How do you people make such good layouts?

[Dirk_Hendrik]

FP,
ignore first sentences please

[moandj]

Corel Draw is vector based.

Have you seen tonepad's pdfs?

I was staring at a tonepad just last night.

By vector-based, I mean working off of a coordinate system or UCS, and I see AutoCad being useful (faster) if anything, just for the PCB layout and toner transfer.  To each his own I guess.

You could use some of AutoCad's 3D capabilities for stompbox layout to see how PCB, switches, jacks, DC jacks fit into a standard size enclosure.  Just use 3D blocks for all the standard offboard components (3PDT, DPDT, etc.).

[gaussmarkov]

You could use some of AutoCad's 3D capabilities for stompbox layout to see how PCB, switches, jacks, DC jacks fit into a standard size enclosure.  Just use 3D blocks for all the standard offboard components (3PDT, DPDT, etc.).

check this link out:  eagle can be hooked up with 3d ray tracing software to produce 3d images from the schematic.

[Fp-www.Tonepad.com]

Being an architect and having used autocad since version 11 (1994 or so), I have mastered most of its features. But I still don't like it enough to use for FUN.

Vector based oposed to pixel based images can be edited very differently.

Style... that's the key word.

Fp

[moandj]

Style... that's the key word.

Style = Output

At the end of the day, no matter what software you use to create the PDF, all that matters is what the output looks like.

If you've been using AutoCad for that long, you know you can get the same output from your El Gritton by using ACAD to create it and print to PDF.  I know you prefer to use something else because you are probably sick of staring at that AutoCad interface (as am I), but it is capable of getting the SAME graphical results in the end, and arguably less steps.

Speaking of architecture, I've got a deadline I need to be working on.

[Fp-www.Tonepad.com]

That's fine with me, you can do whatever you want, and you're right about the output, I also care about the process

Destination, that's ok... path, that's another thing.

And yeah, deadline is the other key word!



Fp

[Fp-www.Tonepad.com]

Oh, I forgot to mention, I've been using coreldraw since version 2 (around 1989)

Hehehe.. this topic has turned unplesant (it's my fault). So don't expect any more replies from me here.

Fp

[RedHouse]

Ok, I'll be the one to say it...

After reading the past few posts I (we) just have to see your circuits moandj's.

I've seen, and used FP's tonepad patterns, and now after hearing your critique in
this thread, well it begs the question ... lets see your yours?

I'd like to see this better style you speak of, so ante up baby.

[Mike Burgundy]

RG didn't mention it, but he has made a great book on just the subject, especially for effects design. If he has copies still. You might want to ask him about it.
I've used AutoCad, but some dedicated programs have the huge bonus (for me anyway) of a big parts library, and rubber banding - the program remembers what is supposed to connect to what and shows it with a thin "rubber band". Great help, that. I agree that autorouting is useless for what we do.

[moandj]

Ok, I'll be the one to say it...

After reading the past few posts I (we) just have to see your circuits moandj's.

I've seen, and used FP's tonepad patterns, and now after hearing your critique in
this thread, well it begs the question ... lets see your yours?

I'd like to see this better style you speak of, so ante up baby.

If you've been following along, read my 1st post in this thread.  There's my critique on tonepad layouts.  I like them, I use them, and props to all the hard work that went into them and his site. 

My argument is that the output (PDF) can look exactly the same and arguably take less time to create using a vector based software such as AutoCad.  I have a lot of experience with cad programs, so that is where I'm coming from.  I'm not putting down francisco's layouts, just to be clear.  I'm a newbie to the FX building, so you're not going to get any dazzling circuits from me.   At least not yet.

I will probably try some circuit design after I have a few more projects under my belt.  And I will give AutoCad a test drive in the process. 

Question for AutoCad users:
Do you have a library of blocks for the different PCB components?  I downloaded some from a website but it doesn't have very many blocks.

[Zero the hero]

Style... that's the key word.

Style, and a math-open mind for finding solutions before drawing them on the screen.

[gaussmarkov]

I've used AutoCad, but some dedicated programs have the huge bonus (for me anyway) of a big parts library, and rubber banding - the program remembers what is supposed to connect to what and shows it with a thin "rubber band". Great help, that. I agree that autorouting is useless for what we do.

for more info, here's a picture of the rubberbanding that Mike is talking about.  i ripped up half the traces on the blackfire example and shifted a few parts around:



the thin yellow lines are the rubberbands.  they stay connected to wherever you move a part. 

FWIW i let the eagle autorouter run on this so that you could see what that does:



there's a silly result for the ground trace along the bottom, but that's easily fixed.  i use my layouts for pad-per-hole perfboard and prefer to avoid diagonal directions.

[puretube]

an old tube-ham once taught me to use: "BAD" ("brain-aided-design")...

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

Rubber-banding is an enormous help in working out where the components should be placed. You can see immediately where the problems will be. And while automatic routing, over an entire board, usually leads to a screwup (for us analog guys), it can be mighty handy in small sections, where you can force it to do what you want. You can save time that way.

[gaussmarkov]

Rubber-banding is an enormous help in working out where the components should be placed. You can see immediately where the problems will be. And while automatic routing, over an entire board, usually leads to a screwup (for us analog guys), it can be mighty handy in small sections, where you can force it to do what you want. You can save time that way.

paul, can you make some suggestions on how to force it to do what you want?  i just played around with the route parameters for a while and could not figure out how to suppress diagonal (45 degree) traces.  i am concerned about accidentally catching the edge of a pad on perf should i run a diagonal wire.  i am happy to place them when this is not an issue because the pads are unused.  any insight would be a help.

[jrem]

while and could not figure out how to suppress diagonal (45 degree) traces. 

If you're referencing Eagle then first, if you change your clearances, you won't have a problem with diagonal wires, second, I think if you change the DiagStep in Auto/Route to 0 it suppresses that on the pass, but you have to change them all.

[nelson]

I use the "bad" approach. MS visio, vector graphics has added benefit of schematic templates. Dont like the look of eagle PCB's.

I like curvy traces. Adds " vintage mojo"  . Also all the auto routing stuff takes all the fun out of the puzzle.

[gaussmarkov]

while and could not figure out how to suppress diagonal (45 degree) traces. 

If you're referencing Eagle then first, if you change your clearances, you won't have a problem with diagonal wires, second, I think if you change the DiagStep in Auto/Route to 0 it suppresses that on the pass, but you have to change them all.

yes, eagle!    i'm not sure that we are talking about the same thing.  let me check:  i am saying that when i actually solder my circuit i prefer to avoid running diagonal wires except when i have unused pads all around the wire.  i think you are talking about passing the drc in eagle when diagonal traces are present.  so i want to make sure i have plenty of space by making layouts that have no diagonal traces.

the manual says that you want a high value of diagstep.  i was using 99.  when i saw your comment it occurred to me to try a lower value because some of those parameters aren't supposed to go that high.  and guess what!  setting diagstep to 30 delivered the goods.  so we were on the right trail and now it works.  in fact, when i rip up and autoroute my entire original layout i get essentially what i did on my own.  my respect for the autorouter has just grown. 

[Dave_B]

I've got an email in to R.G. regarding his book, but in the meantime, could someone explain the issue with diagonal traces? 

[robbiemcm]

Yes, I would also like to know why people try to stay away from diagonal traces.

And also, is it important to try and avoid going through the legs of other components?