Well, the package I got from MicroCode was supposed to be a "full-up"
version and after I called inquiring about the libraries, I was told "that's
all there is, there 'aint no more" at which point I gave up on them.
We all get attached to our tools, and I am not trying to pass any sort of
overall judgment on their product. However, I do believe that the EAGLE
package, though it is not terribly easy to learn either (takes about an hour
plus the "easter egg hunt" for the various components and proper package
outlines, particularly connectors and passives, the commercial version seems
to be pretty adequate at a price about half that asked for the MicroCode
package. While you do have to read the documents, the autorouter is about
as good as any I've seen in the under-$10k category. That makes a big
difference to me, since I work at the "front end" of a project, taking the
notion form concept to prototype. I don't like to hunt extensively through
libraries as I have to do with the EAGLE v3.55 package, but it's free, after
all. and little boards of about 3-1/8" x nearly 4" work fine much of the
time for my little one-of's.
My normal approach is to enter a particular schematic, the same one for
every software package I evaluate, and if that works OK, I try to route it.
In the case of CircuitMaker, the first 5 devices were not available, so I
gave up. That's over half the parts. When I checked with the Tech SUpport
guys, they told me the libraries I had been sent were complete and no
revisions or additions were planned at that time.
The version-3 OrCAD did, indeed have a timing simulator. It's called OrCAD
VST, having to do with verification and simlation. There's also a PLD and a
PCB package. The schematic capture part is SDT. It also provides an
on-line link to PSpice, v3.xx and beyond, from within the schematic capture
package.
If I were buying a low-end schematic and PCB software suite, I'd certainly
look at EAGLE before I look at MircoCode stuff again, but that's as much
because of the cost difference as it is due to the library shortfall.
Needless to say, these are my opinions and inclinations. YMMV
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Lane <kyrrin_at_bluefeathertech.com>
To: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: Schematic capture/PCB design software
>At 23:36 08-02-2000 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>I've got a sample package of CIrcuitMaker and TraxMaker and found it
>>wanting, particularly in simulation models and device symbols.
>
> It would be. I don't believe Micro Code includes full libraries with the
>sample versions.
>
>>would use the same package and symbol. They had nearly no AC or ACT parts
>>represented, nor did they have BCT or F library components. Since you're
>>paying for a simulator, there ought to be correct models for 7400, 74L00,
>>74H00, 74C00, 74S00, 74LS00, 74AC00, 74ACT00, 74AHCT00, 74ACT00,
74AHCTLS00,
>
> A basic simulator at the digital level only looks at on/off states. That's
>really all it has to do. Since all the parts you've listed above perform
>EXACTLY the same function, and have the same symbol, I don't see why the
>library has to include every possible variation on one part.
>
> FWIW, the current version of CircuitMaker Pro includes the following for
>2-input NAND gates:
>
> 4011, 4093, 74F00, 74F132, 74F37, 74LS00, 74LS132, and 74LS37.
>
> While I agree that CM does need some help with their library, notably in
>the more exotic components such as tunnel diodes, I have found it adequate
>for my needs. The version of OrCAD you refer to only does schematic
>capture, if I recall correctly, and has no simulation capabilities.
>
>>and so on. There ought also to be plenty of models for CMOS parts
starting
>>with 40xx, 44xx, 45xx, and a goodly number of 7300 and 7600 series parts.
>>OrCAD had all that back in the mid-80's. They no longer offer that much
>>coverage, owning to the increased knowledge of the user community, which
>>would merely point out all their errors.
>
> I'm not sure I understand that last statement. If the omission of
>components is itself an error, why would the "user community" not point it
>out and ask for better coverage?
>
> Also, have you considered that there may be another reason? Specifically,
>that the advancing state of technology where ICs are concerned has made
>such wide varieties of parts unnecessary to accomplish a given task?
>
> To be perfectly honest, I've never heard of the 7300 or 7600 series parts.
>I do know of TI's 75xxx series, which were line drivers/receivers, but I'm
>curious about the ones you mention.
>
> Anyway, I feel that what CM lacks in library coverage is made up for in
>other features. Also, there is nothing keeping you from adding to the
>library. One can create their own SPICE models, though this is not
>generally a trivial task, and I know there's at least one software package
>available that lets you input specs from a databook and have it output a
>SPICE model.
>
>>Have you found otherwise?
>
> As I've said: I've found that it serves my needs. I feel that it was a
>good investment for the price I paid. Do I feel that most EDA software is
>overpriced? Yes. Would I recommend CM and TM for any application? No. There
>are better packages, but most are well beyond the hobbyist price range.
>
> Is there a need for an EDA package with better 'legacy' parts support? I
>think so. I will continue to bug Micro Code about improving CM and TM along
>those lines. In fact, we're probably due for an update this year.
>
> The bottom line is that a question was asked of the list members, and I
>gave my opinion in response. The 'Free' packages simply do not suit my
>needs. If they suit the needs of others, great! I was merely offering one
>option out of many.
>
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Bruce Lane, Owner and head honcho, Blue Feather Technologies
>http://www.bluefeathertech.com // E-mail: kyrrin_at_bluefeathertech.com
>Amateur Radio: WD6EOS since Dec. '77
>"Our science can only describe an object, event, or living thing in our
>own human terms. It cannot, in any way, define any of them..."
Received on Wed Feb 09 2000 - 13:11:49 GMT