Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture
Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture
The BOM table has been broken forever, and it would be better to just remove it. It never reflects any changes that have been made to the schematic, so users can get in trouble by relying on it to be accurate. I would rather just know that I must create my own BOM manually than expect to have the BOM be an accurate representation of the current schematic.
Re: Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture
You can delete BOM table if any changes have been made in schematic and place new BOM table. There is no auto update in BOM but other than that the feature is fully functional and works correctly.
Re: Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture
Well, of course, that is what I have had to do, and that's the problem. If you don't think that having to delete the table and place a new one for any changes is fully functional, then you are the problem. Really??
Re: Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture
Please keep BOM as is. I use BOM feature with every PCB design and always remember to delete-and-update BOM when I change something. Never thought this might be such a problem for somebody that he'd prefer not to have it at all...
All those I know who use DT all of them use BOM.
P.S. In general I think that the feature set and easiness of use of DT relative to it's price makes it above competition. Those who are greatly upset due to missing features (I know there are many) should buy Altium or Cadence and they'll get all the features.
All those I know who use DT all of them use BOM.
P.S. In general I think that the feature set and easiness of use of DT relative to it's price makes it above competition. Those who are greatly upset due to missing features (I know there are many) should buy Altium or Cadence and they'll get all the features.
Re: Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture
For me the current BOM feature is quite OK, at least as far as updating tables are concerned.
I am sure there are lots of users that do what i do: always write the BOM to a file. I don't hand over design files to PCB manufacturers, only gerbers, BOM, PnP and possibly assembly images. A table in a schematic would not be useful there.
At the same time it would be nice if the layer stack could also be written to a file. Now it can only be placed as a table in the board layout and must be manually copied from there.
I am sure there are lots of users that do what i do: always write the BOM to a file. I don't hand over design files to PCB manufacturers, only gerbers, BOM, PnP and possibly assembly images. A table in a schematic would not be useful there.
At the same time it would be nice if the layer stack could also be written to a file. Now it can only be placed as a table in the board layout and must be manually copied from there.
Re: Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture
It's disappointing to see users who are so willing to accept a non-associative BOM in their EDA. I have used a variety of EDAs over the years, and every one that had a BOM feature automatically updated to reflect any changes. Of course, we don't hand over our BOM to a PCB fabricator; we use it for our own ERP system during development of prototypes for new products. During that process, there are bound to be many changes and tweaks, and having a dependably up-to-date BOM displayed with the current schematic is essential for tracking collaborative changes. It's my understanding that DT is written in Delphi. It's my favorite dev IDE as well, and I know that it is trivial to update database tables (we use DBISAM, but Object Pascal has myriad databases). It makes me wonder if DT is file-based rather than DB table-based--I note that component searches are very slow, as if they are brute-force searching through files, rather than indexed tables. In any event, it would be so easy to fix, it's just silly that it hasn't been done, after all this time. Perhaps they're just not motivated to do so, because some people are so willing to accept broken features.
Re: Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture
"willing to accept broken features" - a speculative play of words. DT understandably does not have every feature of, say, Cadence or Altium, that means their absence is a "broken feature" , right ? If we needed all the features of Cadence or Altium, then we'd surely buy one of those instead. But DT has all the features we need and also our newcomers learn it fast even if they didn't have any experience with ECAD. We don't except truly "broken" features and my complaints posted in this forum indicate that and BTW all of them were solved. But our generated BOMs are never broken. I think that it is not a "broken feature" to not have automatic BOM update but it is a "broken mind" which does not remember to make 3 mouse clicks to update it.
I wonder why those users who got used to more elaborate ECAD software decide to switch to DT ? What is your reason? To find the "broken features" ?
I wonder why those users who got used to more elaborate ECAD software decide to switch to DT ? What is your reason? To find the "broken features" ?
Re: Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture
What a lot of pathetic excuses you wove for that reply. You totally changed the context of my post, just so you could justify your "straw man" argument. I wasn't complaining about missing features; I was complaining about an existing feature that has remained broken from the beginning. Further, I already indicated in my original post that I have been re-inserting BOMs to COMPENSATE for the non-associative BOM, so there's nothing broken about my mind (apparently, there is about yours, if you didn't comprehend that), That is the essence of the PROBLEM in the first place. There was nothing speculative about my complaint. It is a fact that a BOM should update to reflect the current state of the design. The fact that you are claiming otherwise makes you look silly.
Re: Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture
Having never used 'Insert BOM object I tried it; Sample 6 PCB found the components were not built fully, no value, manufacture, had to change grouping to name, value from components then when I place the BOM it was useful.
As far as having a BOM on a schematic while designing, never happen. If I saw someone doing that I would fire them as wasting time and resources.
As far as asking to have the BOM updated in real-time; from a programming prospective you would need to check every time something was changed/removed/added, compare it to all parts on the schematic, re-sort the BOM and redraw the entire BOM on the schematic, mean while the user is having to wait on his less then optimum machine to perform the extra processing, all that for something that few use and fewer would use it they had to wait while it updated the BOM. My BOM is processed by the suppliers using their API and returned with availability and pricing -
If DT dropped everything to make what I call a 'WINE' change the push & shove gets pushed back yet again.
The 'Insert BOM' is not broken, it was designed to do exactly what it does and it works perfectly, your labeling the feature as broken shows your lack of understanding and reality in general, your post on 4/11/2023 convinces me I'm right.
Please visit and sing along:
As far as having a BOM on a schematic while designing, never happen. If I saw someone doing that I would fire them as wasting time and resources.
As far as asking to have the BOM updated in real-time; from a programming prospective you would need to check every time something was changed/removed/added, compare it to all parts on the schematic, re-sort the BOM and redraw the entire BOM on the schematic, mean while the user is having to wait on his less then optimum machine to perform the extra processing, all that for something that few use and fewer would use it they had to wait while it updated the BOM. My BOM is processed by the suppliers using their API and returned with availability and pricing -
If DT dropped everything to make what I call a 'WINE' change the push & shove gets pushed back yet again.
The 'Insert BOM' is not broken, it was designed to do exactly what it does and it works perfectly, your labeling the feature as broken shows your lack of understanding and reality in general, your post on 4/11/2023 convinces me I'm right.
Please visit and sing along:
Re: Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture
"Having never used 'Insert BOM object I tried it; Sample 6 PCB found the components were not built fully, no value, manufacture, had to change grouping to name, value from components then when I place the BOM it was useful."
So you are saying that you didn't prep your components with appropriate fields that contain meaningful information, and are disappointed that your BOM didn't didn't contain that information. Big surprise. One of the nicest features of DT (and don't get me wrong--there are many that I appreciate) is that you can create custom fields to do just that, and once having done so, they're reusable in future projects. That information then becomes easy to propagate from beginning to end within the design process. It just takes some up-front preparation. a
"As far as having a BOM on a schematic while designing, never happen. If I saw someone doing that I would fire them as wasting time and resources." Then what's your problem with my asking to just remove the feature, if it's so irrelevant? You make no sense.
I don't want the BOM on a schematic; It's for export to CSV to our ERP system and pick & place systems and for collaboration among other engineers.
"As far as asking to have the BOM updated in real-time; from a programming prospective you would need to check every time something was changed/removed/added, compare it to all parts on the schematic, re-sort the BOM and redraw the entire BOM on the schematic, mean while the user is having to wait on his less then optimum machine to perform the extra processing, all that for something that few use and fewer would use it they had to wait while it updated the BOM."
That comment shows that you know nothing about programming. What you describe is a trivial process, and takes milliseconds (if that). A single Boolean field can flag any changes, and indexed fields/SQL statements make sorting quite easy. What are you using, a machine with MS-DOS?? In addition to being a engineer (MSEE) I also code in assembler, C++, C#, Pascal (Delphi Alexandria), Python, Java, JS using various modern databases as appropriate.
"My BOM is processed by the suppliers using their API and returned with availability and pricing "
Big deal. so are mine. I have integrated with most of our suppliers (Digi-Key ([damned Oauth2]/Mouser/Arrow/Newark, etc.), and did the integration to our ERP/MRP (which I coded) myself. How did you GENERATE that BOM--manually? Save your juvenile attempts at sarcasm with your cartoon (which evinces your maturity level).
BTW, it's ironic that you're whining (that's how it's spelled) your precious push-and-shove (which is difficult to implement) and excusing an easy task like a properly associative BOM.
So you are saying that you didn't prep your components with appropriate fields that contain meaningful information, and are disappointed that your BOM didn't didn't contain that information. Big surprise. One of the nicest features of DT (and don't get me wrong--there are many that I appreciate) is that you can create custom fields to do just that, and once having done so, they're reusable in future projects. That information then becomes easy to propagate from beginning to end within the design process. It just takes some up-front preparation. a
"As far as having a BOM on a schematic while designing, never happen. If I saw someone doing that I would fire them as wasting time and resources." Then what's your problem with my asking to just remove the feature, if it's so irrelevant? You make no sense.
I don't want the BOM on a schematic; It's for export to CSV to our ERP system and pick & place systems and for collaboration among other engineers.
"As far as asking to have the BOM updated in real-time; from a programming prospective you would need to check every time something was changed/removed/added, compare it to all parts on the schematic, re-sort the BOM and redraw the entire BOM on the schematic, mean while the user is having to wait on his less then optimum machine to perform the extra processing, all that for something that few use and fewer would use it they had to wait while it updated the BOM."
That comment shows that you know nothing about programming. What you describe is a trivial process, and takes milliseconds (if that). A single Boolean field can flag any changes, and indexed fields/SQL statements make sorting quite easy. What are you using, a machine with MS-DOS?? In addition to being a engineer (MSEE) I also code in assembler, C++, C#, Pascal (Delphi Alexandria), Python, Java, JS using various modern databases as appropriate.
"My BOM is processed by the suppliers using their API and returned with availability and pricing "
Big deal. so are mine. I have integrated with most of our suppliers (Digi-Key ([damned Oauth2]/Mouser/Arrow/Newark, etc.), and did the integration to our ERP/MRP (which I coded) myself. How did you GENERATE that BOM--manually? Save your juvenile attempts at sarcasm with your cartoon (which evinces your maturity level).
BTW, it's ironic that you're whining (that's how it's spelled) your precious push-and-shove (which is difficult to implement) and excusing an easy task like a properly associative BOM.