This one’s pretty subtle – the schema symbols match their footprints, things only break if you change the footprint later and don’t spot the difference (I think but am not 100% sure that I accidentally used 1N4148 symbols when drafting the schematics, and didn’t notice the difference when changing to the right footprint later).
On the other hand, I just caught myself using their standard 2N3904 symbol for a BC548, so it’s not just the EasyEDA developers that are a bit sloppy…
I’ve added custom footprints for both cases (I’m slowly approaching the point where I use no standard symbols/footprints…).
Not had much trouble with KiCad that was not my own fault, but probably not to advanced as yet. I guess i did have an issue with a bridge rectifier which was annoying. And it is anoying when you have 5 effectively useless PCB’s. But still enjoy the mail day
I haven’t used any CAD for design yet but in time the need may arise. Is there a serious problem that makes designing module board layouts on squared paper with a 1:1 scale inadvisable? I have even considered the possibility of prototyping boards using paper or thin card, though veroboard would be my first choice.
Depends on what you’re building, I guess. As an example, here’s the “rat nest” for (most of) the Bass++ that’s discussed over in this thread; i.e. the schematics sorted by component footprint, with the traces shown as straight lines:
This is a relatively simple module, but having the computer keep track of that mess as you’re laying out the board is definitely helpful
But on the other hand there are several stripboard layouts for this module, which are mostly laid out by hand directly from the schematics iiuc, so it’s not like you cannot deal with things like this manually.
So my advice is to pick an approach and run with it, fine-tune it as you gain experience using it, and never forget that your #1 audience is yourself.
(Also, this thread is for people poking fun at our own silliness, and shouldn’t be read as “this is too hard, I better stay away from this.” Just be a tiny bit more careful than we are, and laugh at your own mistakes when they happen, and you’ll be fine ).
Perhaps because I come from a software development background, I’m extremely paranoid about flaws. It’s relatively rare even for the best human coder to write more than 100 lines of flawless code. The fault rates may be lower with hardware owing to the physicality of the medium, but I would argue that that is all the more reason to avoid computer based models as a sole development tool. A physical layout test seems like a sensible minimum final precaution before committing to PCB.
Not clear what your “physical layout test” is intended to test. Test whether the parts fit physically where they’re supposed to? I guess that can be an issue. Test whether the electrical connections are correct? I don’t see how you can test that without making a PCB.
Testing the footprints, and an additional chance to perform a sanity check on the pinouts.
Oh, and testing panel clearance and the like. Basically anything physical that may not emerge from an examination of the computer depiction of the board.
I remember those " art " things, put nails in pattern on a board and than rap colored string on them . aahh the 70’s . oops off I go again . so on the subject . AliExpress if you look at something , maybe put it in a cart but don’t buy. they send you a notification to complete your transaction , so me thinking that there is problem I order them again. well it happens again only this time I notice that the amount of parts is different and realize that it was just the different times I had checked their different stores and used different amounts of parts. needless to say I should have plenty of 20k pots [ for a short while ]. and there is no wondering why my card is always run up to the max .
so I had the mixer all together and the led’s weren’t working without some severe tweaking of the mother and daughter boards. seems some dip shit at the mixer factory didn’t solder all the pins on the connectors .
You can avoid a most of that by making your PCB a bit bigger (I could also have avoided that by dropping in a ceramic instead of using a film capacitor, or worked around it in a slighly more elegant fashion by mounting the components in the right order…)
).
(I could also have avoided that by dropping in a ceramic instead of using a film capacitor, or worked around it in a slighly more elegant fashion by mounting the components in the right order…)
