Hello. I'm an analog equipment designer and writer of technical articles.
I have been observing the evolution of Diptrace in recent years. And, there is real progress in its development. Congratulations to the programmers.
There are, however, problems that prevent me from recommending it to hobbyists and professionals. Diptrace does not allow you to create patterns or simple PADS with different pads for each side of the board. Even "old school" software like PCAD allows you to easily create and configure different pad diameters for each side of the PCB. I don't understand why this basic and indispensable feature is not present in Diptrace. The lack of this important feature is one reason many designers don't use Diptrace.
Another important issue is that Diptrace programmers must understand that single-sided PCBs are used profusely and Diptrace tends to unnecessarily force double-sided designs.
(text originally in Portuguese - using Google Translate)
I have been observing the evolution of Diptrace in recent years. And, there is real progress in its development. Congratulations to the programmers.
There are, however, problems that prevent me from recommending it to hobbyists and professionals. Diptrace does not allow you to create patterns or simple PADS with different pads for each side of the board. Even "old school" software like PCAD allows you to easily create and configure different pad diameters for each side of the PCB. I don't understand why this basic and indispensable feature is not present in Diptrace. The lack of this important feature is one reason many designers don't use Diptrace.
Another important issue is that Diptrace programmers must understand that single-sided PCBs are used profusely and Diptrace tends to unnecessarily force double-sided designs.
(text originally in Portuguese - using Google Translate)
Statistics: Posted by Fabio — Yesterday, 03:08 — Replies 0 — Views 37