my own copy of Pulsonix after a big row with management. Doing
anything in Eagle required about twice as many keystrokes and mouse
operations as with Pulsonix, agravating my RSI problems.

So wouldn't you also like to see a Pulsonix option whereby "auto weld" worked
(1) when multiple components where being pasted and (2) for connecting pins to
the middle of nets (rather than just the ends or other component pins as it
does now)? I spend a noticeable amount of time in Pulsonix copying and
pasting something and then drawing a bunch of short wire segments hooking
everything up; none of Protel, PCAD, and OrCAD require this.

Another nice time saver from OrCAD is "repeat paste" where it repeats the last
paste command at the offset between the original component and where you first
pasted it. Pulsonix does have the somewhat similar option to "copy matrix,"
but when you just need to repeat pasting a component some, say, 3-4 times it's
more effort to set up than just manually pasting.

---Joel