I’m new to this forum and just got troubles while working back to a project I designed last year.
I designed a small 2-layer smd board using KiCad and routed it using TopoR last year.
The actual version works, but definitely needs minor corrections and I would like to improve it as well.
My TopoR demo ended and due to an account bug on their site, I can’t buy a single user licence, and the team won’t respond to my emails.
I would like to know what best alternative router I can use. I must say that I never tried to route using Kicad so if you recommend it, I’ll quickly move there provided that my TopoR files can be imported without trouble. All I need is an efficient router like TopoR (I am of course NOT saying that Kicad is worse as I know nothing about its router).
My other question concerns footprints but the answer may be straightforward. I may use, for example, some small “stamp” modules (for example, a Blueooth receiver or similar). Is there a footprint compilation which avoids searching for a specific type each time I add a module to a project ?
Why not (manual) route your boards in KiCAD? It gives you no licensing headache, manual routing certainly for small boards is not difficult, you might find it is therapeutical and the results are often better (though one does need to know fundamentals of EE).
In addition to the routing capabilities, KiCAD has a symbol and footprint designer which are also not difficult to operate.
Autorouters are tools that can be powerful, but they are quite difficult to use in any useful manner. Usually the result is quite bad and cleanup after an autorouter can take more time than routing the board manually in the first place. Autorouters also tend to need more board space to route a PCB than manual routing.
Currently there is no autorouter integrated into KiCad, and (as far as I know) it’s also very low on the priority list.
KiCad instead uses the concept of an “interactive router”. You route the tracks manually, but with some extra features that can push multiple tracks and via’s aside to make room for more via’s and tracks, and this works quite well.
On top of that, making a PCB is much more then routing tracks between pads until the DRC errors are gone, and autorouters generally have no clue about these extra constraints.
My opinion is also that you should learn about PCB design and routing boards manually before even attempting to use an autorouter.
KiCad has a footprint library with the name “Module” which has a number of modules that can be placed on a PCB:
It does not have very many of these modules though. On the other hand, KiCad has a pretty good Footprint Editor, and after a small learning curve you can make more of such footprints quite easily, and over time you can build up a library of the modules you use yourself.
Thanks for your advises.
I made a few manual corrections under KiCad to improve my initial design (moving three tracks and two vias located under the small module to avoid shorts).
Another idea is to addi a third layer for Vcc but this may increase the manufacturing costs (the boards are made and assembled by PCBWay).
Finally, the two main goals I would love to achieve are 1) to suppress the small module I’m using by using its parts directly on my board and 2) add Bluetooth for audio output (same thing there: either an existing module or a specific chip which is enough easy to handle without adding a CPU and ROM for example.
Number of layers usually come in even numbers. So 2 or 4 layers. This is inherent in the way PCB’s are made. A 4 layer PCB is significantly more expensive then a 2 layer PCB, but 4 layer PCB’s offer easier routing and better EMC compliance because tracks are closer to the GND plane, and the extra layers make it easier to keep the GND plane continuous.
I do not understand:
Why not just make a schematic symbol for the module and incude it on the PCB and BOM as a module? How else do you want to add connections in the netlist to the module?
I meant avoiding using the small module by putting its components directly on the board, although this might increase the manufacturing costs considering that the module costs about $2.50.
The module I’m using has a number of micro smd parts, and I have not found its schematic (there are typical schematics on the chip datasheet however).
Another compatible module requires adapting my software, but uses a similar chip, with only a crystal and about two smd caps. Much easier to deal with despite the software works.
Another approach is to redesign the board around another chip, but I’ll have to think about it.
So far the board works but needs a few minor improvements.
Avoiding the module or using another chip is for later.
Right now I would much prefer adding a Bluetooth audio output (although I could use some existing modules, which may limit my design to their availability in the future).
