[SOLVED] Which pcb design software to learn ?

Best is the software that you can learn while getting paid.

Even better is the software you get paid to be trained on to use while being paid.:wink:

Amen to that.

End of the day it does not much matter what you learn.

The skill is NOT (for the most part) in knowing how to drive any paticular package, it is in understanding the tradeoffs inherent in pcb design (Space/Cost/Signal integrity/RFI/Creapage & Clearence/... All the rest).

Once you have seen a few different cad systems you realise that they all have things to swear about and they all have nice features, but for the most part they are usually pretty similar once you get over having to re learn the finger macros.

An experiencd cad guy can probably pick up a new package in a month to a reasonable standard (6 months or so to doing the tricky HDI stuff quickly), it takes far longer then that to become good at pcb design as opposed to mere cad.

Regards, Dan.

Sorry to hijack into this discussion, but my problems to find the right pcb design program have been quite similar.

15 years ago I used a DOS program, called Traxedit, which I used to design an audio preamp on a two sided board perfectly.

Unfortunately that program doesn't run in Windows 7, so I have been trying a lot of them with very little luck.

The main problem is the learning angle is very steep, and mostly are designed to design your schematic first and then convert it to pcb.

My first try was Altium, because my partner is used to it. But Altium is so meticulous with EVERY little detail that doing a simple test design took me a week.

The schematic I had already done with Paint, just as a drawing, so I need to load the schematic.

My next tries were with KiCad, Eagle and DipTrace, but with them the tutorials were not as precise as they should be. They tell you to do some things, and the programs do not do it.

So I went back to more "primitive" programs like Circuitmaker and Traxxmaker, but their printer drivers are too old and do not work with Win 7.

My latest try was with Proteus, using Isis for the schematic and Ares for the pcb. I am at the schematic stage, but my first try to convert it to Ares did not work. I already asked this as a separate thread.

It's all very frustrating, but I need to make it work.

In other words you're reporting that any PCB tools you have tried needs a certain work effort to become familiar with and be able to operate it. I'm sure that everybody will agree.

Changing over to the next tool if you don't succeed fastly is probably not a good idea.

You're probably right in your comments.

Perhaps my greatest complaint is most modern programs not being more intuitive. You have to learn your way into buttons and sub-buttons and sub-buttons to get to what you want to do.

AFAIK, most don't let go you direct into pcb design, manual that is, which at least would let me do what I did in the past by myself.

During the week I spent following Altium's tutorial, there some (IMHO) unnecessary details to set that you forgot what you were doing or intending to do. And that is for a simple circuit.

Lack of "Intuitiveness" is my greatest complaint.

My latest try has been with Isis and Ares, now working on the former, and they are a bit more intuitive up to a certain point. But it amazes me that designing a component, both for schematic or pcb purposes is so much more complicated that it was in my old faithfull DOS traxedit. And for that I can't find a reasonable reason for.

My honest view is if you haven't got the nous to learn the software should you be attempting to lay out PCBs....

Sorry, that is not an option.

I do want to learn to use one of them, even if it is finding "my way" to use it, and do things as I can do it.

It has always worked so with other programs, so I don't see why now it wouldn't.

Anyway, now I'm trying to make things work with Isis, and then go to Ares with the pcb.

People seem to think quite different about whether a particularly tool can be used intuitively or not. Each is inheriting some features, a certain look and feel from the early beginning as a DOS or UNIX tool. Altium Designer can't deny it's Protel parentage and recent Pulsonix versions still look a bit like 80er years DOS Cadstar. Each has a specific set of shortcuts and a speciific way to implement standard PCB design operations. I guess the intuitive appearance of your old Traxedit comes from the fact that you have used it so many years.

Realistically you need two or three days to learn the basic operation of a new tool and may be a week to use it smoothly. (But many years until you know all hidden features and how to perform each design task in the optimal way).

I believe this is a common situation for all people; in continuous use, we become familiar with certain tool, and obviously we have some resistance to change. After work long enough with the new one, we are reluctant to change once again to a newest tool, or even return to the previous one that we have previously preferred.

My opinion is: If we have the freedom of choice, and if we have enough experience and libraries, the change is inadvisable, with the exception of some unique functionality, or customer demand.

My dilemma is that I do need to use a program to make this pcb. My problem is time, which is running out.

Like I said, I first started with Altium and after a week I barely could design the basic pcb in the tutorial for getting started. So many were the details that you have to stop every moment for, to adjust or change. It left me exhausted.

So I started looking other options that people were recommending (KiCad, Eagle, DipTrace), but I found the tutorials more confusing or inaccurate in what you should expect by doing a certain thing.

Neither of them I found to be at least a bit intuitive, so I could at least try to design the schematic and then convert it to PCB.

I even tried to see a way to be able to use my old DOS, but I couldn't make it work either.

As I said, right now I am using Isis for the schematic, trying to understand the logic behind the steps. At least it's more intuitive and I have almost finished the first stage. But the design is quite large, so I will have to split it in several parts, distributed in two pcbs at least.

I opened another thread for Isis and Ares, but I asked this question here to see if my move was the right one.

carlmart said:

so much more complicated that it was in my old faithfull DOS traxedit. And for that I can't find a reasonable reason for.

Click to expand...

When something doesn't seem to have a reason, look for a reason that doesn't make sense.

Human nature is usually at the source.

Picture the boss meeting with programmers. "Reviews say our software is intuitive and easy to use."

That might be good news when you market to novices. However company purchasers have to buy a program which will be taken seriously by professionals.

Therefore expect the boss to say "Shallow learning curve my eye! Make our program hard to use. Hide essential commands in sub-menus. We can't have users feel like it's easy as tossing a balsa glider. It has to be like piloting a 747!"

Proper training is really essential for a lot of todays software especially if you are going to use it at a certain level... Or lots of hard work and trail and error. I am learning Lightroom and photoshop for my own use and when I can afford I will be going on training courses as I will be a more efficient user and will get a lot further a lot faster. As an interim I do find some of the on line training videos a big help, especially when I get stuck in a concept. I also have a few books etc that I have bought that I am digesting...
So like most things the more you put in the more you get out, the plug and play view attitude works for simple things but to expand you have to educate and learn.

Of course I agree to most of what you're saying, but the question is I need this thing going. I need to design this pcb and I have a limited window to do it.

At the same time I'm also trying to find a person who might design the pcb or help me design it.

On practical terms, I have moved to DipTrace as the program of choice, instead of Proteus, which I had already worked on the tutorial for a few days. Only this time I used my own schematic as the example on how to do things. And things seem to go forward.

I was already able to make part of the schematic, and I already captured that with the pcb program.

I think it's time I open a thread for DipTrace users on this forum to comment in and help me.

So after trying in one thread your going to have another asking similar questions?

That won't get your board done.
Pick your tool, read the manual and the help fully.

It will take you time to learn any package, if you have not got that time then someone has not managed their project time well & you may need to get (or pay) someone else to do it.

No, this thread fulfilled its purpose: to discuss programs in general, what approach to take and maybe which program to choose.

From the programs I had tried I the schematic in three: Circuitmaker, Proteus and DipTrace. The first two were not up to my task or were what I was looking for. The third one seems to be so.

So I opened a specific thread for DipTrace. I am also asking questions about at the official DipTrace forum (which is too slow to respond, confirmed by other users) and on other forums.

I had started on the DipTrace tutorial some weeks ago, but it went through tasks I wouldn't need. But it did seem to have a better relationship between the intuitiveness I was looking for and I'm getting some help from users.

And I did look for someone to do the project, but I couldn't get anyone I can trust where I live.

So I started designing the schematics, looking and finding my way around it.

I'm not sure I agree with the approach this forum seems to have to people that need help like me. The answers were more trying to teach how to do things instead of helping to find a program that might fit what I needed. That is now what I wanted, and that is not the only way to get things done, as you may seem to think.

I am a grown up person, who has already designed and fabricated a product that is not so dissimilar to the one I wanted to design now, only the tools had evolved. Most of the answers I got were far from helpful. Maybe I get them on the other thread I opened.

Fine, you keep trying out different programs and posting on here - seems your project is not as urgent as it seems

carlmart said:

The answers were more trying to teach how to do things instead of helping to find a program that might fit what I needed.

Click to expand...

It might have not been entirely clear what special features in particular that you want achieve with the PCB program you´re requesting. I believe that for the basic standard features, the choice of tool is much more subjected to the user's assortment.

Mattylad said:

Fine, you keep trying out different programs and posting on here - seems your project is not as urgent as it seems

Click to expand...

Maybe I did not make myself clear. I am not trying programs anymore. I'm using DipTrace. And I'm doing fine with some help I'm getting with users mostly.

I think I made myself clear on what I wanted: I wanted a program that was intuitive on how you used it and also modern on its capabilities.

For me the matter for this thread is solved and done. Thank you all.