I last needed EDA type tools in 2012. Since then, wherever I was employed, I only wrote software and the actual PCB production was handled by a different team.
I'm getting back into doing it all myself, and the tools I used to use (gEDA) are no longer in the repositories of my distros (debian-based).
What is being used these days to do circuit diagrams, PCB layout, etc? First prize would be something already in many repositories (I see a `lepton` tool which I will try out), but I will accept a second prize of FLOSS or consolation prizes of `free to download, but closed-source`).
TIA, I will read and consider all replies seriously.
>> FreeCAD is another OSS tool that also has its rough edges but is good enough. Use the sketcher tool and the datasheet to build up all the lines you'd need (including for cutouts, pads, silkscreen, etc), export as DXF, then import into KiCad's footprint editor.
For 2D dimensioned drawings Solvespace is much smaller and simpler. You can also use it to create 3D part models exported as Step, but it could use a bit more work for that use case.
It’s great that FreeCAD is FOSS and it is good for simple enough use cases but I had to ditch it for fusion 360 for my use case, it just can’t do things I needed for injection molding well like negatives and chamfers and other subtle angular operations of parts. So take into consideration what you’re doing. IMO for something precise like this use case it may not be good enough
There is some good work going into FreeCAD right now. They're putting more structure into the project and working on some much needed fixes that will be big QOL improvements. A fix to the topological naming problem is due in the next release, for example.
https://ondsel.com/blog/ondsel-365/
This is awesome but the fundamental problem with FreeCAD is that it uses OCCT under the hood which has some pretty fundamental flaws. Unfortunately one does not simply write or replace a geometry kernel so there’s not really a solution on the horizon for a lot of stuff that OCCT doesn’t do well. There have been some efforts at a newer better open source geometry kernel but writing a geometry kernel that supports everything a 3D modeler needs is a massive undertaking
Just to put a very simple use case that is common that I ran into that made me switch to fusion 360. I was designing an enclosure and needed to add a few things that make the part pop out of the mold easier. One example is if you have a box you might build the floor of the box meeting the wall with a 90 degree angle. But a mold actually wants that at a 91 ish degree angle else it “hugs” the inside of the mold as the plastic contracts. Changing this is a trivial 2 button operation in fusion 360. Doing it in freecad is, uh, basically the opposite of that
FreeCAD has some pretty hefty backing from the likes of Opulo, and a history (like KiCAD) of working with CERN and other groups like them. Fusion def has a larger laundry list of features, but if the question is "What open source cad tools exist" (and given the question is explicitly asking about open source electronics design, so I'd assume they want to stick with open source for model design too), then the answer is gonna likely be either FreeCAD or OpenSCAD. And given that most popular cad and edm software has repeated pushed back on the open source community (and given they are profit driven companies, they eventually have to), I don't blame a person for seeking exclusively open source tools. It's the same reason I decided FreeCAD's flaws are worth working through. I already had both Eagle and Fusion force me to scramble to recreate projects before, I wouldn't wish that upon anyone else who is doing this under- or at-cost.
> pretty hefty backing from the likes of Opulo
... A two-man band YouTuber and his mate bootstrapping their first product?
It's a cool product, admirable work, and great that they're supporting FreeCAD (even just in awareness by using it), but can you seriously call it hefty backing from the likes of?
Totally agree. Just trying to help other people prevent the same thing that happened to me, which was spend time investing in a tool significantly in the design phase (FreeCAD) and then find out the tool just straight up couldn’t meet the requirements I needed it to. So in my case the question is “what open source tools exist that can do XYZ” and the answer is, unfortunately, none of them. So check and make sure XYZ is possible with FreeCAD when you evaluate it and don’t assume like I did that because it’s mentioned in the same breath as something like Fusion360 that they are equivalent enough.
A lot of FOSS tools are often “XYZ is possible but requires 10-30% extra work to achieve”. FreeCAD is not like that in a lot of cases, it’s more like, “XYZ is not possible without rebuilding your model from the ground up, every time”. Which is obviously not something you can do on a product you need to be constantly iterating on. If you’re at home doing a one off to print a piece of your chair that broke that’s totally fine though.
I also love OpenSCAD and its design philosophy and to be frank as a software guy would love if all 3D modelers worked like OpenSCAD. But it also is just far too limiting to do anything professionally like the kind of stuff I mentioned in my parent comment.
I’m always preferring FOSS if I can. FWIW I used KiCAD for the chip design of the product I was working on and it worked beautifully. KiCAD has absolutely come into its own in the last decade or so and is basically a full enough featured alternative that you can select it over its closed source competitors with few qualms. Not so much the case with FreeCAD. Also FWIW KiCAD also uses OCCT under the hood - but an EDA has such fewer requirements of a BRep than a 3D modeler does there is not an issue.
In this case, footprint landing pads are extremely simple. I do agree about the solver though, I've run into so many issues with it that should be simple but end up either stalling or conflicting in ways it shouldn't.
the crustier EEs among us have been burned by downloaded symbols. It’s often better to make your own symbols and footprints unless you have a high quality source from the manufacturer. Even then, some symbols are not organized in a logical way. I personally make all symbols/footprints not in the kicad standard library.
> Use ultra librarian for parts when possible. They're usually better.
Can you please explain why / in a what way they are better ?
They have better footprints and usually more fleshed out symbols that are more visually descriptive. Component Search Engine has more but I've had a few erroneous footprints fall through and they're usually larger or missing things like courtyards etc.
UL also has better 3D models, and more often.
Also, UL often has human-verified or -engineered footprints for more exotic pieces, and splits out things like VDD/VSS into multi-unit symbols unlike CSE. Helps with organizing complex schematics.
The advice I often see is "make all your own footprints" which I agree is a good skill to have but when you're trying to quickly prototype a board and get something done it's not really feasible or ergonomic in Kicad. The amount of different windows you have to go through to populate e.g. mouser/digikey/arrow part numbers to get a usable BOM export is tedious work.
I actually wrote a chrome plugin that scrapes UL and mouser for all of the information then loads it into an existing Kicad symbol library with the models. Took some effort but for some reason this isn't a standardized thing which is a nightmare.
Thank you! I use standard KiCAD library for 95-98% of components, the rest few I design by myself. I've never had any issues with automated assembly. Anyways, I will check into UL.
I admit that KiCAD libs sometimes has broken 3D models, for many components 3D models are missing.