Homebrew PCBs

Has anyone tried WinQCAD for any part of their board process?

http://www.winqcad.com/index.html

Mike

I used an older revision of their software for a while.  At the time I found it a little difficult to use, but the recent release looks much nicer then what I had used (I had used version 21 as I recall, and they are now at what? 35 or 36?).  The one thing I did like was the autorouter had a 1 layer with jumpers option that would auto generate the traces and auto do the jumpers.  I hadn't seen that in other standard autorouters at the time without having to pay extra.
   
  -Tony

Mike Phillips <mikep_95133@...> wrote:
  Has anyone tried WinQCAD for any part of their board process?

http://www.winqcad.com/index.html

Mike



   


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What i don't understand about them -

component placement is 99.9% of the routing - most autorouters don't  
change that, so how on earth can they ever be used by anyone with  
acceptable results?

ST

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Stefan Trethan" <stefan_trethan@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 5:39 PM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Autorouters


> What i don't understand about them -
>
> component placement is 99.9% of the routing - most autorouters don't
> change that, so how on earth can they ever be used by anyone with
> acceptable results?

The designer spends a lot of time getting the placement right, and routing 
critical tracks manually. A good router like the Pulsonix one I often use 
will then generally route the design 100%, or very close to it.

Leon

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:30:06 +0100, Leon Heller  
<leon.heller@...> wrote:

>
>
> The designer spends a lot of time getting the placement right, and  
> routing
>
> critical tracks manually. A good router like the Pulsonix one I often use
>
> will then generally route the design 100%, or very close to it.
>
>
> Leon


Yes, that's the point is was making.
What good is the router if i did 99% of the work already?
i mean once i finished placing i usually can route everything pretty  
straightforward.

ST

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Stefan Trethan" <stefan_trethan@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Autorouters


> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:30:06 +0100, Leon Heller
> <leon.heller@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The designer spends a lot of time getting the placement right, and
>> routing
>>
>> critical tracks manually. A good router like the Pulsonix one I often use
>>
>> will then generally route the design 100%, or very close to it.
>>
>>
>> Leon
>
>
> Yes, that's the point is was making.
> What good is the router if i did 99% of the work already?
> i mean once i finished placing i usually can route everything pretty
> straightforward.

Your boards can't be very complex. I only use the autorouter on complex 
boards, and it saves a great deal of time.

Leon

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:27:09 +0100, Leon Heller  
<leon.heller@...> wrote:

>
>
> Your boards can't be very complex. I only use the autorouter on complex
>
> boards, and it saves a great deal of time.
>
>
> Leon


They are always under 700 pins, 'cause that is the limit of the software  
;-)

Do you have pictures of autorouted boards? Ideally before cleanup.

ST

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Trethan"
<stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:27:09 +0100, Leon Heller  
> <leon.heller@b...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Your boards can't be very complex. I only use the autorouter on
complex
> >
> > boards, and it saves a great deal of time.
> >
> >
> > Leon
> 
> 
> They are always under 700 pins, 'cause that is the limit of the
software  
> ;-)
> 
> Do you have pictures of autorouted boards? Ideally before cleanup.

I've uploaded images of the most complex Pulsonix demo before routing
and after to Files > LCDpub

They are routing1.gif and routing2.gif. Eight layers, 1287 pins.

The routing (100%) took 2 minutes 17 secs. I have a got a very fast
machine (64-bit twin core Athlon with 1 Gbyte RAM). The router does
cost $2,500, though.

Leon

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:18:29 +0100, leon_heller  
<leon.heller@...> wrote:

>
>
> I've uploaded images of the most complex Pulsonix demo before routing
>
> and after to Files > LCDpub
>
>
> They are routing1.gif and routing2.gif. Eight layers, 1287 pins.
>
>
> The routing (100%) took 2 minutes 17 secs. I have a got a very fast
>
> machine (64-bit twin core Athlon with 1 Gbyte RAM). The router does
>
> cost $2,500, though.
>
>
> Leon


Well, give me four layers and i route you that mess too ;-)
I mean that's not really good routing, is it? it's just running traces  
until you hit another one and setting a via.

Also, the parts placement is not good either. It looks like the parts are  
just put there more random than anything. Some busses seem to run right  
across the board, much longer than they'd need to.

Now if we ignore these large scale issues (i'm not gonna make 4 layer  
boards with 1287 pins tomorrow), and look at the detail work, it's still  
crap. i mean, look at the very top very left pad, what is that?  
practically whereever i look i see something i don't like.

This tells me i'm not just too stupid to get my autorouter working  
properly, yours is just as crappy.

Could you try a smaller, single sided board?

thanks

ST

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Trethan"
<stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:18:29 +0100, leon_heller  
> <leon.heller@b...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > I've uploaded images of the most complex Pulsonix demo before routing
> >
> > and after to Files > LCDpub
> >
> >
> > They are routing1.gif and routing2.gif. Eight layers, 1287 pins.
> >
> >
> > The routing (100%) took 2 minutes 17 secs. I have a got a very fast
> >
> > machine (64-bit twin core Athlon with 1 Gbyte RAM). The router does
> >
> > cost $2,500, though.
> >
> >
> > Leon
> 
> 
> Well, give me four layers and i route you that mess too ;-)
> I mean that's not really good routing, is it? it's just running traces  
> until you hit another one and setting a via.
> 
> Also, the parts placement is not good either. It looks like the
parts are  
> just put there more random than anything. Some busses seem to run
right  
> across the board, much longer than they'd need to.
> 
> Now if we ignore these large scale issues (i'm not gonna make 4 layer  
> boards with 1287 pins tomorrow), and look at the detail work, it's
still  
> crap. i mean, look at the very top very left pad, what is that?  
> practically whereever i look i see something i don't like.
> 
> This tells me i'm not just too stupid to get my autorouter working  
> properly, yours is just as crappy.
> 
> Could you try a smaller, single sided board?

I can't see anything wrong with the pad that you mention, perhaps
something was lost when I generated the GIF. I think it's done a
pretty good job. It is about the most sophisticated router available,
at the price. It uses lots of different algorithms to get the job done.

The component placement looks about right to me, The schematic would
be needed to check that.

I don't think you could route that board manually on four layers, and
if you could it would take you a long time.

Autorouters generally don't work at all well on single-sided boards,
they are usually done manually.

Autorouters work well with single sided boards, but
only if you don't mind to have long tracks.
I've used some autorouters that seem to be pretty
dumb, with multilayer boards, they route 90% of the
connections, then if you retry they route a 5% more,
and maybe in the fourth attempt you have you board
completely routed.  As a programmer, I think it has to
do with memory usage: once the program reachs a memory
usage limit, the autorouter stops.

Jose


 --- leon_heller <leon.heller@...>
escribi\ufffd:

> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan
> Trethan"
> <stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:18:29 +0100, leon_heller  
> > <leon.heller@b...> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > I've uploaded images of the most complex
> Pulsonix demo before routing
> > >
> > > and after to Files > LCDpub
> > >
> > >
> > > They are routing1.gif and routing2.gif. Eight
> layers, 1287 pins.
> > >
> > >
> > > The routing (100%) took 2 minutes 17 secs. I
> have a got a very fast
> > >
> > > machine (64-bit twin core Athlon with 1 Gbyte
> RAM). The router does
> > >
> > > cost $2,500, though.
> > >
> > >
> > > Leon
> > 
> > 
> > Well, give me four layers and i route you that
> mess too ;-)
> > I mean that's not really good routing, is it? it's
> just running traces  
> > until you hit another one and setting a via.
> > 
> > Also, the parts placement is not good either. It
> looks like the
> parts are  
> > just put there more random than anything. Some
> busses seem to run
> right  
> > across the board, much longer than they'd need to.
> > 
> > Now if we ignore these large scale issues (i'm not
> gonna make 4 layer  
> > boards with 1287 pins tomorrow), and look at the
> detail work, it's
> still  
> > crap. i mean, look at the very top very left pad,
> what is that?  
> > practically whereever i look i see something i
> don't like.
> > 
> > This tells me i'm not just too stupid to get my
> autorouter working  
> > properly, yours is just as crappy.
> > 
> > Could you try a smaller, single sided board?
> 
> I can't see anything wrong with the pad that you
> mention, perhaps
> something was lost when I generated the GIF. I think
> it's done a
> pretty good job. It is about the most sophisticated
> router available,
> at the price. It uses lots of different algorithms
> to get the job done.
> 
> The component placement looks about right to me, The
> schematic would
> be needed to check that.
> 
> I don't think you could route that board manually on
> four layers, and
> if you could it would take you a long time.
> 
> Autorouters generally don't work at all well on
> single-sided boards,
> they are usually done manually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new
> Links, Files, and Photos:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
> 
> If Files or Photos are running short of space, post
> them here:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs_Archives/
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 



	


	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam 
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo 
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar

leon_heller wrote:

>
>
>Autorouters generally don't work at all well on single-sided boards,
>they are usually done manually.
>
>
>  
>

  Eagle works brilliantly for single sided.  Only open the second layer 
for the correct passes and cost it properly and it will produce 
excellent patterns with minimal jumpers to install where the 2nd side 
traces are.  Easily as good as a person at smaller boards, and clearly 
better than a person at larger ones.  Just watching it work on a medium 
sized complex board and the lengths it can go to to elminate or length 
minimize the out of main plane traces, it's very clear that it's well 
beyond what most people would come up with for the same board.

  Only real complaint would be not the 2nd layer traces cross, which is 
easy with insulated jumpers.  But thinking about it now, duh just make 
it a 4 layer board, 1 low cost, 1 highest cost, 1 highest-1, and 1 
highest-2.  Nothing but a breeze to do..

Alan

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:11:07 +0100, Alan King <alan@...> wrote:

>
>
>   Eagle works brilliantly for single sided.  Only open the second layer
>
> for the correct passes and cost it properly and it will produce
>
> excellent patterns with minimal jumpers to install where the 2nd side
>
> traces are.  Easily as good as a person at smaller boards, and clearly
>
> better than a person at larger ones.  Just watching it work on a medium
>
> sized complex board and the lengths it can go to to elminate or length
>
> minimize the out of main plane traces, it's very clear that it's well
>
> beyond what most people would come up with for the same board.
>
>
>   Only real complaint would be not the 2nd layer traces cross, which is
>
> easy with insulated jumpers.  But thinking about it now, duh just make
>
> it a 4 layer board, 1 low cost, 1 highest cost, 1 highest-1, and 1
>
> highest-2.  Nothing but a breeze to do..
>
>
> Alan


Well, i just took one of my projects and deleted all traces (yes i saved  
under different name).
Then i tried both autorouters that come with my software, and different  
settings. The best i got was 5 signals remaining.
Mind you this is a board that was already routed completely by hand single  
side with no bridges.

I ackonweledge that i have high demands on layouts, since i believe a lot  
of it is art, but if the autorouter can't even manage to route all signals  
of a board that is easy to route what can i think of it?

I'm just surprised that so many seem to get useable results out of it and  
i want to find if maybe there are better autorouters. I'm still very  
interested in pictures from various autorouter outputs without any manual  
touchup done.

Leon, the top left pad, why does the trace go down between the pads and  
then left at 90 degree, why doesn't it just enter the pad from the top?  
You can spot a similar uglyness wherever you look.
I don't agree on the placement. I agree i can't be certain without a very  
close look, but when i see "fans" of many parallel signals crisscross a  
board i can't help but think there might be a way to get the many signals  
closer, maybe accepting a tradeoff in getting the fewer signals longer.

Sure, if you accept more layers and more vias and don't care how it looks  
you can autoroute any board, but it seems they are still not quite clever  
enough for me to use.


ST

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Stefan Trethan" <stefan_trethan@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Autorouters


> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:11:07 +0100, Alan King <alan@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>   Eagle works brilliantly for single sided.  Only open the second layer
>>
>> for the correct passes and cost it properly and it will produce
>>
>> excellent patterns with minimal jumpers to install where the 2nd side
>>
>> traces are.  Easily as good as a person at smaller boards, and clearly
>>
>> better than a person at larger ones.  Just watching it work on a medium
>>
>> sized complex board and the lengths it can go to to elminate or length
>>
>> minimize the out of main plane traces, it's very clear that it's well
>>
>> beyond what most people would come up with for the same board.
>>
>>
>>   Only real complaint would be not the 2nd layer traces cross, which is
>>
>> easy with insulated jumpers.  But thinking about it now, duh just make
>>
>> it a 4 layer board, 1 low cost, 1 highest cost, 1 highest-1, and 1
>>
>> highest-2.  Nothing but a breeze to do..
>>
>>
>> Alan
>
>
> Well, i just took one of my projects and deleted all traces (yes i saved
> under different name).
> Then i tried both autorouters that come with my software, and different
> settings. The best i got was 5 signals remaining.
> Mind you this is a board that was already routed completely by hand single
> side with no bridges.
>
> I ackonweledge that i have high demands on layouts, since i believe a lot
> of it is art, but if the autorouter can't even manage to route all signals
> of a board that is easy to route what can i think of it?
>
> I'm just surprised that so many seem to get useable results out of it and
> i want to find if maybe there are better autorouters. I'm still very
> interested in pictures from various autorouter outputs without any manual
> touchup done.
>
> Leon, the top left pad, why does the trace go down between the pads and
> then left at 90 degree, why doesn't it just enter the pad from the top?
> You can spot a similar uglyness wherever you look.

That's because the bias for that layer was set at X, rather than Y. Routing 
is much easier if layers alternate the bias.

> I don't agree on the placement. I agree i can't be certain without a very
> close look, but when i see "fans" of many parallel signals crisscross a
> board i can't help but think there might be a way to get the many signals
> closer, maybe accepting a tradeoff in getting the fewer signals longer.
>
> Sure, if you accept more layers and more vias and don't care how it looks
> you can autoroute any board, but it seems they are still not quite clever
> enough for me to use.

The main criterion is does the board work OK after autorouting? It generally 
does if the critical stuff is routed manually. I'd rather use an autorouter 
than spend days routing a complex board.

Leon

Stefan Trethan wrote:
> Well, i just took one of my projects and deleted all traces (yes i saved  
> under different name).
> Then i tried both autorouters that come with my software, and different  
> settings. The best i got was 5 signals remaining.
> Mind you this is a board that was already routed completely by hand single  
> side with no bridges.
> 
> I ackonweledge that i have high demands on layouts, since i believe a lot  
> of it is art, but if the autorouter can't even manage to route all signals  
> of a board that is easy to route what can i think of it?
> 

Do you have pictures of the hand-routed vs the autorouted versions of 
that board?


For My own preference, I suspect i do not know how to best direct the 
autorouter in Eagle - too many options - and the default options are not 
too useful. I tend to let the auto router do either just some traces 
then hand route the rest or autoroute a board then tidy it up by hand 
until it looks nice and satisfies any other requirements I have.

I do not have images of autorouted boards as I have yet to make one that 
was fully autorouted.

It seems to me that parts placement is the real art. I don't think I 
have adequate skills in that area.

Pete Harrison

I've just taken a moderately complex double-sided board that I'd
routed manually, and routed it on the autorouter.

I've uploaded the two images to lcdpub (elsie1.gif and elsie2.gif),
can anyone identify which was which?

Leon

elsie1.gif = autorouter

elsie2.gif = manual router


----- Original Message ----- 

From: "leon_heller" <leon.heller@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Autorouters


> I've just taken a moderately complex double-sided board that I'd
> routed manually, and routed it on the autorouter.
>
> I've uploaded the two images to lcdpub (elsie1.gif and elsie2.gif),
> can anyone identify which was which?
>
> Leon
>
>
>
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and 
> Photos:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
>
> If Files or Photos are running short of space, post them here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs_Archives/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Autorouters aren't an instant solution. Don't expect to hit a button and 
instantly get a perfect layout. They only obey the rules they are given. 
To get a good layout you need to keep experimenting with the settings. 
When using the autorouter I usually follow this cycle:

1) load ratsnest and place the parts that must be in specific places 
(connectors etc)
2) place the rest of the parts, trying to keep the ratsnest looking as 
simple as possible.
3) run autorouter.
4) identify the problem areas, unroute board or just an area and 
rearrange parts. Go back to 3
5) If the layout looks messy, experiment with different router settings 
until it looks as clean as possible. Often you need to use different 
settings for different areas of the board.
6) Route any tracks that the autorouter fails to route
6) Unroute any areas that still look nasty and tidy them up by hand.

On a more complex board I may end up running the autorouter 20 or more 
times until I am happy. Even the best autorouters still tend to produce 
layouts that look messy. The human brain is very good at recognising 
patterns. Computers aren't. They simply follow rules that they are 
given. If the layout complies with all the rules then the board will 
work. Although it is very satisfying to produce a pretty board, how many 
people will actually be looking at the track layout?

On very tight boards you still have to go back to manual routing. Look 
at PC motherboards. Some of them are truly works of art.

Les


Stefan Trethan wrote:

>Well, give me four layers and i route you that mess too ;-)
>I mean that's not really good routing, is it? it's just running traces  
>until you hit another one and setting a via.
>
>Also, the parts placement is not good either. It looks like the parts are  
>just put there more random than anything. Some busses seem to run right  
>across the board, much longer than they'd need to.
>
>Now if we ignore these large scale issues (i'm not gonna make 4 layer  
>boards with 1287 pins tomorrow), and look at the detail work, it's still  
>crap. i mean, look at the very top very left pad, what is that?  
>practically whereever i look i see something i don't like.
>
>This tells me i'm not just too stupid to get my autorouter working  
>properly, yours is just as crappy.
>
>Could you try a smaller, single sided board?
>
>thanks
>
>ST
>
>  
>

My guess is that the autorouter did the 'elsie1' layout and you 
did 'elsie2' manually.

In the 'elsie2' layout, there appears to be two unnecessary vias 
under U2. I don't think the autorouter would have done that. (They 
were probably the result of a crossing track that you later re-
routed.) The 'elsie2' layout has a few pads left unconnected which 
are connected in 'elsie1'. It also uses varying track widths in 
different portions of the same net.


Regards, Bob


--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "leon_heller" 
<leon.heller@b...> wrote:

>
> I've just taken a moderately complex double-sided board that I'd
> routed manually, and routed it on the autorouter.
> 
> I've uploaded the two images to lcdpub (elsie1.gif and elsie2.gif),
> can anyone identify which was which?
> 
> Leon
>

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Bob_xyz" <bob_barr@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:33 AM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Autorouters


> My guess is that the autorouter did the 'elsie1' layout and you
> did 'elsie2' manually.
>
> In the 'elsie2' layout, there appears to be two unnecessary vias
> under U2. I don't think the autorouter would have done that. (They
> were probably the result of a crossing track that you later re-
> routed.) The 'elsie2' layout has a few pads left unconnected which
> are connected in 'elsie1'. It also uses varying track widths in
> different portions of the same net.

Yes, that's right. Interestingly, the autorouter only used five vias, 
whereas I used 27! I was trying to minimise connection lengths, as it was a 
L, C and F measurement system based on an RF oscillator. I also used top and 
bottom grounded copper pour, which the router won't have known about. I 
should have told it not to route the ground connections.

Leon

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:52:11 +0100, leon_heller  
<leon.heller@...> wrote:

> I've just taken a moderately complex double-sided board that I'd
>
> routed manually, and routed it on the autorouter.
>
>
> I've uploaded the two images to lcdpub (elsie1.gif and elsie2.gif),
>
> can anyone identify which was which?
>
>
> Leon
>


That's a tough one!

I've taken them and put green circles over things that caught my eye,  
which i would probably have done differently. There are surely many more,  
but i just wanted to show you what i looked for.

elsie2 is missing a lot of traces (ground), so that makes me think it  
might have been the autorouted one. But then those signals would have been  
too easy to route, why should the router not have made them?

Elsie1 has a lot of "ugly corners" but no vias at all. elsie2 is neater in  
most corners, but has several really unnecessary vias.

No, i would hazard a guess you routed elsie1 manually and you simply care  
much less about how it looks than i do.
I would prefer elsie1, with a few pushes and shoves i could use it as a  
finished layout, but basically, neither is what i consider finished.


By the way what is this? a LC meter? i just bought a automatic RLC meter  
off ebay, maybe i should have asked you first? ;-)

thanks, and do tell which is really auto.

ST

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:49:08 +0100, Leon Heller  
<leon.heller@...> wrote:

> I also used top and
>
> bottom grounded copper pour, which the router won't have known about. I
>
> should have told it not to route the ground connections.
>
>
> Leon


When you do pours, do you not route the ground connections at all?
I route them just the same, 'cause i'm afraid i might get a disconnected  
pin otherwise and miss it.

How do you treat islands/orphaned areas?

ST

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Bob_xyz" <bob_barr@h...> wrote:
>
> My guess is that the autorouter did the 'elsie1' layout and you 
> did 'elsie2' manually.
> 
> In the 'elsie2' layout, there appears to be two unnecessary vias 
> under U2. I don't think the autorouter would have done that. (They 
> were probably the result of a crossing track that you later re-
> routed.) 

Thanks, Bob, for spotting that. I've just redone those two tracks.

Leon

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Stefan Trethan" <stefan_trethan@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Autorouters


> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:52:11 +0100, leon_heller
> <leon.heller@...> wrote:
>
>> I've just taken a moderately complex double-sided board that I'd
>>
>> routed manually, and routed it on the autorouter.
>>
>>
>> I've uploaded the two images to lcdpub (elsie1.gif and elsie2.gif),
>>
>> can anyone identify which was which?
>>
>>
>> Leon
>>
>
>
> That's a tough one!
>
> I've taken them and put green circles over things that caught my eye,
> which i would probably have done differently. There are surely many more,
> but i just wanted to show you what i looked for.
>
> elsie2 is missing a lot of traces (ground), so that makes me think it
> might have been the autorouted one. But then those signals would have been
> too easy to route, why should the router not have made them?
>
> Elsie1 has a lot of "ugly corners" but no vias at all. elsie2 is neater in
> most corners, but has several really unnecessary vias.
>
> No, i would hazard a guess you routed elsie1 manually and you simply care
> much less about how it looks than i do.
> I would prefer elsie1, with a few pushes and shoves i could use it as a
> finished layout, but basically, neither is what i consider finished.
>
>
> By the way what is this? a LC meter? i just bought a automatic RLC meter
> off ebay, maybe i should have asked you first? ;-)
>
> thanks, and do tell which is really auto.

You got it wrong!

I had to make some compromises with the routing like adding tracks/vias to 
get the copper pour areas on the top and bottom to connect properly.

I've uploaded the finished version - elsie3.gif with Bob Barr's suggestion 
incorporated.

The meter design (my PCB is for an Enhanced ELSIE-2) is described here:

http://www.amqrp.org/kits/elsie/index.html

It works very well - output in Morse via the little speaker, on the LED 
display and via RS-232 - and is very accurate. It had to fit in a standard 
Hammond plastic box, which was a bit tricky.

Leon

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Stefan Trethan" <stefan_trethan@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Autorouters


> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:49:08 +0100, Leon Heller
> <leon.heller@...> wrote:
>
>> I also used top and
>>
>> bottom grounded copper pour, which the router won't have known about. I
>>
>> should have told it not to route the ground connections.
>>
>>
>> Leon
>
>
> When you do pours, do you not route the ground connections at all?
> I route them just the same, 'cause i'm afraid i might get a disconnected
> pin otherwise and miss it.
>
> How do you treat islands/orphaned areas?

Pulsonix warns about any missing connections in the Net Completion Report. I 
avoid islands by adding additional tracks and vias. If a ground trace needs 
to be isolated from the copper pour (I sometimes need that for a crystal 
ground, returning it directly to the MCU ground pin) it will do that, 
automatically, in the latest version. I used to have to put a keep-out area 
round it.

Leon

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 11:45:45 +0100, Leon Heller  
<leon.heller@...> wrote:

> You got it wrong!
>
>
> I had to make some compromises with the routing like adding tracks/vias  
> to
>
> get the copper pour areas on the top and bottom to connect properly.
>
>
> I've uploaded the finished version - elsie3.gif with Bob Barr's  
> suggestion
>
> incorporated.
>
>
> The meter design (my PCB is for an Enhanced ELSIE-2) is described here:
>
>
> http://www.amqrp.org/kits/elsie/index.html
>
>
> It works very well - output in Morse via the little speaker, on the LED
>
> display and via RS-232 - and is very accurate. It had to fit in a  
> standard
>
> Hammond plastic box, which was a bit tricky.
>
>
> Leon


Yes, i know that now. i just couldn't believe you'd use more vias than  
needed, esp. when it is so obvious. The ground planes explain that.

About the LC meter, it is that one with the morse code, i actually looked  
at that before i bought the benchtop RLC meter. But i decided the morse  
code is way too awkward for me. A LED display will sure make it a lot  
better. Well, too late now for me, the meter is bought. It also does  
parasitic parameters and is very accurate, so it was still a good buy.

ST

I looked at that particular autorouter functions and played with it. 
It works well in fact. That was a feature I was not aware of.

So far my boards are simple smt double sided designs. So the 
autorouter isn't working hard, but it always does work.

Mike

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Tony Harris <kg4wfx@y...> 
wrote:
>
> I used an older revision of their software for a while.  At the 
time I found it a little difficult to use, but the recent release 
looks much nicer then what I had used (I had used version 21 as I 
recall, and they are now at what? 35 or 36?).  The one thing I did 
like was the autorouter had a 1 layer with jumpers option that would 
auto generate the traces and auto do the jumpers.  I hadn't seen 
that in other standard autorouters at the time without having to pay 
extra.

>    
>   -Tony
> 
> Mike Phillips <mikep_95133@y...> wrote:
>   Has anyone tried WinQCAD for any part of their board process?
> 
> http://www.winqcad.com/index.html
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>