up vote 12 down vote favorite
3

I've noted that really often, questions require the use of schematics, and answers too.

Since I've seen some online editors, why not to embed one also here, so even editing these questions would became easier?

link
2  
Sounds like a great deal of development work. This kind of software is never easy to use if it works well because the problem is so complex. Who's going to sit down and learn another one just to answer forum posts? Certainly not me. I'll continue to draw schematics in Eagle, export them as images, filter and convert them with a canned script I have for that purpose, then paste the GIF file result here. – Olin Lathrop Feb 1 at 14:23
1  
But I think that a simple editor with the most common discrete components and blocks for the more complicated ones could be working; and instead of writing one, maybe there was the possibility to embed an applet from an existing one. – clabacchio Feb 1 at 14:28
Yucc, more flaky HTML scripting and local execution. This site is already riddled with bugs from too much gratuitous use of such things. Also, there is no such thing as a "simple" schematic editor that has any utility. Go use whatever you normally use and export a image. What's the problem? – Olin Lathrop Feb 1 at 19:21
@OlinLathrop the problem is not mine, as I know Eagle and even Paint if needed, but was for the new users that don't know how to design schematics, and usually don't post them; in this way other users could also have the possibility to clean the schematics or correct them...but it's an idea – clabacchio Feb 1 at 19:53
1  
@OlinLathrop: What bugs? Gratuitous use of what things? – endolith Feb 1 at 20:57
1  
@endolith: There are all kinds of little things that don't work right, show up in the wrong place, don't display, etc. It's also quite different on my systems at work and home. Like the users display with some that have shadows and rep and others not randomly, the bad scrolling, collapsed code listing in some cases, the junk at the bottom of the page obscuring the SUBMIT POST button so it can't be cliked, can't up vote comments sometimes, etc, etc, etc. Stick to basic HTML and such things don't happen. – Olin Lathrop Feb 2 at 0:42
1  
@OlinLathrop: I haven't experienced any of those. "Basic HTML" like 1990s style? – endolith Feb 2 at 2:21
@OlinLathrop I see some of these problems at work, where I have to use Internet Explorer (sadly) and it goes in compatibility mode...with Chrome never seen artifacts. – clabacchio Feb 2 at 7:11
@clabacchio: I was going to experiment with Chrome, but it's not supported on Windows 2000, which is what one of the machines I am frequently on is running. – Olin Lathrop Feb 3 at 17:01
3  
@OlinLathrop time to change :P – clabacchio Feb 3 at 19:10
1  
Windows 2000, wow. =) So you're probably on IE6 then I take it? Time to move on: ie6countdown.com – Craig Feb 4 at 2:11
1  
@clabacchio: Yes, Windows 2000 is old. But it runs what I need it to run and I have a bunch of licenses. I don't see the point spending dollars to upgrade and then a lot of time configuring everything, reloading apps, etc. There is no upside. – Olin Lathrop Feb 6 at 16:52
4  
@OlinLathrop the upside is seeing ee.stackexchange correctly! :) Anyway, I understand, but maybe you could try Firefox, that in the older versions works in every machine and it's known to be better than IE... – clabacchio Feb 6 at 19:25
1  
@OlinLathrop I can't fathom using Win 2000 in these day and age. O possible solution: Install Win 7 and use a (free) virtual machine software to run Win 2000 and the software you need – m.Alin Apr 12 at 22:52
feedback

6 Answers

up vote 8 down vote

I'm one of the developers of the CircuitLab online schematic editor and circuit simulator, which we released publicly just a few weeks after this question was asked. You can draw and simulate a circuit, save it, click "Make public", and you've instantly got a circuit URL plus schematic images to share. It's also usable for "schematic only" (non-simulated) operation, where you just want to lay out ICs as blocks, etc. We have cross-tab copy+paste, so you can load someone else's circuit, select a bunch of components, hit Ctrl+C, switch to your clean schematic tab, and hit Ctrl+V and you're all set. 100% in-browser, no Flash/Java plugins required, fully Windows/Mac OS X/Linux compatible.

For an example from a EE.SE question, see Diode reverse recovery time and the corresponding CircuitLab page and simulation:

diode reverse recovery time

We have a big to-do list of simulation and schematic capture features that we're working to add, so I'm not sure that we have the engineering resources to devote to making an "embedded" version of the editor at this time. However, I'm just curious to see if something similar is something the community might be interested in? Similar to how the User Experience stackexchange site embedded Balsamiq.

link
I tried to simulate this circuit, which is the same I've seen in a question; something went wrong, because I don't see the output charging. Also, I would like to see/put dots in intersection between wires, and a less tricky transient analysis. – clabacchio Mar 28 at 13:00
Hi @clabacchio, I made two tiny changes to your circuit (see my description) and it works! Dots on intersections are definitely on the to-do list -- coming soon. "Less tricky" is vague but we think it's already pretty easy to use and have a few ideas in the pipeline. Thanks for giving it a try. – compumike Mar 28 at 17:54
Thanks! I thought that since it was without supplies it would have worked...Anyway for quick simulations, I still find Falstad quicker, that's what I meant... – clabacchio Mar 28 at 18:06
@clabacchio: Falstad's applet definitely provided some inspiration for what can be done in the browser! We think CircuitLab has some nice features in a number of areas: accurate SPICE-like component models and dynamic behavior, frequency domain simulation, parameter sweep simulations, multi-user save/share/edit workflow, hosted (and pretty) schematic images, support for "schematic only" (non-simulated) circuits with custom IC blocks... We haven't exposed this too publicly yet, but we've also got a growing repository of user-generated public circuits. – compumike Mar 28 at 18:20
Indeed, it's awesome and I've already tried to use it for an answer :) – clabacchio Mar 28 at 18:29
My thoughts are, go write yourself up an answer to this question and continue doing the awesome way of advertising (as I have told you before). If it starts to become an (informal) standard for the site then I would recommend pursuing a more tightly integrated connection at that point. – Kellenjb Mar 28 at 20:54
Why can't I find a quick export to image? I see only pdf...it would be awesome an export function like the snipping tool, with an adequate resolution for this site like VGA or smaller – clabacchio Mar 29 at 6:23
feedback
up vote 4 down vote

Maybe a collaboration with Upverter? Though their circuits are very... blocky. They have PNG export, though.

enter image description here

link
1  
awesome!!! however, I'm appreciating also Falstad simulator! – clabacchio Feb 6 at 14:46
2  
That's way better looking than the mess from the Falstad simulator. I don't like how the text is vertical for all vertical components though. I'd be embarassed showing that to a customer and really don't want to see a lot of that here either. – Olin Lathrop Feb 6 at 17:00
The wires are all auto-routed, which would be good if it always worked perfectly, but it doesn't, so it isn't. – endolith Feb 6 at 19:41
@endolith: Use whatever your favorite schematic capture software is, export image (they can all do that as far as I know), and post that. – Olin Lathrop Feb 7 at 17:08
2  
@OlinLathrop: That's not a solution; that's the problem we're trying to solve. – endolith Feb 7 at 17:20
It's pretty hard to read some of the text on this one, if it was a link to a larger resolution image that would be helpful – Jim Feb 11 at 14:26
Just done a view image and have seen that it is a larger resolution than image shown, doh! – Jim Feb 11 at 14:30
feedback
up vote 4 down vote

I suggested using Falstad simulator a while ago, which is free for such use and can be embedded in a page

two-inverter momentary toggle

Also has an option for a white background:

enter image description here

So most of it is implemented already, but it would be best if there were a way for the poster to edit the circuit and press Save instead of having to copy and paste the raw code into their post.

link
1  
I'll vote for using the Falstad simulator, been using it for a few weeks now and I think it's pretty good. It does lack certain things, such as simulating enhancement mode MOSFETs, but it would certainly be useful for most applications. You can even download it and run it offline, which is nice. – Jim Feb 6 at 12:01
1  
@Jim: I asked the author for URL export, and he implemented it within the day. He's open to adding more parts, but doesn't have time. Since it's open source and we have permission to modify it, we can add them, too. – endolith Feb 6 at 14:21
2  
Yucc. If schematics look like above, then this Falstad thing should not only not be implemented but outright banned! Even if the stupid yellow turds are optional, you have proven it's possible to export a image with them turned on, and provided one existance of someone being too lazy to turn off private features before exporting the schematic for others to see. If you posted a question with such a mess, I'd probably downvote it. – Olin Lathrop Feb 6 at 16:57
2  
@OlinLathrop: This is an interactive applet, not a static image. The speed of the yellow dots illustrates the flow of current through the circuit, and should definitely be on by default. See electronics.stackexchange.com/a/13753/142 for an example of them helping someone. – endolith Feb 6 at 19:28
1  
@endolith: No, I just want to see the circuit someone is asking about. Those yellow turds are annoying and cause confusion. I shouldn't have to, and certainly don't want to spend the time to, know how to use yet another tool like that. I want people to simply show me nice, neat, readable, well labled, uncluttered, static schematics of the circuits they are asking about. – Olin Lathrop Feb 6 at 22:02
2  
@OlinLathrop: You don't have to use it if you don't want to. – endolith Feb 6 at 22:43
@endolith: Yes, but we'll all be having to look at the resulting messes. It's best to not invite them in the first place, especially since this is such a solved problem already. – Olin Lathrop Feb 7 at 14:29
1  
@OlinLathrop: It's a solved problem? What do you mean? What's the solution? – endolith Feb 7 at 15:53
@endolith - The current solution is to design the circuit in our capable schematic capture programs on the PC, and upload an image. – Kevin Vermeer♦ Feb 9 at 9:27
1  
@KevinVermeer: You'll still be able to do that if you want, but that's certainly not a "solution". – endolith Feb 9 at 15:49
@clabacchio: What do you mean? – endolith Feb 27 at 18:56
Since Falstad runs as an external applet from the browser, it should be possible to include a link to it in the "Question" or "Answer" box, since the author is so open... – clabacchio Feb 27 at 19:50
@clabacchio: The author gives permission to make copies and modify the applet, so it could be hosted on stack exchange servers with our own modifications. – endolith Feb 28 at 0:36
That's basically what I mean : (removed the previous comments) – clabacchio Feb 28 at 7:07
I'll also point out that Falstad is a Java applet, which is a clunky and old-fashioned solution. I'd much prefer something better looking and more modern like the CircuitLab page. – Kevin Vermeer♦ Mar 28 at 20:39
feedback
up vote 1 down vote

Before we ask the time-strapped devs to embed some online schematic editor, let's look at the problem and determine what we need.

What do we have now?

We all have schematic capture programs on our PCs. They're high-quality pieces of software that we're intimately familiar with and that we may have paid a lot of money for. Additionally, the designs that we're talking about are usually already in that format, we've just got to grab the screenshot. We've mastered the learning curve, and can use them efficiently. Furthermore, they're linked into a toolchain that can generate PCBs and possibly simulations, and if not, we've got programs for that too. Why are these programs inadequate?

Why is this inadequate?

I can see two arguments against the continued use of desktop-only editors.

It's not in-browser

First, the desktop-only editors require you to launch an app outside of your browser. My response to this is that if it increases the effort requirement and removes some low-quality answers, then that's a pro and not a con. It's not that onerous to alt-tab out of the browser and into your schematic editor.

It's not editable

Second, the desktop-only editors don't allow editing the schematic when it's uploaded as an image. You might draw parallels to Stack Overflow users posting screenshots of code - Sure, they've all got text editors, but there's value in making the content easy to copy/paste and edit.

Conclusion

I'd love to see an online, editable schematic capture program that we all knew and with which we could edit schematics. I simply don't think the benefits are worth the sacrifices.

link
Yup, +1. I've posted a bunch of schematic snippets here and never really considered it a problem. – Olin Lathrop Feb 9 at 16:04
feedback
up vote 1 down vote

I think this is an excellent idea. I would certainly love to be able to edit schematics directly in the questions and answers. Maybe it's just me, but my workflow for adding a schematic to an answer goes something like this.

  1. Launch Altium - wait
  2. New schematic - wait
  3. Search through several libraries to find the components I want
  4. Draw schematic
  5. Carefully edit each component designator, otherwise Altium puts red error wiggles everywhere
  6. Screen cap
  7. Launch paint program - wait
  8. remove all the grey grid if I can be bothered (tedious)
  9. Crop image
  10. reduce colours to 256
  11. save as PNG
  12. back to browser
  13. upload image
  14. realise I made a mistake in the schematic
  15. delete the image from the answer
  16. back to Altium
  17. Goto step 4

I sometimes find myself going round this loop several times at the expense of about half an hour.

I think that certain people are objecting to an in-browser because it's something they don't yet have. I expect that if we already had one, and clabacchio suggested getting rid of it, then those same people would be up in arms, explaining in detail why this was a bad idea.

link
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

I've just come across http://www.diagram.ly/ which might be helpful as an online editor, as it does have electrical symbols.

link
It seems nice, but it's not for schematics, it's just a diagram editor... – clabacchio Apr 19 at 20:32
feedback

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged