GPL CAD - Schematic Capture and PCB.

[DummyLoad]

very cool - had it working for me in just a few minutes... very shallow learning curve and very intuitive. plot as PostScript or HPGL.

full page cross-hair cursor - YAY!!!  

single key commands; e.g. press G key to drag, press W to start a wire, press M to move, press R to rotate component, F1 to zoom in, etc..

nice parts library, but most importantly - comes with a valve library.

download full version, autoinstaller and components... about 90MB for XP paltform.

http://www.lis.inpg.fr/realise_au_lis/kicad/

[DummyLoad]

to make pdf file... first plot to SVG.

open URL:  http://www.fileformat.info/convert/image/svg2pdf.htm

upload file to convert to pdf

save file to your PC.

i attached a schematic i created in just a few minutes.

[PRR]

That link is not working for me at this moment; it appears the whole ISP is down, probably a temporary thing.

It's no vaporware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kicad
http://kicad.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
http://kicad.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Mini_tutorial

[DummyLoad]

it's back up - try it now.

i used the HTTP download link.

just finished using the library editor to create an output transformer... it's nice stuff, for free anyway!

next to test are the PCB layout tools.

[tubesornothing]

To go to PDF you can also use a free PDF printer, such as PrimoPDF.  The you can use it for other things as well.

[DummyLoad]

try here: http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/KiCad-Download-143437.html

[RicharD]

Wow!  KiCad is robust.  Hard to believe it's free.  Steeper learning curve than Express SCH but with 100x the tools, that's to be expected.

ISO -

That track issue we had last night was because by default DRC (design rules check) is on and it won't let you place a track that isn't routed.  You can go up to prefs/general/options and turn drc off ifin you wanna draw a board w/o a schematic.  Then it's just click start - click turn - click turn - dbl click end..... like we expected.

 

[DummyLoad]

Wow!  KiCad is robust.  Hard to believe it's free.  Steeper learning curve than Express SCH but with 100x the tools, that's to be expected.

ISO -

That track issue we had last night was because by default DRC (design rules check) is on and it won't let you place a track that isn't routed.  You can go up to prefs/general/options and turn drc off ifin you wanna draw a board w/o a schematic.  Then it's just click start - click turn - click turn - dbl click end..... like we expected.

 

i kno - i fingered it out... i had to RTFM 

[RicharD]

Here's a Screen Capture:  (most of the NY Dave 1 bottle pre)
Schematic (top right)
Components to modules (bottom left)
PCB (bottom right)
3D Model (top left)


http://www.sotxampco.com/Temp/KiCad-Screen-Shot.jpg

[tubesornothing]

PCB!  Heretic!   

[DummyLoad]

PCB!  Heretic!   

somebody say heretic? 

http://www.ecossemoto.com/heretic.htm

[RicharD]

>heretic

ABSOLUTELY!

Personal beliefs aside, this application makes mighty fine looking schematic diagrams.  The  attached drawing is actually 11" x 17" so you'll hafta zoom in.  As far as PCB's go, I've tried numerous time to open a debate here.  Nobody would take da bait.......  (sorry bout that).  One could very easily create turret board footprints for all the components and use the board section to quickly lay them out.  The built in router won't let you miswire your layout.  What happens in the real world, it cannot control.

[PRR]

> The built in router won't let you miswire your layout.

Over at P-Pro, there is that thread where someone ran a batch of PCBs and shipped them all over the world... and turns out the + and - to the chip got reversed "somehow".

And is your schematic right? Or as an arbitrary example: Why can't I tie a cathode to B+? It is odd, but not unknown. Any drawing tool that makes odd things impossible, or is smart enough to know when odd is correct, is too smart for me.

I've been on all sides of the PCB squabble, since I been around most of PCBs' life. But in high-soul guitar amps, I favor hunks of brass for reasons similar to why G.H and others don't build fine guitars with plastic injection moldings.

[RicharD]

>Over at P-Pro, there is that thread where someone ran a batch of PCBs and shipped them all over the world... and turns out the + and - to the chip got reversed "somehow".

You'd hope Joe Shipper would have enough sense to build at least 1 board, use and abuse it before selling them to the masses.

>is your schematic right?

No.
Forgot the protection diode across the regulator.
Forgot the virtual CT resistors for the filaments.
A couple of wires didn't get connected.
I used the automatic annotation tool and my R1, R2, Rn's make no sense.

>Any drawing tool that makes odd things impossible, or is smart enough to know when odd is correct, is too smart for me.

You can turn off DRC in the preferences and wire B+ to G1 ie. completely ignore the schematic.

>in high-soul guitar amps, I favor hunks of brass

For the most part I agree.  Almost everything I've done has been P2P, but I'm not 100% convinced that's the "only" way to build a geetar amp.  This circuit has 5 DIP 16 socket relays.  I'm planning on only doing V1 & V2 circuitry on the PCB.  Hot tubes in a typical P2P fashion.

[tubesornothing]

As far as PCB's go, I've tried numerous time to open a debate here. 

I am always open (begrudgingly) to new ideas.  I experimented with PCBs and tube amps quite a bit.  I decided to stop using them, because I could not find thick boards with heavy copper.  I toyed with making my own though.  In general, I do not use them for the main amp because they are just too much of a pain for repair, tube sockets on the boards stress the traces and my customers don't like them.  However, I do use them in some areas: switch control boards, power scaling and for james tonestack modules. 

The big reason for PCB is consistency of layout and ease of assembly. Since I build all my own amps, and dont have people working for me, I can keep pretty tight control on the layout.  So my consistency from one amp to the next is as good as the tolerance of my components.  It is way easier to populate a PCB than an turret board, but thats the expense of it for me.

OK, now back to that motorcycle - heretic is right!
 

[RicharD]

>turns out the + and - to the chip got reversed "somehow".

I found a glitch between the module editor and the component to footprint association tool.  The module editor is where you build a component's footprint.  I built a 2 watt resistor module (R2w) and erroneously labeled the pads 3 and 4.  I updated my 6 - 2 watt resistors in the netlist before I caught my mistake.  I went back and corrected the module for pins 1 & 2.  When I updated the netlist, the modulest continued to display pins 3 & 4.   I had to re-edit my netlist twice.  1st I changed my R2w components to R1 components.  Saved the netlist, then went back and made them R2w's again.  This was the only way to get the PCB to recognize the changes in pad numbers.  I'm only 3 days into this software so it's very likely operator error, but it seemed like a glitch.  One could easily reverse a + & -, catch it, correct it, but not have the correction take.  Since I don't have my libraries really established yet, I sorta have the cart in front of the horse at the moment.

The 3D modeling is somewhat limited.  The models are drawn in VRML (whatever that is...... virtual reality markup language?).  You are limited to scaling and skewing the various graphics provided in the library.  The 3D model is really more of a gadget than anything else.  What do you want for free?

>they are just too much of a pain for repair
That's because most of the time they are designed for mass production and not for ease of repair.  I've been inside of a modern Fender, the ones where everything is relying on the pots for mounting.  Garbage!  I built my bass pre on a pcb and it's easy to service.  Pop 3 knobs, about a dozen screws, and 2 Molex connectors and the whole enchalada sans jacks, PT, and line power is free and clear.  A lot of P2P stuff isn't exactly a cake walk to service.

Thick board w/ heavy copper is available at almost all the board houses.  You just gotta pay more.   I agree that power and rectifier tubes have no place on a PCB (thermal stress issues).  I've found that PCB mounted pots cause more physical stress on a board that little ol 9 pin sockets. 

>It is way easier to populate a PCB than an turret board
....and a lot more difficult to make a wiring error, although I can manage to mess up.  Heck, I could break an anvil given the chance. 

[kagliostro]

I've an old copy of EAGLE but never used it

using that "PCB oriented" software is possible to have help drawing Hoffman style turret boards ??

thanks

Kagliostro

[RicharD]

>using that "PCB oriented" software is possible to have help drawing Hoffman style turret boards ??

"Help" might not really be the right word.  Yes, you could draw a Hoffman style turret board.  It's designed to generate drill code so you could feed any automated machine.  For DIY DeWalt drilling at home, it's a LOT of extra work.  It's much easier to just put a bunch of dots 3/8" apart in Visio or something, print the picture, tape it down, punch & drill.

The treacherous part of any graphics software is building your libraries.  Schematic to PCB is twice as difficult because it's 2 applications that have to work together.  The schematic symbols need to associate with a component foot print in the PCB software.  The first drawing takes freaking forever.  Each subsequent drawing get's easier as you get all your libraries working in harmony.   Eventually, you should be able to draw a schematic with your personal default libraries, generate a net list, goto the pcb software, import the net list, and start draggin -n- droppin parts.

[kagliostro]

what I mean is

if I put in the program a schematic

the program help me in the layout (in turret style)

have some help to put the right component in the right position to have the minimum effort to obtain the layout ??

Yes I'm not expert and till now I draw only a layout by myself

it was a hard and long job for me

Kagliostro

[RicharD]

>have some help to put the right component in the right position to have the minimum effort to obtain the layout

Minimum effort is once again not the operative term.  Tedious and time consuming.  It took me 3 days just to build libraries for 1 board.  The up side is next board I'll already have libraries to draw from.  Once you have a schematic drawn, and modules associated with their respective schematic symbols, KiCad will show a line between pins to be connected.  This can help you get the parts that wire together next to each other which is a plus.  It's not smart enough to keep AC power away from signal paths.  This can only be controlled by the end user.  A better check is to post up here and have one or more of the resident experts pitch ideas to improve your layout.

So I have about 40 hours into this board.  Here are some screen captures of the 3D simulator.  It's pretty hokey.  Notice the larger you make a component, the fatter the leads get.  It also doesn't have many parts drawn in VRML, but it does have a 12AX7.  My selector switch, input jack, & pots are not shown in 3D.  Neither are the connectors which will most likely soldiered wires anyway.  This function is pretty much a toy.

This board is not quite finished.  I'm awaiting some parts to make sure they fit before I build the ground plane.  All in all, it seems better than Circuit Maker.  I might still need to bite the bullet and buy a real software package.

[RicharD]

>>The 3D libraries are lacking.....

I never could find a WYSIWYG that generates *.wrl files, but I did find a tutorial in vrml 2.0 code, so I'm trying to do it the old fashioned way.

This is the first component I need to model:


Here is the code I wrote:
 

Code: [Select]

#VRML V2.0 utf8
#Orange drop no1
#good luck to me

#body
Transform{
  scale 4, 1, 3
  rotation 0, 0, 1, 1.57
  children [
    Shape {
      appearance Appearance {
        material Material {
          diffuseColor 1 .5 0
        } # end material
      } # end appearance
      geometry Cylinder {
        radius .25
      } # end geometry
    } # end shape
  ] # end children
} # end transform

#lead 1
Transform{
  scale .5 .5 .5
  translation .8, -1, 0
  children [
    Shape {
      appearance Appearance {
        material Material {
          diffuseColor .7 .7 .7
        } # end Material
      } # end appearance
      geometry Cylinder {
        radius .1
      } # end geometry
    } # end shape
  ] # end children
} # end transform

#lead 2
Transform{
  scale .5 .5 .5
  translation -.8, -1, 0
  children [
    Shape {
      appearance Appearance {
        material Material {
          diffuseColor .7 .7 .7
        } # end Material
      } # end appearance
      geometry Cylinder {
        radius .1
      } # end geometry
    } # end shape
  ] # end children
} # end transform

Here's what it looks like:


It's sorta close.  Not bad for a start.