PADS Designer Schematic and Layout bundle - Altium and Eagle are done for? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: zeke
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2015, 08:38:50 pm
content: I just stumbled onto PADS Designer today while downloading somereference designs.The link took me toDigikeywhere I found I could buy the premium bundle for $849 USD.What's weird though is the version with a limit of only 1500 connections is more expensive - $864 USD. I don't know what's going on there.Oh! Here it is:Introductory Pricing - Save over 30% for a limited time for Unlimited ConnectionsI haven't checked out this program myself but I get the feeling that Mentor Graphics just shot a torpedo through the hull of Eagle and Altium with this offering.Thoughts or reactions?

author: daybyter
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2015, 10:51:26 pm
content: I think I've use the free version of this program back in the DOS days? It was limited to some number of connections, but I forgot how many it were.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 07:26:19 am
content: Looks as though Mentor have responded to the annual subscription model that Cadence started offering for Orcad PCB Designer last year. They had to, PADS was starting to look very expensive indeed by comparison.Nobody is going to move away from Altium to use this product, any more than they'd move from Allegro. But a few might jump from the hobby grade software packages once they outgrow them.For a small business looking to pick the software they'll standardise on for years to come, it's another good option.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 01:24:02 pm
content: Having used PADS on a peripheral basis, I consider it a malfunctioning piece of software. If you want to experience constant self hate without dropping $10k, buy Eagle instead. But I'd sooner buy Multisim/Ultiboard than either.Tim

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 01:37:12 pm
content: I don't see how $849 a year is cheaper than $1145.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 02:42:25 pm
content: PADS is grossly outdated. Mentor wants to flog this as their shrink-wrap tool , hoping to later convert user to their real tools. ( PADS is not a native mentor tool, it was borged, just like Cadence borged OrCAD)The label 'shrink-wrap' is used to split the semi-pro from the real pro software. This is used for any kind of software.It basically means : you can go to a store and buy this software in a box , install cd and a manual , all neatly shrink-wrapped in plastic.'pro' software such as DXDesigner, Allegro and others are not sold in stores. You can only buy from the manufacturer or some specific dealers that offer value added support. Altium for a long time was classified as shrink-wrap. It sits somewhere borderline.

author: Eternauta
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 02:49:08 pm
content: The Designer Schematcs& Layout from Mentor you could buy on Digikey is not PADS.

author: snoopy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 05:58:13 am
content: Why does Mentor Graphics SUCK so very, very much?https://offlogic.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/why-does-mentor-graphics-suck-so-very-very-much/Quote

author: Zeta
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:25:23 pm
content: Quote from: snoopy on March 26, 2015, 05:58:13 amThat was because the guy's inability to learn a new tool and expecting it to work like his older tool. All of us will probably lose the ability to learn and adapt to new tools with age and will start cursing any new software that is different to what we are used to.I tried the beta Designer schematic and layout, it is certainly not the best tool but way better than eagle/diptrace/anyotherEDAforKids and way better than altium (probably an opinion motivated by my inability to adap to Altium)

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2015, 05:14:25 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on March 23, 2015, 01:24:02 pmAny idea what the annual maintenance is on Multisim / Ultiboard is?

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2015, 07:28:57 pm
content: Depending on version, around $2k I think. Also I think you can simply buy it, without maintenance/subscription.Tim

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2015, 08:01:55 pm
content: I was looking at NI's site and it focuses on prototyping. Is there something about Ultiboard that makes it unsuitable for production versions? Or is it just the lack of BOM integration, etc.?

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2015, 11:16:32 pm
content: The worst sin that Multisim commits, frequently enough to be troublesome, is renumbering designators at will. Mostly with multi-sheet or hierarchical designs, with multi-part components spanning sheets. Lack of BOM integration stinks. Ultiboard lacks some basic features that make it tedious to do certain operations (like grid alignment; bus routing; lack of trace/part shoving; generating outputs; etc.). The "spreadsheet view" is a partial lie; it can't be selected / multiple edited / sorted / exported on some screens. If you hope to automate certain functions, you'd probably be best doing it with something like AutoHotKey; you'll only get partial assistance with spreadsheets.Some features of Ultiboard's selection system are surprisingly powerful. You can filter by object kind (components, traces, pads, graphics, text) and select (and edit the properties of) anything. Object clearance is simple (per-object and per-class (net, 'group', component, whatever) rules -- I'm not sure which takes precedence). Polygon pours are remarkably fast, so much so that they are always done live. Which is slow for full-board pours, but negligible for small ones. It took Altium a decade to finally figure that one out. Although they very occasionally pour incorrectly (missing or extra copper).The second most aggravating thing is statefulness. Objects that should be recalculated live, each and every time, are not updated, but stored in memory. They are updated seemingly arbitrarily (most often during a compilation event, like exporting a netlist). These include designators, net names, polygon drawing errors, clearance rules, trace widths, and other things. (You can tell it to draw, say, 40 mil trace, but often it will leave the trace in "auto" width. Even though it's clearly a 40 mil graphic. Update the net's width parameter, and suddenly everything pops back to size!)Multisim has always been, first and foremost, an interactive simulation environment (after all, it used to be Electronics Workbench). The drawbacks there are mostly SPICE itself (as far as I know, it uses a vanilla XSPICE backend). It can import netlists as schematics, but the process is slow and grotesque, placing components randomly and connecting them haphazardly (or with on-sheet connectors). You can back-annotate netlist edits (or if Multisim decides to fuck up designators or power pins) from the PCB too, but it generally doesn't work well, for the same reason (oh, you wanted this IC part on page 13? I'm going to put it on page 6, and because you're nice, I'll automatically add all the hierarchical connectors and messed up wires between them, just for you!).I don't think any main stream EDA tool reads Multisim or Ultiboard files, and neither provides exports beyond trivial or necessary cases (netlist, printout, fab files..), so if you were hoping to have some migration capability, you're pretty much locked in.Overall, I would rate it something like a car priced similarly. Not quite a beater, it'll get you from point A to B. It won't be glamorous, and it will sputter and break down from time to time, and it will cost you to use it. Maybe not as much as buying a brand new luxury version, on the whole. But if you'll be using it a lot, you probably want to reconsider.From what I've heard of Eagle (disclaimer: not having used it myself), it's probably better, but it's still not really professional grade. I'd like to say it's too buggy or janky to be professional, but that would be disingenuous to all the actual "professional" software out there, alas...Tim

author: BloodyCactus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2015, 03:12:35 pm
content: hmm looks interesting, 850$ buys 1 lyear license.. renewal is... you re-buy again.. no discount, you just rebuy at the full price each year..they dont say, if it stops working after a year if you dont rebuy the license. not clear what the license provides etc.. and stops providing after a year...

author: HW3126
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 10:47:04 am
content: So, is this new PADS Standard [Schematic and PCB layout with starter parts library, part creation wizard and archive management priced at $5,000 USD including support] now a better value/quality offering than Altium Design now for designing advanced but not super complicated boards now?Or is it just reducing price on the clunky old PADS?...

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 12:00:52 pm
content: From what I've seen of PADS (possibly old versions, but I doubt the workflow has changed much, either..), I'd much rather go with Altium, for not much more. Sales is usually flexible on price, you might be able to talk them down enough (well, the same would be true of PADS, too).Tim

author: HW3126
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 11:27:25 pm
content: Thanks TS

author: dmills
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2015, 05:39:28 pm
content: Strongly seconded.I get the impression that if you have some defined corporate workflow that can be heavily scripted then the DxD/Pads way is probably quite good (Lots of ascii netlists that are easy to script in your favorite text manipulation language), but the setup you need to do to get the benefit is just way too heavyweight unless you have teams of dozens of engineers on a project.PADS pissed me off by telling me that differential pair length matching rules (Kind of important with modern memories) were an advanced rules feature that needed a separate license....The other thing is that Altium goes to some effort to be as 'discoverable' as a complex tool can be (Pretty much every keyboard shortcut can be found from the menus), PADS not so much (And the online help in DxD is hopeless).Regards, Dan.

author: Feynman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 07:54:48 pm
content: Just one thing to note about Mentor: They try to f*** their customers in the a** in every possible way

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2015, 08:11:03 am
content: Quote from: zeke on March 22, 2015, 08:38:50 pmFor altium maybe. Not for Eagle.Eagle is the defacto industry standard with the biggest (community) support.And because of pads' ridiculous system requirements (windows & dotfail) they simply can not replace Eagle that runs on Mac and Linux.

author: dmills
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2015, 05:51:33 pm
content: Defacto industry standard is WAY to strong a description of Eagle, at least outside the entry level hobbyist space.Pads/DxD, Altium, Candace, Orcad, Zucan..... all have far larger penetration in the serious design shops, and are all (Despite my hate on for Pads occasional tendency to have a "Mentor magic moment") in a completely different league to Eagle.Regards, Dan.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2015, 06:48:23 am
content: Quote from: dmills on September 27, 2015, 05:51:33 pmThe reason many people think this, is because marketshare is usually measured in revenue.And because Eagle is not like most overpriced bloatware, their revenue is much lower.