Post by thread:Microcode CircuitMaker

Hi All! Someone on the list mentioned that they were using Microcodes CircuitMaker. My company just bought CircuitMaker Pro and Trakmaker Pro. Does anyone have any Circuitmaker Pic or Atmel libraries. Microcode only provides libraries of parts that will work with the circuit analysis functions of the program therfore no microcontrollers. An oversight on their part in my opinion. Thanks Dave Duley http://www.dreitek.com

David, I like to know why your company decided to buy microcode product. the reason I am asking you this because of I used to have protel dos version then they sold it to microcode then microcode made it for windows and started to update. it doesn't even have measuring tool I have version 2.0 I dumped it. imagine when your boss asked you give me the dimensions what are you going to do the only way of doing it is by playing with origin and use calculator to find X and Y . maybe in latest vesion they added some more tools but I wasn't happy with when begin with .I am very happy with pads power pcb and power logic. see if you can covert protel lib's if yes there are some lib's in protel web site you can down load. Andre David W. Duley wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi All! > Someone on the list mentioned that they were using Microcodes CircuitMaker. > My company just bought CircuitMaker Pro and Trakmaker Pro. Does anyone have > any Circuitmaker Pic or Atmel libraries. Microcode only provides libraries of > parts that will work with the circuit analysis functions of the program > therfore no microcontrollers. An oversight on their part in my opinion. > > Thanks > Dave Duley > http://www.dreitek.com

In a message dated 3/1/99 11:38:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, spam_OUTandreTakeThisOuTcompufire.com writes: << David, I like to know why your company decided to buy microcode product. the reason I am asking you this because of I used to have protel dos version then they sold it to microcode then microcode made it for windows and started to update. it doesn't even have measuring tool I have version 2.0 I dumped it. imagine when your boss asked you give me the dimensions what are you going to do the only way of doing it is by playing with origin and use calculator to find X and Y . maybe in latest vesion they added some more tools but I wasn't happy with when begin with .I am very happy with pads power pcb and power logic. see if you can covert protel lib's if yes there are some lib's in protel web site you can down load. Andre >> Hi Andre, This is a touchy subject with most budget minded engineers. Most would rather argue birth control and abortion with the pope than schematic capture and PCB layout software. The reason is, so much of the low end (under $1000) software on the market sucks big wet dog balls. I started out with IVEX and then on a recomendation I switched to Mental Automation Super Cad and PCB. I kept sending bug reports to the guy that wrote the software. He would send me a supposedly updated version that had all the same bugs, a completly different user interface and the upgrade would hose all of my custom libraries so my current designs caused general protection faults when I tried to open them!!!! But I'm not bitter. I set out to find worthy software. I downloaded all of the demos. I had several very simple criteria for evaluation. I had a simple PIC based schematic that I would draft (1 PIC 1 Crystal 4 caps and a connector) and then try to make a PCB file. I also had to be able to do this without the aid of extensive documentation. Electronic workbench came up OK but would not allow me to even lay down a singe trace without a "Rules violation". Eagle was easy to draw the scematic but when I autorouted my little design it did stupid things like route a trace from pin 1 of the pic to the connector through pins 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9. Great if you wanted to short all your pins together! It connected both pins of the crystal together and routed that to one of the osc pins on the pic leaving the other osc pin floating. So...I abandoned eagle. I was hesitant to try Ivex again since I was burned heavily several time by several versions. MicroCodes demo was the only one that allowed me to create my design and autoroute it with very little trouble. Like I said my only complaint is that there was no libraries for CPUs or micro controllers. I can, however, create a simple pic component in 2 or 3 minutes. My other complaint is the limited import capability of the schematic capture. It would be nice to have a DXF import where I could at least transfer symbols or limited constructs. I did spring for the PRO versions and my copy has a measure function. I am using Version 6 of CircuitMaker and Version 3 of TraxMaker. I will try your suggestion for importing Protels libraries. My problem is with the schematic symbols not the PCB footprints. Thanks Dave Duley

>Hi Andre, >This is a touchy subject with most budget minded engineers. Most would rather >argue birth control and abortion with the pope than schematic capture and PCB >layout software. The reason is, so much of the low end (under $1000) software >on the market sucks big wet dog balls. I started out with IVEX and then on a >recomendation I switched to Mental Automation Super Cad and PCB. I kept >sending bug reports to the guy that wrote the software. He would send me a >supposedly updated version that had all the same bugs, a completly different >user interface and the upgrade would hose all of my custom libraries so my >current designs caused general protection faults when I tried to open them!!!! >But I'm not bitter. >I set out to find worthy software. >I downloaded all of the demos. I had several very simple criteria for >evaluation. I had a simple PIC based schematic that I would draft (1 PIC 1 >Crystal 4 caps and a connector) and then try to make a PCB file. I also had >to be able to do this without the aid of extensive documentation. >Electronic workbench came up OK but would not allow me to even lay down a >singe trace without a "Rules violation". >Eagle was easy to draw the scematic but when I autorouted my little design it >did stupid things like route a trace from pin 1 of the pic to the connector >through pins 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9. Great if you wanted to short all your pins >together! It connected both pins of the crystal together and routed that to >one of the osc pins on the pic leaving the other osc pin floating. So...I >abandoned eagle. Just a comment... I can only comment on Eagle since I've been using it for about two years now, and for it to do the 'stupid' things you mentioned you must have done something really wrong ('stupid' maybe?)... Regards, Gabriel Gonzalez TGO Electronics >I was hesitant to try Ivex again since I was burned heavily several time by >several versions. >MicroCodes demo was the only one that allowed me to create my design and >autoroute it with very little trouble. Like I said my only complaint is that >there was no libraries for CPUs or micro controllers. I can, however, create >a simple pic component in 2 or 3 minutes. >My other complaint is the limited import capability of the schematic capture. >It would be nice to have a DXF import where I could at least transfer symbols >or limited constructs. >I did spring for the PRO versions and my copy has a measure function. I am >using Version 6 of CircuitMaker and Version 3 of TraxMaker. >I will try your suggestion for importing Protels libraries. My problem is >with the schematic symbols not the PCB footprints. > >Thanks >Dave Duley

In a message dated 3/1/99 4:26:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, .....mtdesignKILLspam@spam@FAST.NET writes: << Sorry, Dave. I still use them and still like them. They aren't perfect, but who is? I've done some pretty tough designs with them and (not using auto routing) never had a big problem. Sometimes things get hosed. Oh, well. Andy >> Hi Andy, Don't worry I'm not holding it against you <G> The thing that irked me was that I went to the trouble of documenting several major bugs. I sent at least 5 bug reports by email that went un-answered. I called him and, of coarse, you don't get him you get the answering service. He doesn't call back anymore. He simply sent an updated version via email. All the bugs I complained about were still there. All that was different was that he screwed up the user interface by making several functions more difficult to use. I would rather have less features and less bugs. Basic things like saving, loading and parts creation should work flawlessly. everything else is just fluff. Did you catch my article in the march issue of Popular Electronics? Have a good week Dave

In a message dated 3/1/99 5:06:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, tgoKILLspamCHIH1.TELMEX.NET.MX writes: << Just a comment... I can only comment on Eagle since I've been using it for about two years now, and for it to do the 'stupid' things you mentioned you must have done something really wrong ('stupid' maybe?)... Regards, Gabriel Gonzalez TGO Electronics >> I entered the scematic and told it to make me a PCB. What could be simpler. Especially a scematic with 7 parts. You see what I mean about the emotional attachements that engineers have towards their tools..... <G> Dave

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:42:09 -0700, Gabriel Gonzalez wrote: [SNIP] {Quote hidden}> > >Just a comment... > >I can only comment on Eagle since I've been using it for about two years >now, >and for it to do the 'stupid' things you mentioned you must have done >something >really wrong ('stupid' maybe?)... > >Regards, > >Gabriel Gonzalez >TGO Electronics > I find that Eagle works for the most part. I am using the OS/2 version with few problems, but...... I can understand Dave's point of view. He is looking at how *easily* he could implement is "benchmark" board. If he could not get it working correctly it was probably because Eagle requires a *lot* of patience. Nothing about that program stands out without careful analysis of the online help. It is surely not a very intuitive user interface. So far I have only used it fore schematic capture and found the learning curve very steep. It looks many hours to figure out how to add a component to my own library. I am slowly learning how to use it, but it is not easy. It seems to be a comman d driven program with a GUI slapped incompletely on top. Many of the features mus t be accessed by typing in commands which can only be divined from the online help . You sure can't beat it for a free program though! I am not sure at this point if I would ever pay for the full version. I think I would want to look at sever al others first since I am not happy with the poorly implemented GUI. Dan

In a message dated 3/1/99 6:19:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, .....dlarsonKILLspam.....citilink.com writes: << I am slowly learning how to use it, but it is not easy. It seems to be a command driven program with a GUI slapped incompletely on top. Many of the features must be accessed by typing in commands which can only be divined from the online help. You sure can't beat it for a free program though! I am not sure at this point if I would ever pay for the full version. I think I would want to look at several others first since I am not happy with the poorly implemented GUI. Dan >> Hi Dan, You jogged my memory. The other thing that I really objected to about Eagle was the lack of a graphical way to view parts before placement (unless I missed somthing) there should be a preview window that shows you what the part looks like before you place it. Especialy if the part names are the manufacturers part number. Best regards Dave

>Hi Dan, >You jogged my memory. The other thing that I really objected to about Eagle >was the lack of a graphical way to view parts before placement (unless I >missed somthing) there should be a preview window that shows you what the >part looks like before you place it. Especialy if the part names are the >manufacturers part number. I concur with this 100%, and this feature (among many others) will be available in the next version (4) due later this year. Gabriel > >Best regards >Dave

> I can understand Dave's point of view. He is looking at how *easily* he could > implement is "benchmark" board. If he could not get it working correctly it w > as probably because Eagle requires a *lot* of patience. Nothing about that > program stands out without careful analysis of the online help. It is surely > not a very intuitive user interface. I completely disagree with you. Of several CAD demos I tried, Eagle is definately the most user-friendly. Just two possibilities come to mind - OS/2 version is probably quite different from current, 3.55 Windows and DOS version. As for GUI, are you sure that some of your proglems don't come from the OS you are running Eagle on? Even more, Eagle has not crashed on me, while couple of other demos did so in first half and hour or so. I have a friend who works with OrCAD, and he has adapted a 'save early, save often' strategy from Space Quest I :) The component design is actually so simple that instead of browsing thru all the libraries when the part is not obvious, I just switch to lib editor and create the part. After going thru each step once or twice, the only grief is that there is no easy way to check out what the component actually looks like, unless you place it on the schematics and switch over to board. I also suspect that the original poster used 'Wires' instead of 'Nets' to connect components, at least that was the mistake I made.

> You jogged my memory. The other thing that I really objected to about Eagle > was the lack of a graphical way to view parts before placement (unless I > missed somthing) there should be a preview window that shows you what the > part looks like before you place it. Especialy if the part names are the > manufacturers part number. Another thing that should be added to EAGLE is the ability to assign different board packages already in schematics. Currently, you worry about components when using them in the schematic, and _another_time_ when starting the board layout (for example replace through-hole by SMT footprints). Yet another bad thing is the missing back-annotation. It's difficult to keep track of layout changes in the schematic and vice-versa. Everything has to be done manually.

>I would rather have less features and less bugs. Basic things like saving, >loading and parts creation should work flawlessly. everything else is just >fluff. Agreed. >Did you catch my article in the march issue of Popular Electronics? No, so now I have to find it on a newstand and buy it! Andy \-----------------/ \ /---\ / \ | | / Andy Kunz \ /---\ / Montana Design /---------+ +---------\ http://www.montanadesign.com | / |----|___|----| \ | \/___| * |___\/ Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!

Guys, I went through the same process of trying every SW package related to EDA I could get my hands on and found that for the money Microcode could not be beat (for my needs). I have done about 70 or 80 boards with the package (TraxMaker 2.0 and CircuitMaker 5.0) and there are some quirks but none of them are major. One that really bugs me is that the screen image gets all chopped up when moving things around and the only way to fix it with a manual refresh (should be automatic). I can generally beat the autorouter for most board layouts, but its nice for multi layer boards. The simulator works great especially for "dialing in" 555's and the like. Well that's my 2 cents. {Quote hidden}> > > << David, > > I like to know why your company decided to buy > microcode product. the reason I am asking you this because > of I used to have protel dos version then they sold it to > microcode then microcode made it for windows and started > to update. it doesn't even have measuring tool I have version 2.0 > I dumped it. imagine when your boss asked you give me the > dimensions what are you going to do the only way of doing it is by playing > with origin and use calculator to find X and Y . maybe in latest > vesion they added some more tools but I wasn't happy with when > begin with .I am very happy with pads power pcb and power logic. > see if you can covert protel lib's if yes there are some lib's in protel > web site you can down load. > > Andre > >

Hi, I'm the someone who originally mentioned Circuit Maker. I'm just a hobbyist and chose it over Electronics Workbench due to the number of components included in the included library. I'm glad to see that so many others are also using it. (insecurity issues?) If you received any personal replies on more component libraries please forward them to me. If not, I'll ask the same again. Erik David W. Duley wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Hi All! > Someone on the list mentioned that they were using Microcodes CircuitMaker. > My company just bought CircuitMaker Pro and Trakmaker Pro. Does anyone have > any Circuitmaker Pic or Atmel libraries. Microcode only provides libraries of > parts that will work with the circuit analysis functions of the program > therfore no microcontrollers. An oversight on their part in my opinion. > > Thanks > Dave Duley > http://www.dreitek.com

> Marc <EraseMEmarcspam_OUTTakeThisOuTAARGH.FRANKEN.DE> wrote: > >Another thing that should be added to EAGLE is the ability to assign different >board packages already in schematics. Currently, you worry about components >when using them in the schematic, and _another_time_ when starting the >board layout (for example replace through-hole by SMT footprints). > >Yet another bad thing is the missing back-annotation. It's difficult to >keep track of layout changes in the schematic and vice-versa. Everything >has to be done manually. First of all, I'm not in any way related to Cadsoft, except tham I'm their customer. Quite satisfied customer. When commenting about the missing features of the software, it would be logical to at least tell everyone what version you are talking about. Better yet, you could check the web site to see if the current version is better than yours. Version 3.55 of Eagle _does_ have back-annotation. You cannot make all changes in PCB layout (like creating new connections between components), but it does track schematics changes in PCB (rips up deleted nets etc.)

I wasn't really following this one, but read a few of the posts. Is there a website for this product, or a demo version around? I've been using a very old version (about 8 yrs old) of OrCad. Although its a great and easy product, I have been thinking of upgrading to something....

(Odd return address (picspam_OUTdrzyzgula.org) is where I was sending my subscription to make it easier to separate out; Guess I'll have to change that now...) On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 12:28:00PM +0000, Madis Kaal wrote: > > Marc <@spam@marcKILLspamAARGH.FRANKEN.DE> wrote: > > First of all, I'm not in any way related to Cadsoft, except tham I'm > their customer. Quite satisfied customer. Same here. > Version 3.55 of Eagle _does_ have back-annotation. You cannot make all > changes in PCB layout (like creating new connections between > components), but it does track schematics changes in PCB (rips up > deleted > nets etc.) Before saying more, I'll concur with previous statements that a great deal of the selection process for this kind of software (and by "this kind", I include all sorts of productivity tools, including word processors, spreadsheets, programming languages, etc.) just comes down to personal preferance and organizational temperment. We could debate Protel vs Eagle, Word Perfect vs Word, Visual Basic vs Delphi, vi vs Emacs, etc. for weeks and months, without reaching any conclusion. That being said, My experience with Eagle is similar; I use 3.55 for Windows. I'd say that the biggest problems with Eagle are the brief and somewhat cryptic documentation, and the difficulty in identifying which parts are available and in which library. The library and part nomenclature is inconsistant and incomplete, the US & European parts are kind of jumbled, and you can't really get the sense of a part without plopping one down in a circuit and then viewing it both in the schematic *and* the board. You might get the idea from the library names that if you want a resistor, you'd go to "R.LIB", but if you're in the US you probably want to go to "DISCRETE.LIB" instead. As others have said, improvements on this are on their way, although that doesn't necessarily help if you need it today. One thing they did recently do that is a big help is to create a set of board and schematic designs, each one of which contains all the parts from a single library. This is a remarkably big help with this problem. You can download these files from their website. Things I like about Eagle include having both a scripting and a programming language, the forward/back annotation, the straightforwardness with which you can create and/or modify parts libraries, and the helpfulness of their staff. I've also not yet encountered any bugs, which isn't to say that there aren't any, but I do appreciate not having to constantly wonder if my problems stem from a bug or from my own lack of understanding; in all cases so far it has been the latter. This one fact makes me more interested in learning Eagle better rather than looking for a new solution. In addition, they have promised to release the next version of Eagle for Linux, which I'm pretty excited about; they claim to actually have an early build of this version running within Cadsoft. I'm quite sure that there are several other products that work as well or better, but this one works for me. --Bob -- ============================================================ Bob Drzyzgula It's not a problem KILLspambobKILLspamdrzyzgula.org until something bad happens ============================================================ From: Bob Drzyzgula <RemoveMEbobTakeThisOuTdrzyzgula.org> To: "L-Soft list server at MITVMA (1.8c)" <spamBeGoneLISTSERVspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu> Cc: Bcc: Bob Drzyzgula <TakeThisOuTbobEraseMEspam_OUTdrzyzgula.org> Subject: Re: Rejected posting to RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU Reply-To: Bob Drzyzgula <bobEraseME.....drzyzgula.org> In-Reply-To: <EraseME199903031455.GAA26856mx2.eskimo.com>; from L-Soft list server at MITVMA (1.8c) on Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 09:33:21AM -0500 X-Editor: vim X-Operating-System: Redhat Linux 5.2 On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 09:33:21AM -0500, L-Soft list server at MITVMA (1.8c) wr ote: {Quote hidden}> You are not authorized to send mail to the PICLIST list from you r > RemoveMEbobEraseMEEraseMEDRZYZGULA.ORG account. You might be authorized to send to the list fro m > another of your accounts, or perhaps when using another mail program whic h > generates slightly different addresses, but LISTSERV has no way to associat e > this other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you hav e > any question regarding the policy of the PICLIST list, please contact the lis t > owners: RemoveMEPICLIST-requestspam_OUTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU. > > ------------------------ Rejected message (92 lines) ------------------------- - > Return-Path: <RemoveMEbobTakeThisOuTspam02-104.007.POPSITE.NET> > Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2b/ 1. > 8b) with BSMTP id 7148; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:31:23 -0500 > Received: from 02-104.007.popsite.net [209.100.18.104] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM {Quote hidden}> SMTP V2R4a) via TCP with SMTP ; Wed, 03 Mar 1999 09:31:21 EST > X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by 02-104.007.popsite.net > Received: (from bob@localhost) > by 02-104.007.popsite.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA17923; > Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:30:58 -0500 > Message-ID: <EraseME19990303093054.A16858spamspamBeGone02-104.007.popsite.net>> > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:30:54 -0500 > From: Bob Drzyzgula <RemoveMEbobKILLspamdrzyzgula.org> > To: pic microcontroller discussion list <PICLISTSTOPspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> > Subject: Re: Microcode CircuitMaker > Reply-To: Bob Drzyzgula <spamBeGonebobSTOPspamEraseMEdrzyzgula.org> > References: <KILLspam36DD2AD0.F3AB70EEspamBeGonenomad.ee> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2 > In-Reply-To: <EraseME36DD2AD0.F3AB70EEEraseMEnomad.ee>; from Madis Kaal on Wed, Mar 03, 199 9 > at 12:28:00PM +0000 > X-Editor: vim > X-Operating-System: Redhat Linux 5.2 > > On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 12:28:00PM +0000, Madis Kaal wrote: > > > Marc <@spam@marc@spam@spam_OUTAARGH.FRANKEN.DE> wrote: > > > > First of all, I'm not in any way related to Cadsoft, except tham I'm > > their customer. Quite satisfied customer. > > Same here. > > > Version 3.55 of Eagle _does_ have back-annotation. You cannot make all > > changes in PCB layout (like creating new connections between > > components), but it does track schematics changes in PCB (rips up > > deleted > > nets etc.) > > Before saying more, I'll concur with previous statements > that a great deal of the selection process for this kind > of software (and by "this kind", I include all sorts of > productivity tools, including word processors, spreadsheets, > programming languages, etc.) just comes down to personal > preferance and organizational temperment. We could debate > Protel vs Eagle, Word Perfect vs Word, Visual Basic vs > Delphi, vi vs Emacs, etc. for weeks and months, without > reaching any conclusion. That being said, > > My experience with Eagle is similar; I use 3.55 for > Windows. I'd say that the biggest problems with Eagle > are the brief and somewhat cryptic documentation, and > the difficulty in identifying which parts are available > and in which library. The library and part nomenclature > is inconsistant and incomplete, the US & European parts > are kind of jumbled, and you can't really get the sense > of a part without plopping one down in a circuit and > then viewing it both in the schematic *and* the board. > You might get the idea from the library names that if > you want a resistor, you'd go to "R.LIB", but if you're > in the US you probably want to go to "DISCRETE.LIB" > instead. > > As others have said, improvements on this are on their > way, although that doesn't necessarily help if you need > it today. One thing they did recently do that is a big > help is to create a set of board and schematic designs, > each one of which contains all the parts from a single > library. This is a remarkably big help with this > problem. You can download these files from their website. > > Things I like about Eagle include having both a scripting > and a programming language, the forward/back annotation, > the straightforwardness with which you can create and/or > modify parts libraries, and the helpfulness of their > staff. I've also not yet encountered any bugs, which > isn't to say that there aren't any, but I do appreciate > not having to constantly wonder if my problems stem from a > bug or from my own lack of understanding; in all cases so > far it has been the latter. This one fact makes me more > interested in learning Eagle better rather than looking > for a new solution. In addition, they have promised to > release the next version of Eagle for Linux, which I'm > pretty excited about; they claim to actually have an early > build of this version running within Cadsoft. > > I'm quite sure that there are several other products that > work as well or better, but this one works for me. > > --Bob > > -- > ============================================================ > Bob Drzyzgula It's not a problem > spamBeGonebobKILLspamdrzyzgula.org until something bad happens > ============================================================ -- ============================================================ Bob Drzyzgula It's not a problem .....bobspam_OUTdrzyzgula.org until something bad happens ============================================================

In a message dated 3/3/99 1:09:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, TakeThisOuTerik.....TakeThisOuTNETWURX.NET writes: << Hi, I'm the someone who originally mentioned Circuit Maker. I'm just a hobbyist and chose it over Electronics Workbench due to the number of components included in the included library. I'm glad to see that so many others are also using it. (insecurity issues?) If you received any personal replies on more component libraries please forward them to me. If not, I'll ask the same again. Erik >> Hi Erik, No takers so far. Only questions as to why I chose Microcode. I'll Keep you posted. If my usual luck hold true, I will get a response from someone that spent the last year inputting every CPU known to man into these pakages with mind numbing precision just as I have hacked my way through building my own library. Regards Dave Duley