[Ground-station] How are we set for layout tools?

[John Ackermann]

That's a great synopsis, Wally.

One unavoidable concern, and I don't have an answer for it, is the learning curve where different team members are used to different tools; that's much more likely in a volunteer project than a commercial enterprise, I think.  Standardizing on a tool within everyone's reach helps with that, but I doubt that outweighs the other arguments you're making.

But as a tiny side point I'll mention again, just for future reference, that snapeda.com seems to have a very good engine for designing symbols and footprints according to some (unknown to me) standard specification, and a very large collection of pre-defined parts.  I often make minor edits to their files (easy to do in KiCad), but so far everything I've used from them has worked -- as in physical footprint matches physical device, and wires go to the right places.  (Now, keep in mind I'm dealing with far more pedestrian parts than the ones you're talking about...)

On Jul 27, 2020, 8:51 PM, at 8:51 PM, Wally Ritchie via Ground-Station <ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
>1. Few if any tools are perfect, certainly not any PCB design tools, or
>as
>John Ackermann eloquently put it - all of them suck to varying degrees.
>All
>depends on whether your outlook is half-empty or half-full, what you
>are
>trying to accomplish, and what value you place on different things -
>especially, time and money.
>
>2. Generally, we are not in the business or non-business of producing
>tools
>- except maybe those that are so specialized to our tasks that they
>make
>sense, either because of the nature of the task or the learning curves
>associated with the alternative. So we might write some ad-hoc
>open-source
>verification tools in python instead of an expensive simulink framework
>-
>then again the latter may make more sense - it all depends on what we
>are
>trying to do and the skill sets available to the project.
>
>3. We are embarking on a level of Engineering development on a scale
>not
>undertaken before in the Amateur community, at least with regards to
>the
>technologies we are working with - $2000 FPA chips, $800 radio chips,
>12
>layer boards, SERDES lanes operating at 12GHz, multi-kilobuck dev
>boards.
>These many technologies are pretty far from traditional Amateur radio
>and
>hobby boards. The projects we are undertaking involve professional
>skill
>sets in many fields. Those working in these fields are accustomed to
>having
>tools able to do the job at hand. We are counting on many Amateur Radio
>Enthusiasts who are in fact professionals with relatively current skill
>sets, many with high hourly value in commercial or government settings.
>We
>are asking such hams and non-hams to contribute to our projects on a
>volunteer basis. We don't expect them to have to bring or buy their own
>software tool licenses, test equipment, $3000 eval boards, or $2000
>chips.
>We want their skills - not their stuff. For these projects to succeed
>we
>will find ways to supply the stuff - and the volunteers will supply the
>much higher value engineering labor. Whatever investments we make in
>tools
>will be those that are highly leveraged.
>
>4. You wouldn't make your own hammer, or drill, or CNC machine -
>although
>you could with open source designs. It might be fun to do that - but it
>would be a diversion taking you away from the current mission. If you
>can
>get a carpenter to build something for free labor - you wouldn't ask
>him to
>make his own tools - just because he can. We won't build our own
>spectrum
>analyzers or oscilloscopes - although we could. We focus on our project
>and
>we will beg, borrow, steal, or buy if necessary the tools and test
>equipment to complete the jobs we are doing.
>
>5. With regard to PC tools, the opinions that matter are those of the
>people who will be doing the critical work and what they need to
>perform
>their job. What tools are used for a simple pi-shield don't matter
>much.
>What tool is used to produce a 12 layer FPGA board with 5 DDR4's and a
>dozen transceiver lanes may matter much - especially to the person
>doing
>the work and the downstream fab, smt, and test processes. Over the past
>few
>decades or so the roles of pcb layout specialist and draftsman have all
>but
>disappeared. Mechanical engineers themselves are married to solidworks,
>or
>Catia, or whatever. EEs are married to Allegro, Altium, OrCad or some
>other
>multi kilobuck per seat tool - and in relatively rare cases some small
>companies may use Eagle Professional multi-seat versions - some still
>living in Version 7 and others having moved to Autocad Fusion.
>Mechanical
>and Electrical groups often need close collaboration which is the value
>that PCB/3dCAD integration brings to the table. Catia handled this well
>at
>the high end if you have megabucks. Fusion looks like it's workable for
>the
>low end. I've never known of any organization doing commercial or
>military
>work using KiCad. I suppose it's possible but it's usually a poor
>choice
>economically - like asking engineers to work at ping-pong tables
>sitting on
>folding chairs with CRT monitors. These are certainly cheap and
>plentiful.
>But productively comes from proper capitalization of workers -
>including
>programmers and engineers. Time is money. Volunteer time may have zero
>associated dollars but it has associated value that we do not wish to
>squander - especially when it comes to the most complex parts of our
>projects.
>
>6. Our goals are to produce open source designs that anyone is free to
>adapt to their specific needs. Some parts may require specialized tools
>to
>use - we wish to minimize that, but non-free non-open source tools may
>sometimes be required to utilize the sources. We can limit IP and
>endeavor to avoid purchasing IP beyond that included with the standard
>tools. But I don't think we can afford not to use commercial tools when
>they are the best choice for completing a particular set of tasks. If
>we
>need Matlab to run a vendor's filter generation tools - so be it. If
>someone wants to take on converting this to Octave - please have at it.
>If
>you can modify it and prove it's valid we'll be happy to use it.
>Otherwise,
>we will just suck it up and use Matlab (beg'd, borrowed, stolen, or
>purchased).
>
>7. Eagle has a long following - many have used it since Version 4 or
>early
>on Mac, Linux, and Windows. They captured a lot of users a decade ago
>with
>free versions for hobbyist use, free versions usable by board houses,
>and
>economic professional versions with auto-routing etc. It's a bit weird
>and
>quirky but generally extremely stable. I don't see any reasonable
>argument
>against using Eagle. Nor KiCad for those so inclined. But I am against
>mandating either the forced use of open tools or particular tools. As
>projects involving PC boards proceed - consensus will likely appear as
>to
>what is appropriate for the task at hand.
>
>8. While we are on the subject, PCB layout has some esoteric black art
>skills - especially for RF - but a very major part of the work
>load involves preparing footprints, symbols, and 3d models for parts.
>While
>there are lots of parts in standard libraries there is a rule that says
>that many of the ones you want won't be there (unless you made them
>before). There is a lot of effort required to make parts correctly and
>to
>verify them. But this does not involve special skills - just a normal
>skill
>with the tool and the usual conventions (like what goes in what layers
>and
>what does not. There are tools that will generate parts from generic
>descriptions to the formats of popular cad tools - e.g. Ultra-librarian
>and
>Library Loader - but they are often less than ideal - particularly with
>complicated parts that should have multiple symbols in functional
>groupings, not  one big block with 900 pins. Element14 also added a lot
>of
>parts (thank you) to Eagle, but often with poor symbols. And a lot of
>stuff
>you'll download from the Internet is poor or outright wrong. If a part
>cannot be found, then considerable time will need to be devoted to
>building
>and verifying the part before the PCB layout can continue. Even if a
>part
>is found - is it correct? What design rules are implied? Frankly, this
>is
>the vast majority of all PCB design activities. So this is an area
>where
>many hands could potentially help by contributing. There will be
>ongoing
>needs to build parts, verify parts, and manage libraries of proven good
>parts. Have a look at the oresat project's Eagle libraries
>https://github.com/oresat/oresat-eagle-libraries. They seem to have a
>workable approach for their needs.
>
>9. PCB design software is more than schematic capture and layout. It
>also
>involve simulation (e.g. Spice) and design rule verification. Over the
>last
>decade, integration with 3D mechanical tools has also become common.
>Those
>in the tool business must  continue to provide value to their
>customers.
>Autodesk bought Eagle to add to their other offerings. Their Fusion
>product
>is now pretty usable and economical at the low end and integrates with
>their 3D.  They continue to offer free eagle versions but their main
>offering is now their $60/month Fusion product. Several in this group
>use
>these tools professionally and they are good value for money. The
>Autodesk
>model is pretty workable as the tools are licensed per named individual
>but
>they can be purchased month to month (or longer). So they are a good
>match
>to specific board projects. Part work can always be done with the free
>versions or the very stable version 7. When we are designing and
>building
>complex boards with $2000 parts a few months of Fusion for a couple of
>people is in the noise. They are a wise use of funding - especially
>when
>they leverage what would otherwise be tens of thousands of dollars of
>engineering labor.
>
>10. So I think that the original question that started this thread
>should
>probably be rephrased as:
>
>A. Who has available time and willingness in the coming months (and
>reasonable skill) for building parts in X, or Y, or X and Z including
>Footprints, Symbols (not just big squares), and 3D models and/or
>verifying
>same keeping in mind that it's usually best for building and verifying
>to
>be done by different persons. What tools would be needed to take
>advantage
>of those skills.
>
>11. As to the complex boards, I think that is going to be case by case
>as
>design/layout/design rules etc are pretty much engineered together and
>difficult to partition within a single board. Generally, the board
>designer(s) will be using the tools. I'm sure expert advice on best
>practices for any tool will always be encouraged and well received.
>
>12. As a final note, Eagle/Fusion 360 in  the latest versions have a
>feature called "Design Blocks" which allow grouping of components and
>traces to be made and treated as one (other tools also have this but it
>has
>been notably awkward to do this with Eagle in the past). This adds
>another
>layer of library-like work. It's especially useful for things like
>switching power supplies and audio circuits where grounding and routing
>issues are critical. It's valuable to have drop in blocks for such
>things
>that have been proven all the way to hardware verification (including
>EMC).
>Generally using these and the 3D fetures requires Fusion as well a
>Fusion
>user in the Organization that hosts the resources. So there might need
>to
>be at least one more or less permanent fusion subscription by the
>organization in addition to whatever month to month subscriptions are
>required by those that are not already fusion subscribers.
>
>As usual - this is only my $0.02 - your mileage may vary - use at your
>own
>risk.
>
>WU1Y
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 3:51 PM Bruce Perens via Ground-Station
><ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:32 AM Robert McGwier via Ground-Station
>> <ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish to say that the issue of which tool to be used should not be
>>> dependent on cost or personal ability to pay.  Don't ask me more
>than that,
>>> but you are entitled to guess all you want.
>>>
>>
>> This is just fine if you are making a decision on behalf of your
>> university, Federated Wireless, or Hawkeye 360.
>>
>> We are Amateurs.
>>
>> It is a given that we would be using these tools in a personal
>capacity to
>> build experience and achieve our own projects. And then using them in
>a
>> broader role. Thus, a tool which is in our reach financially is
>indeed
>> important.
>>
>> We also wish to teach with our tools. *Formal* education is not a
>mission
>> of ORI because of the need to be licensed and accredited, and the
>fact that
>> this would have delayed our initial 501(c)3 acceptance. But we still
>wish
>> to teach through example, through the opportunity to participate, and
>all
>> of the things we create.
>>
>> When we first got money, we used it to license proprietary software.
>This
>> is ironic. It's certainly less than optimal, and we should be using
>Open
>> Source if at all possible. Decisions to license proprietary products
>should
>> never be made lightly.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Bruce
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20200727/a71a900e/attachment-0001.html>