Software used for drawing really-neat-looking schematics. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: eruanno
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 05:47:29 pm
content: Hi,Could anyone satisfy my curiosity about what software could be used for drawing TS990-S (or other Kenwood products) schematics? Here is the sample:http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/TS990S_sch.pdfThanks,MM

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 05:58:39 pm
content: Large companies often use CAE products like Catia or Wildfire that output all of their mechanical and schematics drawings. Especially if they are civil/military contractors, it's very important for all of the data to be "controlled" so that it is verifiable and auditable, and these packages provide that tracking. The particulars of the way symbols are drawn can be customized, of course, but the main point is that the figures and dimensions can't have errors.

author: Pjotr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 06:12:41 pm
content: Neat looking schematics is something of the past. Those neat schematics were drawn by hand those days and later on by proprietary "in house" software. A package that comes close:http://designworkssolutions.com/Don't know the actual state. It is quite old and not maintained for over 10 years. But actually it stands out most of nowadays schematic entry drawing programs concerning graphics and productivity.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 09:38:25 am
content: You could probably get EAGLE to generate schematics that looked like that, using a carefully designed parts libraries and some relativity trivial post processing with ULPs to do things like highlight certain signal classes.I strongly suspect that means that many of the better-than-eagle tools could do it as well.Mostly it shows a lot of consistency in using a particular style that has been well defined...

author: Messtechniker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 09:52:35 am
content: For schematics I have been using "SPlan" for years.Look here:http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/splan.htmlCheap, simple and effective. Helpful forum and very responsivecompany. No I don't work for them. Just a long time user.The other offerings (based on the same simple concept) from thiscompany are also worth a look if you have the requirement.Yours - Messtechniker

author: Pjotr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 10:06:32 am
content: Point of nearly all ECAD packages is, they focus on PCB design. Schematic entry has no priority and is implemented rather poor: Something necessary but not important. Even the most expensive packages (Altium, Cadence, Mentor) have poor graphic possibilities. Eagle do a little better concerning graphics than most of its more expensive competitors. But it is far away of the really-neat-looking schematic we were used to in the days schematics were drawn by hand.B.t.w. I know that Abacom software. It is by far not capable OP asks for. It's nice and easy to learn by the novice. But that's it.For DesignWorks OP has to make still his own libraries. But with a Mac based origin, it has all the graphical capabilities OP asks for.

author: PartialDischarge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 10:34:57 am
content: Quote from: Messtechniker on August 21, 2016, 09:52:35 amThose schematics remind me of the Elektor magazineIs it possible to export/give the design files to someone else to have him design an actual PCB in another package (like altium)?Does it allow export to PDF?Do you get free updates or a discount on them?Thanks

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 12:35:03 pm
content: I do pretty well with Altium. I could probably stand to change some defaults, like pin or wire color, so they aren't quite as mixed up. But most of it is laying out the schematic in a logical manner, and using library symbols that are actually attractive.I haven't seen asinglelibrary, outside of my own, that's not ugly as sin.Tim

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 02:26:19 pm
content: When schematics were drawn by hand, the sheet was the size of a drafting table. One could place blocks by cutting out scraps of paper and taping them down. Eventually, the flow and placement would be established. Then the real work could commence.It would take a very large monitor to display what is essentially the size of a drafting table with enough resolution to display a decent drawing. Scrolling just isn't very satisfying!

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 03:16:04 pm
content: We're nearly there today. On the other hand, you can't zoom a drafting table, or draw at infinite precision!Tim

author: Pjotr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 04:41:08 pm
content: It is simply impossible to draw a schematic with Altium with the requirements OP gave as an example. You simply cannot draw that dense and intelligible at the same time with it without going to double A0 sheets. The majority of schematics of a major project I see come out of Altium, consist of a stack of say 20 A4 sheets filled with some parts and a lot of loose signal references to it. Not very satisfying either. I don't call that a decent schematic. It is merely half way a net list. Only a very few manage it to produce something you can call adecentschematic with Altium. To some extend that is doable for digital circuitry of mainly FPGA stuff but not for analog and mixed up stuff.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 05:19:09 pm
content: Not even trying, is no excuse for calling something "impossible"!The main downside is the fixed scale factor, so no, you can't do that on an A4 sheet. Things will be much more spread out. I do very well with most designs on B, or C at the worst (comparable to A3 or A2), breaking up anything bigger. I don't like large monolithic drawings. That's just as confusing.The line width of a pin is fixed, so you can't do thick highlighted nets in a very reasonable manner. I don't like doing that anyway: the structure of the schematic should show what's bias and what's signal, like railings decorating a walkway.Tim

author: Messtechniker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 09:19:47 pm
content: Is it possible to export/give the design files to someone else to havehim design an actual PCB in another package (like altium)?No. There isonly a free SPlan viewer for the schematic files you produce.Does it allow export to PDF?Yes install any (free) windows pdf printer driver.Do you get free updates or a discount on them?Yes. Free of charge within the same major version. Major version changes are not very frequent. Say every 3 to 5 years. But at the price I would not care to pay the same amount every 5 years if really in need of the any of the new features. SPlan updates come usually quite quickly in response to complaints through the Abacom forum.I am still using Splan Version 6 with version 7 being out for a while and version 8 coming perhaps by the end of this year. Version 6 simply still suits may needs.Yours - MesstechnikerThanks

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 01:31:38 am
content: I use AutoCAD to draw up neat looking schematics but it is essentially duplicating the mechanical drafting process on a computer. I have my own symbol libraries and as I update them, all of my schematics update to the new look.

author: stj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 01:45:20 am
content: it's not just the software,the user must understand good design rules and think carefully about component placement to avoid lines crossing over each other as much as possible.

author: exmadscientist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 07:04:41 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on August 21, 2016, 12:35:03 pmOK, I'll bite: what's so awful about most libraries, and how can it be done better?More generally, speaking as someone who cares a least a little bit about good design, I have to say that most schematics are downright hideous. No organization whatsoever (Component pins are inpin order! What'sthatgood for, except possibly in the black-magic zone where SI is paramount?), absolutely no logical flow to anything, unreadable fonts, no notes, usually neon colors, and box symbols for just about everything. Yuck!(If you do only one thing to pretty up schematics, make themflow wellto make them read well. If the reader can follow the flow, everything else can follow from there.)I get that most engineers are rushed and don't have as much time as they'd like to make it readable. I don't have that much time either. But I find I do have enough time to apply the 80-20 rule: I can get 80% (or more) of the way to "perfection" with a reasonable time investment. A little careful application of design principles can go a long, long way. (I really do believe more scientists and engineers should take an interest in good design, or spend a little time cultivating any existing interests in that area. So few STEM people have any sense of design at all that just a little can make you really stand out. Not everything has to -- or should -- look like it's straight out of an Apple ad, but that doesn't mean it has to look like incomprehensible crap either.)Altium's defaults are, as usual, terrible. But just fixing up the fonts (sans-serif for schematics, please; serifs and tiny text just do not mix well) and colors (this isn't 1993 and we're not limited to 16-color palettes anymore) can make a huge difference. I've gone so far as to purchase professional typefaces and hacked them up in font editors to make beautiful schematics, but I can get away with indulging my typography hobby a bit since I do this for a living. The quality and legibility of my output reflects directly on my professionalism as an engineer.(Also, I'm still on the lookout for the perfect PCB fonts for reference designators. The ideal type family would be crisp, clean, neutral, traditionally appealing, and have multiple widths available for when you just have to cram information in there.)

author: Pjotr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 08:40:57 am
content: Quote from: exmadscientist on August 22, 2016, 07:04:41 amFor me the good old Helvetica font does well. Under MS-Win there is a lookalike called "Swiss 721".

author: JJalling
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 09:38:21 am
content: Quote from: exmadscientist on August 22, 2016, 07:04:41 amSounds interesting. Are you willing to show an example of one of your schematics?BR Jonas

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 09:59:22 am
content: Quote from: exmadscientist on August 22, 2016, 07:04:41 amYes, pin configurations are terrible. They place 30 mil long pins 10 mil from each other on a so-8. It looks terrible. Also most did not manage to place an opamp down correctly. I've seen downright hideous opamp symbols on schematic, opamp as "just a box" NC pins for it on the sheet, pin labels are missing where it matters, there when nobody cares. Positive power supply not indicated for the opamp, it is "just on the top". Oh, you mirrored and rotated the opamp? Too bad.And then there are the complex stuff, like a DDS, a RMS converter, analog switches. It is almost very hard to draw them nice, so most just put down the pins on a block and walk away.Gates? Just name the pins and use the pinout from schematic. So your schematic is pathetic.I had a manager tell me, that the 9 digit ERP number assigned to the component HAS to be on the schematic. For resistors.Yes the old schematics were either made by a plotter, or hand drawn. No size limits.

author: exmadscientist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 12:53:03 am
content: Quote from: JJalling on August 22, 2016, 09:38:21 amHere's one attached. Sorry this took so long to post up, but I usually read this forum when I'mnotat work (transit commutes are great for that!) and it's taken me a while to find a bit of time to pick out something interesting-but-not-sensitive and post it up. I've converted from the usual PDF format to PNG as it's the easiest way to make sure all employer-related information is redacted, and I'm lazy.Again, I don't want to claim that this is "perfect" or cannot be improved -- I'm sure it can! I just claim that it's an example of getting 80% of the way to "perfect" for 20% of the time invested.A couple hallmarks of my personal schematic drawing style that are worth pointing out:Important component parameters are right there on the schematic. The thermistor is completely specified by its part number. Capacitor sizes and voltages, when critical, are shown. Inductor limiting values are right there.The schematics package is accompanied by a full BOM document, so not every part has to have its full part number shown here.Compressed fonts are used when appropriate to make sure long-but-not-that-important strings don't take up more room than they deserve.Net highlighting is used to show certain key nets. (This is mostly important for layout, where I like the color coding.)Power port symbols are color coded (red for positive voltages, blue for negative, green for ground) and distinct between connections to rails (bar symbols), rail sources (arrows), and ground (the classic triangle).Most nets have names, but they're not emphasized (low-contrast gray names). This is again mostly for layout, as Altium displays the net name and I find SMPS layout in particular much easier when I don't have to constantly flip back and forth to figure out which are the critical nets and which are the not-critical ones. Naming them makes that problem go away.I never* use net names for connections. Connections arealwaysmade by either port symbols or explicit wires. (*One exception: fan-outs, such as on connectors. Rather than draw an incomprehensible rat's nest of crossing wires, I'll just have a dedicated sheet with ports coming in and then names attached to the connector pins. This is much easier to follow, IMO, and does a much better job of showing things like patterns in pin assignments. But I only ever do this in special circumstances, and do notevercombine it with that horrid style of making connections using net names.)

author: dom0
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 11:50:59 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on August 21, 2016, 02:26:19 pmHmm, that's an interesting explanation why even in manuals of high-end devices most schematics since the late 80s or early 90s began to become more and more harder to read.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 12:23:33 pm
content: Quote from: dom0 on September 14, 2016, 11:50:59 amSo I am not the only one to notice this and attribute it to the same cause; monitors are tiny compared to the work area of a drafting table. I laugh when people suggest that a tablet computer is suitable to replace paper for schematics.On the other hand, products made since the late 80s or early 90s are usually not repairable anyway so the schematics are of limited use.

author: Pjotr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 12:38:42 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on September 14, 2016, 12:23:33 pmMaybe that holds for consumer electronics. But certainly not for electronics for professional/industrial use. Many of it should be field repairable mostly or broken PCB are costly enough it is worth to be refurbished. That requires schematics easily readable by service technicians, not only designers...

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 12:48:28 pm
content: Quote from: Pjotr on September 14, 2016, 12:38:42 pmI was thinking of test instrumentation and not consumer electronics.Coincidentally, this was also about the same time that embedded lithium batteries started showing up so not only did repairs become more difficult, but a limited operating life was enforced. I have a couple of old PC motherboards which only quit because the embedded lithium cell died.

author: donmr
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 05:16:05 pm
content: I like you're use of color for the power rails. I wish KiCAD could do that.

author: Pjotr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 06:13:08 pm
content: Yes, but use it carefully, more than 4 colors get confusing again. Same with thick lines when bussing is also used.It is a neat schematic, as it should be at least. B.t.w. what is the sheet size and how long did it took to draw?

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 08:46:29 pm
content: QuoteThey have those now...I'm not convinced that a drafting-table-sized schematic is still useful when it's reduced to a final size significantly less than that, no matter how wonderful it was at the original resolution. Give me an ugly but machine-readable CAD file, and I can highlight individual traces by name, and similar.

author: Pjotr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 09:15:33 pm
content: I used DesignWorks when a 1280 x 960 monitor was "BIG" (640 x 480 was standard) and drew A2 sheets easily with it. It was designed to draw schematics the way you did draw schematics by hand,notby a keyboard! It was also one of those programs that outputted neat EPS or directly to a Postscript printer. Most packages outputted HPGL or other pen plotter data.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 04:03:44 am
content: Quote from: westfw on September 14, 2016, 08:46:29 pmNot in a portable form factor and not with the resolution of paper.QuoteMy compromise has been to use 11x17 folded sideways.

author: exmadscientist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 05:28:18 am
content: Quote from: Pjotr on September 14, 2016, 06:13:08 pmSheet size is US Letter (8.5×11 inches; AKA "ANSI A"). I use Ledger/Tabloid/ANSI B (11×17) frequently for more complicated sheets. Having a printer that can handle this size is fantastic.I don't know how long it took to draw, as I typically do schematic capture in tandem with design and part selection. Maybe 10 or 15 minutes, given everything already being in my part library?

author: setq
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 08:34:47 am
content: I use this. A bit of a learning curve but the output is nice and it's fast:http://ludens.cl/Electron/kisscad/kisscad.html