CircuitWorks versus Desktop-EDA 1

[Wolverine87]

I need an IDF file translator to import circuit board assemblies from OrCad into SolidWorks. Does anybody have experience/opinions/advice on CircuitWorks and/or Desktop-EDA.
Thanks

 

[ctopher]

The only way I have found is to import DXF from OrCad. It takes a little bit of work, but we get there.

 

[Wolverine87]

Ctopher, thanks for the reply. Actually, The 2 products I mention in my original post allow you to convert an IDF file (created in OrCad) into a .sldasm file in solidworks, a huge time saver if you're having to recreate a populated board assembly. You can download demo versions from their respective websites, and both have example files you can import to see how it works. May be worth your time to check it out.
I was hoping to find someone who has actually lived with one or both of these products just to hear what their experience has been. Desktop-EDA is considerably less expensive so it is probably a moot point but I thought I'd check. Thanks again.

 

[ctopher]

I requested a demo from Desktop EDA. I'll check it out and let you know what I think.

 

[JNR]

We use CircuitWorks. Our PCB's are laid out by an outside contractor using PCAD. It seems to work very well and (at least with PCAD) gives us bi-directional data transfer. So we can move components or change the board outline, and send them back. CircuitWorks populates the boards with actual SolidWorks library models or automatically generates component volumes or a mixture. The volumes are a footprint with a Z height. This is great for common components like diodes, resistors, etc. We only accurately model the stuff where we care about the detailed shape. For most purposes there does not seem to be any point in modelling the other stuff perfectly and it keeps the file sizes smaller. We also use these Solidworks PWB assemblies in CosmosWorks/Flow, etc. for vibration and thermal analysis. In that case having an accurate placement, footprint, height, etc. is really great. Is it also great for absolutely being sure you have physical clearance in your assemblies for every component on the board.

We actually start out with the board outline model and any components (especially connectors) that we need to place for mechanical reasons and send the contractor the file. They then take if from there through layout and send a file back for us to update our model. It may go around a couple of times before everything is finalized so having this capability is a real time saver in many ways.

We use this quite happily with SmarTeam PDM and it functions fine. As with every new piece of software, it took a little learning to find the best options for our needs, but not much pain compared to most things. If you need more information, I could put you in touch with our resident expert.

One thing to bear in mind is that the PC layout world is essentially flatland (2D). So in CircuitWorks you have to have side 1 of your boards and the relative component and board assembly orientations in Front view. (Remember for file import and export basic mathematical coordinates do not change even if you rename the Top/Front/Right views even though SolidWorks knows internally about these things. So even if you rename Top to Front inside Solidworks, it will still export as CPL 1 or "top view" orientation.) Also the origin of the boards model must be your PC layout 0,0.

Most of these issues are more than likely similar in the other systems.

I was - and he did. So at least I didn't get coal.....
OK, OK, It's a reference to my holiday sig. "Be naughty - Save Santa a trip..."

 

[Wolverine87]

JNR, thanks for the info. It sounds like you're doing the same thing we will be, except our board layout is internal. My dilema is this, CircuitWorks is just a little bit slicker and easier to use than Desktop-EDA, but not enough to justify the cost difference. So, I'm fishing, to see if anyone has horror stories on either. Thanks for the tips on initial board outline creation, no doubt saved us an iteration there. Thanks again.

 

[SBaugh]

You might try and get a hold of someone from Samtec. I don't know if they can help you or not but I know they use SW.

http://www.samtec.com

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376

 

[ctopher]

I tried the demos. Desktop worked alot faster and easier than CircuitWorks. CircuitWorks was too cumbersome. I imported a complicated double sided PCB from OrCad, it worked great...even with drilled holes. The only thing I could not get was the circuitry paths, but is OK.

 

[Wolverine87]

To all who chimed in with your thoughts and advice, thanks very much. We ended up going with the DesktopEDA product and so far so good. We're using OrCad to layout PCB's and the little bit that I have imported into Solidworks has worked flawlessly. Another little plus I discovered over CircuitWorks is that DesktopEDA has an included library of 3-d parts. We will certainly have to add to it but it's a reasonably healthy start.
Thanks again to all and best regards,
Mike

 

[pdybeck]

Is anyone here using CircuitWorks or DesktopEDA and also using PDM/Works? Could you explain how you juggle between the two? I am not that familiar with either CircuitWorks or DesktopEDA, so it seems to me like it may muddy the data management waters a little. I would like everything to be controlled and revised through PDM/Works. Is this realistic and rather easy. Please educate me.

Pete Yodis
Harold Beck and Sons

 

[Wolverine87]

We are using PDM/Works as well as Desktop/EDA. Juggling between the two is really a non-issue as they are such different applications, for us anyway. We use PDM/Works for file management and rev. control of course. The Desktop/EDA is simply being used to import circuit board outlines into SolidWorks from the layout package used to create the PCB, OrCad in our case. Once the board is imported and turned into a SolidWorks part and/or assembly, that would be checked in and managed by PDM/Works as usual.
Down the road I could imagine the native OrCad files also being checked into PDM/Works (I have not verified that this works yet). Is till don't see a conflict as everything has unique filenames, or at least file extensions, and is thus a unique entity for PDM to manage.

The way we use these products I don't envision any "juggling". Hope this helps.

 

[ctopher]

Same here as Wolverine87

 

[pdybeck]

Thanks for the info. Do you guys manage your PCB layouts down to the component level, or do you save the assembly as a part and manage it as just one file? I have been thinking about this lately. Managing all components creates more overhead, but may have advantages, especially if you want to create detail purchase drawings for your components.

 

[Wolverine87]

In general, I would manage the board as an assy. but only with critical parts or large parts that I need to have modeled. For example, a transformer that mounts ot the board, or a print engine or other mechanism that likewise mounts to the board. I would not have any need or interest in managing small passives, or even IC's (with some exceptions) unless they posed an interference risk. The board designer will of course have a need to manage his bom thoroughly, but at this point we are not using PDM for this.

 

[ctopher]

We manage all parts and the assy. We have in house p/n's for purchased parts (IC's, resistors, etc) and are checked in to PDMW as revision "-" and never changed/updated.

 

[JNR]

We use CircuitWorks with SmarTeam, so similar issues as PDMworks probably. If necessary we check out the board assembly and replace it with the new file from CW. We do no use exact library models for all components - only very large or special shape ones. Mostly we just let CW use the silkscreen outlines and Z height to make simple rectangual blocks. This works well for all our purposes including mechanical, thermal CFD analyses. It saves on library creation and management, plus file size. It is similar in concept to using fake threads most of the time.

John Richards Sr. Mech. Engr.
Rockwell Collins Flight Dynamics

There are only 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't.