DEX eval by free_electron

[gman4925]

Quote from: Iliya on Today at 08:01:50

Quote

What happens when you have spent years doing something in a way that you never questioned and then somebody comes along with a different way of doing things that could possibly be better and you didn’t even bother to RTFM or WTFV?

Question both ways.
Compare both ways.
Ask why one way is done more than the other.
Ask the person promoting the different way what benefits it has.
Ask the person promoting the different way what drawbacks it has that they know of.
Inform the person promoting the different way of drawbacks they may not be aware of.
Discuss the benefits and drawbacks.

You appear to be single sided. You forgot...

Ask the person promoting the old way what benefits it has.
Ask the person promoting the oldtway what drawbacks it has that they know of.
Inform the person promoting the old way of drawbacks they may not be aware of


Yes I appear to be single sided but this is because as the responder to the question I am in need of being convinced that the new different way is better for me than the current way I am using.

Perhaps this should have been in the list:
Inform the person promoting the new way of the inadequacies of the old way.

[BradC]

Ask the person promoting the old way what benefits it has.
Ask the person promoting the oldtway what drawbacks it has that they know of.
Inform the person promoting the old way of drawbacks they may not be aware of

You keep saying that, yet when people who actually _do_ commercial PCB design work for a living tell you *why* the way they do it is not only desirable but necessary, you insist your way is better.

I see this all the time with digital CCTV systems. Written by people who insist they know a better way to skin a cat, but have _no_ practical experience in either catching, skinning or using the skin after the fact. *PLEASE* listen to those that are trying to explain to you (in small words) *WHY* it is desirable to have footprints divorced from schematic parts. The other software does not just do it because it has always done it that way. It evolved that way because it is a commercial necessity and it really is the best way to do the job currently. Nobody has come up with a better way, and while it's admirable that you tried... it's just never going to fly because it is fundamentally flawed.

As for drawbacks, every one you have mentioned are just not problems in the commercial PCB world. I can see an issue with people doing small hobby designs and sharing design files between multiple people (open source style), but the real PCB world does not work like that. Commercial production relies on standardised environments, and if you have 100 PCB guys I guarantee that outside of their own little preferences the libraries are all in the same location, all with the same parts and the same footprints. The issue you keep raising about needing to have a single part and a single footprint tied together in one neat little file just does not exist in the real world. Really.

Your software probably does some things differently enough to do them better. I would not know because after reading the thread and seeing the HUGE showstopper that is your part and footprint management I won't even bother trying it out. It's just that big of a deal.

[Iliya]

That is not the functionality we are looking for.
Yes you can clone a part and mod it. But, if that footprint needs a tweak you need to alter all cloned symbols. That is unworkable.
Crosslinking allows you to define one footprint and tie it to multiple symbols. Touch the footprint and all get updated.

Caveat: I have not used DEX
But I have to agree with FE here, it is obvious to anyone who has ever done any commercial PCB design work - if you can't link a PCB footprint to multiple parts then that renders a PCB CAD package all but unusable in the real world.
This is a complete and absolute show-stopper.

DEX has parametric parts, you can change the part at anytime in the project. So it's a done deal in DEX.
You can easily add additional parts using the Excel csv files in the library.
DEX's part builder is based on some deas in the IPC-7351B Footprint Expert but extended to the complete part.

Perhaps if you try DEX or view the videos you will see for yourself.

*Bangs head on desk.* That's not what we're asking for. We need to be able to change a footprint or symbol, which in turn is reflected in every part it's linked to.

Say I have an MSSOP-16E footprint that's used in 100 parts, if I change that footprint all the parts in the library which use it will reflect the change without me doing anything.

You need footprints, symbols and parts. Think of parts as just metadata descriptors that link to a particular footprint and symbol, along with containing specific information on the part (pin numbers and names, electrical characteristics of the pins and so on). The parts don't actually contain copies of the symbols or footprints, they just symbolically link to them.

That's about as clear as I can make it...


Sent from my Tablet

Please let me make it clear to you there is an inherent danger in changing any parameters of a part including footprints and symbols in the library and adding all projects that use at part to be changed. In DEX you can customise symbols and footprints to your heart’s content. You will be extremely upset if somebody changed the library part and your project was automatically changed. What a disaster. Anyway, to nip this argument in the bud, DEX does not reference external files by design. There is absolutely no need as DEX’s parametric parts are amply capable of exceeding the requirements for multiple footprints. This will not change in the foreseeable future as I see the integrity of the design being of paramount importance. So if you want external references to symbols/footprints then DEX is not for you but is perfectly suitable for many others. So there is no need to keep banging your head, it only hurts.

[Iliya]

Ask the person promoting the old way what benefits it has.
Ask the person promoting the oldtway what drawbacks it has that they know of.
Inform the person promoting the old way of drawbacks they may not be aware of

You keep saying that, yet when people who actually _do_ commercial PCB design work for a living tell you *why* the way they do it is not only desirable but necessary, you insist your way is better.

I see this all the time with digital CCTV systems. Written by people who insist they know a better way to skin a cat, but have _no_ practical experience in either catching, skinning or using the skin after the fact. *PLEASE* listen to those that are trying to explain to you (in small words) *WHY* it is desirable to have footprints divorced from schematic parts. The other software does not just do it because it has always done it that way. It evolved that way because it is a commercial necessity and it really is the best way to do the job currently. Nobody has come up with a better way, and while it's admirable that you tried... it's just never going to fly because it is fundamentally flawed.

As for drawbacks, every one you have mentioned are just not problems in the commercial PCB world. I can see an issue with people doing small hobby designs and sharing design files between multiple people (open source style), but the real PCB world does not work like that. Commercial production relies on standardised environments, and if you have 100 PCB guys I guarantee that outside of their own little preferences the libraries are all in the same location, all with the same parts and the same footprints. The issue you keep raising about needing to have a single part and a single footprint tied together in one neat little file just does not exist in the real world. Really.

Your software probably does some things differently enough to do them better. I would not know because after reading the thread and seeing the HUGE showstopper that is your part and footprint management I won't even bother trying it out. It's just that big of a deal.

Let me get this right, you won't even bother trying it out. If that is a case how can you express an opinion without knowing the full facts? Seems a bit strange to me, but that seems to the case of a lot of people who are posting their advice on this topic.

[Iliya]

Why don't you present a logical case for a solder paste layer?

I'm hopeful that Iliya will return to the forum. He has certainly worked hard at implementing many of Free Electrons suggestions ............ all within a very short time frame.

Now, to the solder paste screen. I will attempt to be constructive.

We should also be able to also choose different grids for the solder paste stencil.

The reason for this is that solder paste is now often used as a heat-sink for SMD components. To keep the rigidity of the solder paste stencil & to prevent the flux from forming bubbles in large areas of solder paste, we need to grid the solder paste on top of the exposed copper (no solder mask on the copper pour of course).

The mosfet heat-sinking is provided by the solder paste. To do this we:

1/ Place a polygon copper pour on the top layer;
2/ Open up the solder mask so that the copper remains exposed;
3/ Place "Gridded" solder paste on top of the exposed copper. When the board is run through the infra-red reflow oven, the solder paste will spread out, covering all the exposed copper. The mosfet now has fantastic cooling by the solder paste (often 2oz or 3oz copper is also chosen to aid with cooling) & the board is complete as soon as it comes out of the reflow oven. No heatsink to buy, no heatsink to install & no messing around with heat transfer paste.

I have uploaded an example below (completed manually in DipTrace as DipTrace does not auto-generate patterns on the solder paste mask layer - I have requested that they add this to their next upcoming version).

Notes:
Background is grey
Top copper layer is hidden
Top solder mask exclusion area is in pink
Top solder paste is in dark yellow. The grids were all painstakingly added manually.

Thanks for justifying the reason to include solder paste layers. I have now implemented it. SMT pads optionally automatically add solder paste. Also no mask areas can optionally automatically add solder paste. With the introduction of solder paste layers you can add any graphics objects to the top or bottom solder paste layer and they will act as solder paste areas.

One useful feature is if you add a rectangle say to a solder paste layer then select it and using the array rectangular dialog you can interactively create a rectangular array of solder paste rectangles. The selected objects you array can be rectangles, rounded rectangles, polygons, curved objects.

[DerekG]

What’s New in AutoTRAX Design Express (DEX) since 25th January (1 month).

Absolutely heaps, looking at the long list provided.

This thread began on 25th January & so it would seem that many (most) of the improvements & added features are as a result of Vincent's input.

Imagine where AutoTrax DEX could be in another 2 or 3 months of hard work with the continued input of Free Electron?

With all the improvements & added features, DEX could easily be selling for 4 times what it is today. As a developer, you would be very happy & your customers would be happy to pay more for a truly professional & flexible design platform.

I'm hopeful the moderators will delete inappropriate posts by the trolls that seem to gain great satisfaction in spoiling threads for other readers.

I'm also hoping that you & Free Electron form a long lasting relationship that pushes DEX into the forefront of great pcb design software.

[BradC]

Let me get this right, you won't even bother trying it out. If that is a case how can you express an opinion without knowing the full facts? Seems a bit strange to me, but that seems to the case of a lot of people who are posting their advice on this topic.

I don't need to try it out to get the full facts, you have clearly stated them many times over. I'm just saying that my (and apparently most of the rest of the people in industry who design PCB's for a living) workflow is not suited to your parts management methodology, so I won't waste my time attempting to trial a package I _know_ won't fit my needs (and I know that because you've repeatedly pointed out how your software works and therefore why it won't work for _me_).

[free_electron]

Another question of the day

What happens when you have a design that uses external references to files in a local library when you give that design to a third party who has the same library but they have modified some of the external references in their library that your design uses but they have not told you?

Clue: what do you see and what they see?

Again answers in by Friday

That was one of the major flaws of OrCad at the time. Besides the design you also needed to give your library. If my resistor was different from your resistor the entire schematic got messed up.

The solution is to simply do a 'pull' of the data and store the placed object in the design file. Problem solved. This kind of misery has not been an issue since the mid 90's.

Orcad took the decision for two reasons :
- centralised library : fix a part and the designs self-fix.
- we only had 286 processors and ega graphics cards and 30 Mbyte harddisks. It kept the files small.

Anno 2015 this is a non-issue for electronic design software. They all store the part instance in the design file. Problem solved.
There is a mechanism to do an update from library if a correction needs to be made. They store an instance , but also a reference so the original part lib can be retraced when needed.

Like i said , this is a problem that was solved decades ago.

[Iliya]

You will notice that I will not add features to DEX that are not justified. Just because it’s the current way of doing things does not make it right and definitely will not be added based on that premise.
However, if somebody does give a valid reason for something then I will add it, for instance I recently added both a top and a bottom solder paste layer based on a valid argument on this forum by DerekG. But just saying ‘that’s the way it is’ is not good enough. So if you want something in DEX that is not already there then make a valid argument and it may appear very shortly as a new feature. But I cannot stress enough that it must be a valid argument.

[Iliya]

Another question of the day

What happens when you have a design that uses external references to files in a local library when you give that design to a third party who has the same library but they have modified some of the external references in their library that your design uses but they have not told you?

Clue: what do you see and what they see?

Again answers in by Friday

That was one of the major flaws of OrCad at the time. Besides the design you also needed to give your library. If my resistor was different from your resistor the entire schematic got messed up.

The solution is to simply do a 'pull' of the data and store the placed object in the design file. Problem solved. This kind of misery has not been an issue since the mid 90's.

Orcad took the decision for two reasons :
- centralised library : fix a part and the designs self-fix.
- we only had 286 processors and ega graphics cards and 30 Mbyte harddisks. It kept the files small.

Anno 2015 this is a non-issue for electronic design software. They all store the part instance in the design file. Problem solved.
There is a mechanism to do an update from library if a correction needs to be made. They store an instance , but also a reference so the original part lib can be retraced when needed.

Like i said , this is a problem that was solved decades ago.

DEX does store a reference to where the part came from in the library and there is a command to refresh the part from the library.
There is of course the ability in DEX to select any part and save it direct to the library. I assume you can do this in Altium.

[Iliya]

What’s New in AutoTRAX Design Express (DEX) since 25th January (1 month).

I'm hopeful the moderators will delete inappropriate posts by the trolls that seem to gain great satisfaction in spoiling threads for other readers.

This will not happen. It is the very nature of this forum to be aggressive and ridicule. This is clearly shown in sum of Dave's videos and is what sets the tone. That's how Dave makes his money. What is becoming increasingly obvious is that most of the people that are posting negative comments are doing so without even trying DEX.   Here's a question for you, if these people hate DEX so much, why do they spend so much time posting messages? 

[DerekG]

Thanks for justifying the reason to include solder paste layers. I have now implemented it.

Excellent news & many thanks.

In my example
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/eda/dex-eval-by-free_electron/msg616748/#msg616748)
I need to advise the pcb fab shop to make a "negative" of the paste Gerber (that DipTrace creates) so that I end up with the rectangular squares of solder paste being deposited through the screen (as required).

Altium displays the same solder paste grid as does DipTrace, however I have not checked to see if the Gerber is automatically inverted.

Maybe some other forum members can advise if it is usual for the fab shop to invert the solder paste Gerber they receive, or does most pcb software automatically invert what you see on the screen when generating the (paste) Gerber?

[free_electron]

Please let me make it clear to you there is an inherent danger in changing any parameters of a part including footprints and symbols in the library and adding all projects that use at part to be changed. In DEX you can customise symbols and footprints to your heart’s content. You will be extremely upset if somebody changed the library part and your project was automatically changed. What a disaster. Anyway, to nip this argument in the bud, DEX does not reference external files by design. There is absolutely no need as DEX’s parametric parts are amply capable of exceeding the requirements for multiple footprints. This will not change in the foreseeable future as I see the integrity of the design being of paramount importance. So if you want external references to symbols/footprints then DEX is not for you but is perfectly suitable for many others. So there is no need to keep banging your head, it only hurts.

Hold it. We never said the update to the designs is allowed to be automatic ! That would indeed mess up the design big time.

Here is how almost all cad software solves this problem.

Pcb footprint definitions and schematic definitions are stored 'somewhere' ( can be a monolithic file, a folder structure, a filesystem, a datbase. I don't care. They are 'somewhere' so the probram can find em.

That is called the local library : the library on computer X.

On computer x we make a design using parts from the library installed on x
The design file holds a copy of every symbol we pull from the library. And it also holds a reference to where the symbol originally came from  (like a unique id code for the root library)

If i give the design to computer y , that machine does not need to acces its library. All data required to render the design is stored in the design file (i cluding the used footprints and symbols).

Scenario 1 : Let's say that on computer x, we have 10 designs that all use the same part. For some reason one design needs a tiny modification of the symbol: the symbol is edited in the design. In that case the data in the linrary is not altered. The alterations are stored in the design file only. Other designs are not afffected

Scenario 2 : we do have an instance where it is warranted to alter the linrary because of a real issue.
We fix the library footprint so all parts in the linrary that have crosslinks update automatically, wiping out the problem once and forever. I. This case the existing designs do NOT GET AN AUTOMATIC UPDATE. when you create a new design you use the fixed part. When you open an old design you use the instance in the design file. There is a function in the cad software to run a check between the data stored in the design file and the library. If a difference is found the designer can elect to refresh the design from the library, or leave it as is.

Problem solved. This mechanism has been around for decades and works perfectly. (Note: we dont want automatical popups flagging there are differences either. Popups are annoying as hell. We'll invoke the design versus library integrity as part of the design verification step). It would be perfectly acceptable to see a message in a status bar somewhere that the lib and design are out of sync , as long as we dont have to go to and click ok somwhere.  If that statusbar would have a button that says something like 'open report' and then we get a detailed window that shows what discrepancies exist , and each item in that window has a button to accept or reject the replacement for that item : bo us points.

[Iliya]

One other thing I love about DEX is the updater. It makes life a lot easier than the typical "download an installer, manually click through the whole thing" affair. I have a couple of questions though.

Does it restore the desktop and start menu shortcuts? I usually delete the desktop one and move the start menu ones to a subfolder. Installers that restore them annoy me I have not checked yet, I'll look next time I update.

What happens if there is some kind of breaking change in DEX? With some packages you can run multiple versions along side each other. Often it is only for major version number changes, so the point updates can't be run side-by-side. In any case, it might be worth thinking about if you ever need to do a big change that would break older projects etc. Like software IDEs most people prefer to just run the old version for their old projects, rather than upgrade them.

There is something that I always thought was rather dumb and in fact the result of poor design is the fact that many part libraries have hundreds of resistors to cover each resistance value.

Text has a single parametric resistor that can handle surface mount and TPH packages. It automatically generates the symbol, footprint and wait for it, the 3-D model including resistors color bands. All from a symbol parametric model. It takes into account all the E ranges and you could have your own custom resistance if you wish. It even generates the SPICE simulation model. What can possibly be wrong with that?

The same applies to capacitors, DEX has a single parametric capacitor.

DEX does a similar thing with DIP, SOIC, ball grid arrays. It even has a parametric inductor that creates inductors out of copper on a copper layer. There is also an aerial generator that creates the required pattern on a copper layer. Easy peasy.

[free_electron]

Surface mount parts don't use color bands . Grin. Just kidding.
Eye candy is nice but not an absolute must have.

Part libraries do t need a hundred symbols for the same

Here is how most programs do it these days.
1 symbol for a resistor
1 0805 footprint for a resistor
1 0603 footprint for a resistor
1 thru hole 1/8 watt for a resistor
Whatever addiitnal footprints you need.

A table describing
Part with name "1k 0805 1%" is symbol 'r', footprint that, vendor x, order code y, pdf file z , link to web .... And so on

The library is essentially a relational database describing object 'x'. Footprint and symbol is just a pointer to a different table that describes the physical implementation.

This is INSIDE the LIBRARY.

Once you pull a part from the linrary and place it in the design it is on its own and you do not need the original database to render the design. You can update from databse if needed/wanted.

If you fix something inside the database it propagates inside the database, not outside the database.

[aroby]

Iliya - I watched that video and still can't figure out a couple of things.  These are just related to SMT, vs. specific to TPH to SMT conversion

DEX has a nice UI for adding e.g. resistors to the schematic, and you can choose the footprint of the resistor before you add it.  However, once you've added a part in this way, how can you select that part and a) find out what footprint was used, b) change the footprint?  All I can find for a) is going through the properties and part builder to find the dimensions and figuring out the footprint (right click on the part and having a footprint sub menu would be nicer..) and b) easiest way seems to be to delete and re-add the part.

Thanks

[Iliya]

The danger of the 1 million+ part library

It’s a disaster waiting to happen on your project. Imagine how many mistakes there are in those parts. Even if there is just one part with the mistake and is the one you use then bang, there goes your first PCB.

Now you can say, Ah! But I check all the parts I use by going and finding the datasheet and checking the part against is a datasheet.

But I say wait a minute, why did you not go to the datasheet and use DEX’s superb part builder and PDF symbol name capture create your own part. At least it is checked from the start and the parametric part that will give you an infinite combination of land patterns when you use it in your design.

Oh, I forgot to mention the time you waste looking for the part in the library, realising it is not suitable or even worse finding the part is not in the library. 

[Iliya]

Iliya - I watched that video and still can't figure out a couple of things.  These are just related to SMT, vs. specific to TPH to SMT conversion

DEX has a nice UI for adding e.g. resistors to the schematic, and you can choose the footprint of the resistor before you add it.  However, once you've added a part in this way, how can you select that part and a) find out what footprint was used, b) change the footprint?  All I can find for a) is going through the properties and part builder to find the dimensions and figuring out the footprint (right click on the part and having a footprint sub menu would be nicer..) and b) easiest way seems to be to delete and re-add the part.

Thanks

For resistors, double click on them. 

Right click on a symbol and you will get this context menu with loads of goodies.

[aroby]

The danger of the 1 million+ part library

It’s a disaster waiting to happen on your project. Imagine how many mistakes there are in those parts. Even if there is just one part with the mistake and is the one you use then bang, there goes your first PCB.

Now you can say, Ah! But I check all the parts I use by going and finding the datasheet and checking the part against is a datasheet.

But I say wait a minute, why did you not go to the datasheet and use DEX’s superb part builder and PDF symbol name capture create your own part. At least it is checked from the start and the parametric part that will give you an infinite combination of land patterns when you use it in your design.

Oh, I forgot to mention the time you waste looking for the part in the library, realising it is not suitable or even worse finding the part is not in the library.

Apart from the basic parts, I always seem to spend most of my time creating new parts.  It would be handy if there was a small library of common symbols to choose from, to reduce the time spent drawing symbols more complex than a box or a triangle.

[Wytnucls]

Iliya, from the feedback of seasoned PCB CAD users, it seems that there is a genuine need for an option, at least, for a split database for symbols and footprints. Is your reluctance to implement it due to difficulties with software modifications or a conviction that a change is unnecessary?

[aroby]

For resistors, double click on them. 

Nothing happens!  What am I supposed to see?  I assume the Add a Resistor dialog in change mode?

[Wytnucls]

For resistors, double click on them. 

Nothing happens!  What am I supposed to see?  I assume the Add a Resistor dialog in change mode?

You get the 'Edit resistor' box, where all parameters can be modified.

[aroby]

For resistors, double click on them. 

Nothing happens!  What am I supposed to see?  I assume the Add a Resistor dialog in change mode?

You get the 'Edit resistor' box, where all parameters can be modified.

Nope.  Nothing happens.  I thought maybe it was the project I was using.  I created a new project, added a resistor to the schematic, then double clicked the symbol, the red bounding box, inside the bounding box.  The only double clicks that work are on the symbol name and value.  I'll submit a bug report.

[4cx10000]

Nope.  Nothing happens.  I thought maybe it was the project I was using.  I created a new project, added a resistor to the schematic, then double clicked the symbol, the red bounding box, inside the bounding box.  The only double clicks that work are on the symbol name and value.  I'll submit a bug report.

Did you use resistors from "parts meny", if not, the "resistor edit" box wont appear.

[Monkeh]

There is something that I always thought was rather dumb and in fact the result of poor design is the fact that many part libraries have hundreds of resistors to cover each resistance value.

You don't have to do it that way. That method is used in order to ensure a specific part number is tied to a part, nothing more.