Upverter Gets Your Circuits Laid(blog.upverter.com)
blog.upverter.com
Upverter Gets Your Circuits Laid
http://blog.upverter.com/upverter-gets-your-circuits-laid
12 comments
Yeah claiming to be the most sophisticated PCB editor is a massive stretch.
Just looking at the last project I did and the features I could not have done without, do you have differential pair routing? Interactive length tuning? From-tos? Pin swapping? Integration with some part swapping system for the manufacturer? Export and then reimport of DSNs for Electra/Specctra? Polygon pours? Integration with PLMs? Use scripting engine?
As far as working with Altium goes, those features are all pretty basic.
Just looking at the last project I did and the features I could not have done without, do you have differential pair routing? Interactive length tuning? From-tos? Pin swapping? Integration with some part swapping system for the manufacturer? Export and then reimport of DSNs for Electra/Specctra? Polygon pours? Integration with PLMs? Use scripting engine?
As far as working with Altium goes, those features are all pretty basic.
I agree - I'd be excited by this if I were a hobbyist using the free version of Eagle, but despite what they say on their blog it doesn't look anywhere near as compelling as Altium for my business even if the subscription was another 50% less...
Hopefully tools like these will eventually get better to the point where put a bit of pressure on the big guys to make them lower their prices though!
Hopefully tools like these will eventually get better to the point where put a bit of pressure on the big guys to make them lower their prices though!
> Same time schematic & PCB editing... for the first time ever
What exactly does this mean? How does this differ from Eagle where schematic changes are immediately reflected in the rat's nest?
It'll be interesting to see what kind of computational constraints they put on the inevitable autorouter.
What exactly does this mean? How does this differ from Eagle where schematic changes are immediately reflected in the rat's nest?
It'll be interesting to see what kind of computational constraints they put on the inevitable autorouter.
Same time schematic & PCB editing... for the first time ever... like in the world... first. time. ever.... this is a pretty big deal.
In Eagle, you cannot add new parts directly to the PCB (no layout duplication for panelization). Panelization is about the only place I have ever wanted that feature, as the abstract schematic is much nicer for connecting nodes. Although, I guess since I haven't tried it, I could be wrong. I'm not entirely sure why there is that limitation, but it would be a pretty nice feature.
Couple other points:
Full real-time design rule checking
Eagle does not do real time DRC. Although, as I've yet to really have problems with a DRC (most PCB milling machines are awesome, and you don't really have anything to worry about).
A system of automated footprint generators based on the IPC standards
That would be way better if I could supply a PDF from the data sheet, your software looks at the dimensions and gives me the footprint back.
In Eagle, you cannot add new parts directly to the PCB (no layout duplication for panelization). Panelization is about the only place I have ever wanted that feature, as the abstract schematic is much nicer for connecting nodes. Although, I guess since I haven't tried it, I could be wrong. I'm not entirely sure why there is that limitation, but it would be a pretty nice feature.
Couple other points:
Full real-time design rule checking
Eagle does not do real time DRC. Although, as I've yet to really have problems with a DRC (most PCB milling machines are awesome, and you don't really have anything to worry about).
A system of automated footprint generators based on the IPC standards
That would be way better if I could supply a PDF from the data sheet, your software looks at the dimensions and gives me the footprint back.
Yeah, trying to make changes to the circuit via the PCB is annoying in Eagle. It hasn't been a big issue for me, as the times when I've wanted to do it, I've wanted to do so much of it that it was worth doing that part of the layout using scripts (imagine a 4 signal layer PCB with the same functional unit duplicated 24 times, that wants to be as small as possible. adjust dimensions, autoplace, autoroute, evaluate, repeat). But I can see that kind of feature being quite handy when you have just a few copies to make.
Eh? Don't know why you'd ever not worry about DRC. If the PCB fab is that good, make your features smaller :P. You also want to always make sure that you're not violating your electrically-significant constraints.
And yeah, footprints are quite annoying (especially when starting out) and one of the things that I think a widely-shared online approach like Upverter will actually succeed in fixing for the common cases.
Eh? Don't know why you'd ever not worry about DRC. If the PCB fab is that good, make your features smaller :P. You also want to always make sure that you're not violating your electrically-significant constraints.
And yeah, footprints are quite annoying (especially when starting out) and one of the things that I think a widely-shared online approach like Upverter will actually succeed in fixing for the common cases.
Did you do the scripting in Eagle? I usually just clone things a schematic building block, although that means that I have to redo the layout for each one.
I haven't made any boards for manufacturing, only one off boards. I like to keep things spaced out so if I need to get in and cut/jumper I can. Soon though, I'll make a board for manufacture. Then the DRC come into play.
I dislike the uncertainty in the footprints. I just sent a board out with a footprint I made, and I didn't have the parts yet to see if they would fit the dimensions. It's all a big guessing game. The Sparkfun library is pretty awesome in that regard (sharing files). I like how they say 'Production tested', keeping quality up when tons of people on Upverter are making footprints may be hard, although if you have a hundred or so 'tested' footprints you might be in the clear.
I haven't made any boards for manufacturing, only one off boards. I like to keep things spaced out so if I need to get in and cut/jumper I can. Soon though, I'll make a board for manufacture. Then the DRC come into play.
I dislike the uncertainty in the footprints. I just sent a board out with a footprint I made, and I didn't have the parts yet to see if they would fit the dimensions. It's all a big guessing game. The Sparkfun library is pretty awesome in that regard (sharing files). I like how they say 'Production tested', keeping quality up when tons of people on Upverter are making footprints may be hard, although if you have a hundred or so 'tested' footprints you might be in the clear.
I started off writing ULPs, but eventually moved on to using a general purpose language to generate a ULP that consisted of the actions to be performed. And to get the data out, the registered version has an option to export to such a script, too (and you can write a ULP to do the same exporting in the unregistered version).
I've done mostly prototype work, but rework isn't much harder with tighter design rules. Also keep in mind a good amount of possible cutting/jumpering/airwiring can be avoided with the right use of infinite and zero ohm resistors at layout time. I unfortunately haven't touched embedded design in a while - moved on to software for more ambitious goals; unfortunately, das blinkenlights aren't so applicable to the problems of the world that are important to me.
I've done mostly prototype work, but rework isn't much harder with tighter design rules. Also keep in mind a good amount of possible cutting/jumpering/airwiring can be avoided with the right use of infinite and zero ohm resistors at layout time. I unfortunately haven't touched embedded design in a while - moved on to software for more ambitious goals; unfortunately, das blinkenlights aren't so applicable to the problems of the world that are important to me.
Sigh, this is so cool and so disrupting to the eda vendor community I know it won't last. Definitely going to see about designing a few projects with it. Great job
I really like the Circuit of the week. That's a neat idea.
> Same time schematic & PCB editing...
If this means you tweak the schematic and the PCB updates at the same time - that's good. I think. How well does it cope with 4 / 8 / 12 layer boards? Or are those not realistic use cases?
> PCB Editing! Woot!
Why would someone want to edit the PCB? Is it to make things suitable for production? ("This bulky component is too close to the edge and interferes with production machine loading. Let's move it over there a bit"?) Or are there other uses?
> Same time schematic & PCB editing...
If this means you tweak the schematic and the PCB updates at the same time - that's good. I think. How well does it cope with 4 / 8 / 12 layer boards? Or are those not realistic use cases?
> PCB Editing! Woot!
Why would someone want to edit the PCB? Is it to make things suitable for production? ("This bulky component is too close to the edge and interferes with production machine loading. Let's move it over there a bit"?) Or are there other uses?
Connectors need to be placed to match the enclosure
Components are available in a variety of packages, and supply problems sometimes require a last-minute change.
Thermal or EMI or noise problems require moving traces away from each other.
Components are available in a variety of packages, and supply problems sometimes require a last-minute change.
Thermal or EMI or noise problems require moving traces away from each other.
Congrats to Zak and the team at Upverter!
this is a big deal. from designing to manufacturing, this will help get prototypes off the ground much faster
[deleted]
Where can I find pricing information?
Found membership pricing http://upverter.com/pricing/
I wonder if they delete your files if you stop paying?
Ryan from Upverter here:
If you stop paying, the designs will remain intact, stay private and you will be able to export them freely. If you want to keep editing the designs, they will have to be made public at that point. (Or you can start paying again. ;))
If you stop paying, the designs will remain intact, stay private and you will be able to export them freely. If you want to keep editing the designs, they will have to be made public at that point. (Or you can start paying again. ;))
That's not what your terms of service says. It says you may, at your discretion, delete data.
I would never use this for professional work. Hardware lifecycles are often measured in decades. It is common to archive the complete collection of design software so you can come back in a few years to make an improvement or add a feature. Your career cannot afford to tie everything to a cloud vendor that may decide to leave you high and dry.
I only see a future for this product if they license the software for installation on private servers.
I only see a future for this product if they license the software for installation on private servers.
Congrats to upverter with their new release, together we can kick some kicad and eagle butt :) Make sure to also try out circuits.io
Nice work Zak! I've been waitin for something like this for years.
Circuits need love too.
Really, "Gets Your Circuits Laid"?
It's a shame too many of these product announcements subtly discriminate against women, and frequently minorities.
Why not a more descriptive title such as "Upverter Releases Sophisticated Circuit Layout Tool"?
Congratulations to the Upverter team, but try to be more sensitive next time.
It's a shame too many of these product announcements subtly discriminate against women, and frequently minorities.
Why not a more descriptive title such as "Upverter Releases Sophisticated Circuit Layout Tool"?
Congratulations to the Upverter team, but try to be more sensitive next time.
Your hyper-sensitivity is far more offensive than the playful euphemism in Upverter's title. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, "getting laid" in no way discriminates against women, as women and men of all dispositions get laid equally.
Why is "getting laid" discriminatory against women?
I could say something witty about women being treated as sexual objects more frequently than men, or reference the studies pointing out that sexualized environments encourage sexual harassment and discrimination to take place (something biased against women more than men), talk about how sexual innuendo is commonly a way for men to bond over their shared attraction to women, or any number of complaints pointed out repeatedly over the years by women in this industry.
But...
I don't think Upverter was trying to discriminate, nor do I think anyone should take real offense at their title. I just think that little jokes like this often recurring does have a negative impact on our ability to attract women to (and have them thrive in) technical roles.
But...
I don't think Upverter was trying to discriminate, nor do I think anyone should take real offense at their title. I just think that little jokes like this often recurring does have a negative impact on our ability to attract women to (and have them thrive in) technical roles.
Then you should post these links, and point out these things. Don't just wave your hands and posit this sort of thing is against women without evidence for that point. Convert people to this cause if it's true, or silence your allusions if it's not.
Let's say if every time you saw someone talking about a particular product or service, they were wearing something that only 12 year olds wear. Let's further say you are 15 years old, and you're trying to distinguish yourself from the 12 year olds, since "they're just kids" and you are not. You're trying to not be associated with the "kids" schtick.
Given that, would you use that product and service if only people who dress like 12 year olds use it? I suspect you might avoid it, assuming you were the sort of person who cared about that sort of perception.
Or here, let me try it in terms of variables:
A: The people who are always talking about B
B: The product, service, or career they're talking about
C: The group they appear to be part of
D: You.
E: People who might look at you (D) and think you are a (C) because of your association with (B), because of the presentations put forth by (A).
If you don't make any of these connections, you may not be affected by this. However, it could still affect those who do make those connections.
Given that, would you use that product and service if only people who dress like 12 year olds use it? I suspect you might avoid it, assuming you were the sort of person who cared about that sort of perception.
Or here, let me try it in terms of variables:
A: The people who are always talking about B
B: The product, service, or career they're talking about
C: The group they appear to be part of
D: You.
E: People who might look at you (D) and think you are a (C) because of your association with (B), because of the presentations put forth by (A).
If you don't make any of these connections, you may not be affected by this. However, it could still affect those who do make those connections.
By reading male gender bias into a situation when there isn't any mention of gender, it shows hyper sensitivity to gender bias. That indicates there's widespread problems around gender bias, which I'm sure we agree exist. This indication can also be off putting. (Of course the article is written by a man.)
It raises the question, which is worse, false flagging of gender bias where there isn't any, or widespread gender bias? Obviously the latter. But the former does seem weirdly counter productive, if you want to avoid putting people off, then don't put people off by false flagging things that aren't there.
In trying to see the other side of the debate: I'm sure a woman has written such a headline before, but I would imagine it's been targeted at female audiences(this could be gender bias on my part though). I might imagine the likelihood of a male writing an inappropriate bla bla "gets you laid" headline at a supposedly neutral audience is higher than a woman doing so(my gender bias again?).
I suppose also as a man writing a "gets you laid" headline, you're making assumptions about the high male/female ratio of your target audience. Most men I know, know such talk can make them unpopular with female readers. (although this could just be presumption and not actual fact, maybe female readers wouldn't give a hoot)
So those assumptions made by writing such a headline, will be obvious to the reader and off putting. Even if it wasn't obvious whether the writer was male or female, between industry stereotypes and gender bias, most people would assume such a headline about a cloud based circuit cad tool would be written by a man,(again possibly my bias).
What's my point? I don't have one, but best to play it on the safe side.
It raises the question, which is worse, false flagging of gender bias where there isn't any, or widespread gender bias? Obviously the latter. But the former does seem weirdly counter productive, if you want to avoid putting people off, then don't put people off by false flagging things that aren't there.
In trying to see the other side of the debate: I'm sure a woman has written such a headline before, but I would imagine it's been targeted at female audiences(this could be gender bias on my part though). I might imagine the likelihood of a male writing an inappropriate bla bla "gets you laid" headline at a supposedly neutral audience is higher than a woman doing so(my gender bias again?).
I suppose also as a man writing a "gets you laid" headline, you're making assumptions about the high male/female ratio of your target audience. Most men I know, know such talk can make them unpopular with female readers. (although this could just be presumption and not actual fact, maybe female readers wouldn't give a hoot)
So those assumptions made by writing such a headline, will be obvious to the reader and off putting. Even if it wasn't obvious whether the writer was male or female, between industry stereotypes and gender bias, most people would assume such a headline about a cloud based circuit cad tool would be written by a man,(again possibly my bias).
What's my point? I don't have one, but best to play it on the safe side.
I'm actually interested in the data driven argument the poster I responded to, particularly using those studies he mentioned, not a logical debate on the topic. If you're not using real data, people on the other side often just hand wave away your objections and no one convinces anyone.
Induction is much more likely to convert the person you're talking to than deduction, as it gets around values to a degree.
Induction is much more likely to convert the person you're talking to than deduction, as it gets around values to a degree.
Okay, in specific terms, for only myself, then:
When I saw this headline, it elicited a minor "groan" from me, since it reminded me of some less-desirable elements within the greater community. It, on some level, reminds me that sometimes I wish I was doing something else.
This plugs into what I said before.
When I saw this headline, it elicited a minor "groan" from me, since it reminded me of some less-desirable elements within the greater community. It, on some level, reminds me that sometimes I wish I was doing something else.
This plugs into what I said before.
If you'd like, here is some information on common complaints by women about this topic:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment
Because only men can get laid obviously.
That's not against women, it's just a bit crass (aka, against people who think sex should stay out of business).
Both men and women get laid.
Both men and women get laid.
It's not crass, nor is it discriminatory. Laying out a circuit is the equivalent of getting it fabricated. Terminology is used at AMD every time a chip is shipped/sent to pre-fab/taped-out/laid/fabbed/traced/etc:
Sources:
[1] PCB layout: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:srb7R1n...
[2] Page 41: http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/dsmith/dsmith.html
[3] Google Groups Discussion: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/comp.cad...
[4] PDF: http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mperkows/CLASS_573/Asynchr_Febr_200...
Sources:
[1] PCB layout: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:srb7R1n...
[2] Page 41: http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/dsmith/dsmith.html
[3] Google Groups Discussion: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/comp.cad...
[4] PDF: http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mperkows/CLASS_573/Asynchr_Febr_200...
> [2] Page 41: http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/dsmith/dsmith.html
Did you read your references? This one has nothing to do with electronics.
The other three all use "laying out a circuit". None of them used "laid". Luckily there are very many search hits for "laid out a circuit" (some about cycling, etc) or "laid out a PCB", so it's common usage. But "Gets your circuits laid" is clear sexual innuendo.
Did you read your references? This one has nothing to do with electronics.
The other three all use "laying out a circuit". None of them used "laid". Luckily there are very many search hits for "laid out a circuit" (some about cycling, etc) or "laid out a PCB", so it's common usage. But "Gets your circuits laid" is clear sexual innuendo.
If enough people find it crass, it's crass. I find it crass, enough to not click through.
Sure, layout is common terminology in EDA. Getting laid is not.
Sure, layout is common terminology in EDA. Getting laid is not.
It's "laid" vs "layed out". Nobody says, "I laid my circuit today".
zio99, it's a double entendre and quite intentional
I think it's hilarious and absolutely correct english. If you happen to find a sexual euphemism in it, what does that have to do it?
"get laid" is not correct English.
Languages are descriptive, not proscriptive. "Get Laid" is an idiom from the 50s. 60 years later we can safely call it part of the language. At this point you're doing the equivalent of bitching that email isn't capitalized anymore.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=get+laid
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=get+laid
It's correct as a synonym for fucking, but it's not a correct way of saying you etched traces on a circuit board, which is what this article is trying to do.
It's a correct synonym for fucking readily identifiable as a pun and double entendre for laying out a circuit board.
I request you swap to trying to make another language dowdy and unfun. I (and most English speakers the world over) love its capacity for wordplay.
I request you swap to trying to make another language dowdy and unfun. I (and most English speakers the world over) love its capacity for wordplay.
Of course it is.
My rhymes and my records they don't get played / because my records and rhymes, they don't get made / 'cause when you rap like me you don't get paid / and when you roll like me you don't get laid.
My rhymes and my records they don't get played / because my records and rhymes, they don't get made / 'cause when you rap like me you don't get paid / and when you roll like me you don't get laid.
I didn't realise Flight of the Conchords was an authority on proper English!
More seriously though, the title is extremely childish and doesn't really help to make me want to trust their service with my company's valuable data...
More seriously though, the title is extremely childish and doesn't really help to make me want to trust their service with my company's valuable data...
Correct English or not, you "layed out" a board, not "laid" it.
I'd assumed it was a reference to jwz's "how will this software get my users laid":
http://www.jwz.org/doc/groupware.html
Maybe I'm giving them too much credit...
http://www.jwz.org/doc/groupware.html
Maybe I'm giving them too much credit...
I supposed "newly laid pipes" would offend you as well. Well, let's sign a petition to the Times of Malta to change their offensive wording.
</sarc>
Source:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20121026/local/Cou...
</sarc>
Source:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20121026/local/Cou...
The "problem"[1] isn't with the word 'laid' which has many uses. The problem is with the phrase 'get laid', which has one main use.
First impressions count. Upverter is really cool. How many people have missed the opportunity to be upverter users because of this bad pun? Perhaps more importantly, how many customers did upverter not get because of the bad humour?
They are free to use whatever language they like to talk about their project. Other people are free to be disappointed at the choice of language; or to be put off by the words used; or to not care about the language.
First impressions count. Upverter is really cool. How many people have missed the opportunity to be upverter users because of this bad pun? Perhaps more importantly, how many customers did upverter not get because of the bad humour?
They are free to use whatever language they like to talk about their project. Other people are free to be disappointed at the choice of language; or to be put off by the words used; or to not care about the language.
[deleted]
When you make claims like "the worlds most sophisticated layout tool" you're making impossible claims. I've yet to see anything that your tool does that Protel (now Altium) and others weren't doing a decade ago.
I understand different markets, but at $299 / user / month for your "professional" offering, you're not too far off of Altium Designer's cost. You're roughly double Eagle's price, and yours is a subscription service, rather than a pay once and done.
It appears you also have to pay separately for simulation - another cost that Altium and Eagle do not have.
You make pricing hard to find on your website. I'm looking for pricing, not a "try upverter now" button - to me that says "get the demo", not "pricing". Your package names look like something designed picked by someone just out of college and trying overly hard to be hip, not something meant to convey any meaning. "Open Source" "Awesome" and "Professional" - really? Why not just "Free" "Personal" and "Professional"? Conveys what you get with each package much quicker and more clearly. You have very little about what's included with each package. For instance, what's a "Team+User" account type vs a "User". How much simulation time is included with each package, since you make a reference to paying for only what you use? What's the cost of additional simulation time?
From your "Professional" registration page: "Welcome, Professional. This is going to be awesome!" Really? Awesome? I thought "Awesome" was your middle-tier package. It creates confusion and impressions you may not want.
Too much emphasis on buzzwords. Do you really need to use "cloud" that often? How about "Awesome!"?
Your "Terms of Use" basically say you're not responsible for the security of anything. Not something you want when you're trying to entice people into doing creative work with your service. You say you can end the service whenever you want with the only notification being via the webpage - Not something to make businesses shell out $3588 / year. Likewise, you say you're able to revoke access entirely or in part without notification, and that the website may be unavailable at times, and that you may, at your discretion, delete a user's uploaded data.
From a business standpoint, these terms are completely unacceptable - would you pay $3588 / year with no guarantee that you'd be able to use the service, or that you'd be able to access your data?
As a hobbyist, are you willing to have all your work and data disappear on a third party's whim?
From a business customer standpoint, I'd rather pay the extra to Altium, sink the cost of the software, pay half your yearly cost for Altium's subscription, and keep my propitiatory data in-house, instead of trusting an unknown 3rd party's claims to privacy, security, and longevity. Knowing where Protel was a decade ago - I'll also say that their software does a lot more than yours, again putting your claims at being the "most sophisticated" in question.
From a hobbyist standpoint, I'm still not comfortable putting things that are as tedious to reproduce as schematics and board layouts under the control of a third party. Eagle "Standard" is $169 (individual hobbyist use), and the copy will be good as long as I have a computer that will run it. That cost just over two years of paying for your "Awesome" package. Eagle "Light" is $69, less than one year of your "Awesome" package, and I again have something that lasts as long as I maintain a computer that can run it. I can buy a new "Light" package every year and still save money over your service.