{"id":277,"date":"2017-05-13T12:02:58","date_gmt":"2017-05-13T17:02:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.modelb.biz\/?p=277"},"modified":"2017-05-13T12:02:58","modified_gmt":"2017-05-13T17:02:58","slug":"fritzing-circuit-maker-changing-eda-software","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.modelb.biz\/fritzing-circuit-maker-changing-eda-software\/","title":{"rendered":"From Fritzing to Circuit Maker – Changing EDA Software"},"content":{"rendered":"
Holoseat continues to march forward, but we have started having issues with our electronic design (EDA) software, Fritzing. \u00a0Fritzing is a great product, however as we increase complexity and add new components sourcing accurate libraries is becoming a problem. \u00a0Given these challenges, we decided to evaluate a number of EDA\u00a0software packages before generating any v0.4 schematics.<\/p>\n
Let’s start with Fritzing<\/a>. \u00a0We’ve been working with this software for about as long as the project has existed. \u00a0We know it, we’re familiar with it, and it works well. \u00a0The downside is library support. \u00a0We’ve repeatedly found the\u00a0parts we needed didn’t exist. \u00a0Could we build the missing pieces? \u00a0Sure, but that’s not exactly something we’re good at, and it isn’t really a great use of our time. \u00a0More than once over the last year or two we’ve found a similar part and used it to mock up the wiring, then subbed in the real part later once it was available. \u00a0Not really the best way to create documentation. \u00a0This process has brought on some frustration and is what started us down the road of reviewing other packages.<\/p>\n KiCad<\/a> was also evaluated. \u00a0We found the library support in KiCad to be as much of an issue as in Fritzing, if not more so. \u00a0It seems like a great product, but if the library support isn’t going to be any better, we’re just trading a software package we know for one we don’t. \u00a0It just didn’t make much sense. \u00a0Additionally, a number of forum posts when I was looking into the library issue pointed to people complaining about library accuracy. \u00a0All that added up for it to be a package we glanced at, but decided not to spend much time on.<\/p>\n Eagle<\/a> seemed like it might be an option. \u00a0It has the library support we need given the long history of the program. \u00a0In fact, many manufacturers of the various parts we’re using offer Eagle libraries. \u00a0And although the user interface seemed clumsy compared to the other programs, I felt like we could make it work. \u00a0Then we reviewed the licensing. \u00a0Holoseat is a Model B project and Model B is a commercial entity. \u00a0\u00a0The only valid commercial licensing model for Eagle is subscription based and we’re still a startup without any income. \u00a0We could probably have skirted the issue in a number of ways, but that isn’t our style. \u00a0So, Eagle was out of the question, if only because of its cost.<\/p>\n Over the course of looking at the other options we found Circuit Maker<\/a>. \u00a0I saw a few advantages immediately. \u00a0As an Altium product derived from their commercial program Altium Designer, their available library set is quite large. \u00a0It’s designed specifically for working with open hardware projects including community features and cloud based project handling. \u00a0The forums appeared active, and a question I posted received a response in less than 24 hours. \u00a0Additionally, it can import Eagle files, so we can get the only object that doesn’t exist in their libraries from its Eagle library.<\/p>\n There is one last advantage for Circuit Maker, but unlike the rest this one is personal. \u00a0The company I work for designs DC\/DC power converters. \u00a0They use Altium Designer for their PCB drawings. \u00a0That means I have a number of people very familiar with the commercial version of the\u00a0product that I can ask questions when we need a little help.<\/p>\n The last consideration is the eventual need to fabricate circuit boards for Holoseat. \u00a0In reviewing articles, most said Fritzing was great for the type of work we’ve been doing (development). \u00a0But most recommend a different package for making a final product. \u00a0There’s a pretty large number of reasons, mostly feature related, that just make other tools better when trying to design a product that you hope to be able to produce in at least some volume.<\/p>\n As you can probably guess based on the title, we’ve chosen Circuit Maker as our EDA software going forward. \u00a0I’m not sure it is a perfect choice, but it does\u00a0what we need it to, it has licensing terms we can deal with, and it includes a great set of libraries to pull from. \u00a0The additional fact that I can talk to people at work to get advice is just the icing on the cake. \u00a0We’ll be working on getting the v0.4 documentation loaded into the\u00a0Circuit Maker project<\/a> soon.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Holoseat continues to march forward, but we have started having issues with our electronic design (EDA) software, Fritzing. \u00a0Fritzing is a great product, however as we increase complexity and add new components sourcing accurate libraries is becoming a…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":278,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[12],"tags":[38,37,39],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nKiCad<\/h2>\n
Eagle<\/h2>\n
Circuit Maker<\/h2>\n
Sealing the Deal<\/h1>\n