Altium24 vs KiCAD8 Which is Right for You?

[@tw2334]

Awesome information. Thanks so much for sharing. This is exactly what I was looking for!

[@dunk_law]

KiCAD 8 also has IPC-2581 & GIT repository facilities.

[@techedkirschEE]

Ah yes I forgot to show the export options in KiCAD. Sorry about that! Git? Hmm, I'll have to make another video!

[@dunk_law]

Also see the Ki365 project in development.

[@techedkirschEE]

@@dunk_law oh? I’ll take a look

[@simoncliffy]

A poor designer will do badly even if they've got Altium. A great many companies I go to have EMI issues, these are caused by their electronics not really understanding the physics of EMI. Design rules won't help there, neither will Altium. The things we need to look for other than cost in choosing a package is the work process to get from idea to copper. I'd say Kicad is where Altium was 10 years ago. Having heard their development team talk, they really do understand where they're going. Altium will probably be Ok for a while, but smaller companies with turnover less than 10m a year are going to feel the pinch now Altium is heading down the Mentor path.

[@dunk_law]

Kicad is industry driven in it development & if the majority of users & corporate sponsors want DFM features they get written in fairly quickly. I think you skipped over the custom rules capabilities of V7 & V8 which are impressive & able to handle wild card selections and are parsed for integrity.

[@techedkirschEE]

@@dunk_law yeah I saw the custom rules part. Personally I don’t like custom rules. Call me crazy but having to manage those custom rules and such I want as little code as possible when it comes to constraints. Reason being is having to consider scenarios where the logic breaks. Would you be willing to show me custom rules though in KiCAD? I’m willing to learn and I’ll be making more videos on these comparisons anyway.

[@dunk_law]

@@techedkirschEE Designing for intrinsic safety and need to create extra segregation between power domains and these kind of rules are great if you break each domain down to a separate schematic sheet. The sheet name prefixes the net name and can be used as a wild card. Here are a couple of prototypes to use for that where inner on outer layer clearances may vary. - (layer "In2.Cu") (rule clearance_netclass1_to_netclass2(condition "A.NetClass == 'netclass1' && B.NetClass == 'netclass2'") (constraint clearance (min 1mm))) or (layer "In2.Cu") (rule different_netclass_clearance(condition "A.NetClass != 'Default' && A.NetClass != B.NetClass") (constraint clearance (min 2mm))) Here is a complete working example of other options - (version 7) (rule gnd_In2_separation (layer "In2.Cu") (condition "A.Type == 'Zone' && A.NetName == 'GND' && B.NetName == 'Net-(T?-G)'") (constraint physical_clearance(min 0.6mm)) ) (rule clearance_J19 ( constraint clearance (min 0.54mm)) ( condition "A.insideCourtyard( 'J19')") )

[@dunk_law]

@@techedkirschEE I tried to post some examples and youtube keeps removing the post.

[@techedkirschEE]

@@dunk_law hmm, strange. if you send to techedkirsch at gmail.com, I can review it then post them. My settings might automatically holding posts that contain links.

[@DaleMitchell1367]

@@techedkirschEE I can understand the frustration about custom rules breaking, but how else do you set up design constraints for important things like clearance for high voltage nets while maintaining tight clearance for low voltage on fine pitch stuff like QFNs? Custom rules are a necessity.