Talk:DipTrace

Spam (Resolved)

Autotrax? Why is there a significant portion of an article about Diptrace dedicated to this Autotrax? It's hardly the only or main competitor to Diptrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.119.158 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2010‎ (UTC+0)

Resolved: Spam relating to Autotrax was added to the article on 19 May 2010‎, deleted on 25 May 2010‎ --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Other sources

Is it just me, or does the "other sources" section seem like it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article? Felixphew (Talk | Contribs) 20:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Independent sources to address the reliability tag

Disclosure: I'm affiliated with Novarm/DipTrace (see my user page). Per WP:COI I'm not editing the article directly — I'm proposing sources here for uninvolved editors to evaluate.

The article currently carries a source-reliability tag. Below are independent, secondary/third-party sources that name and discuss DipTrace, which may help address it:

1. ASEE 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition — peer-reviewed paper, "Development and Assessment of a PCB Layout and Manufacturing Laboratory Module in Introductory Electric Circuits for EE and Non-EE Majors" (California Polytechnic State University). Names DipTrace as the PCB design tool taught in the course. https://peer.asee.org/development-and-assessment-of-a-pcb-layout-and-manufacturing-laboratory-module-in-introductory-electric-circuits-for-ee-and-non-ee-majors.pdf (mirror: https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/ime_fac/66/ )
2. Cal Poly / ASEE — "A Project-Based Electronics Manufacturing Laboratory" (Jianbiao Pan, California Polytechnic State University). The authors compare several PCB tools against defined selection criteria and select DipTrace for the course — an independent, reasoned evaluation rather than a passing mention. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=ime_fac
3. University College London, Dept. of Electronic & Electrical Engineering — departmental teaching-lab page recommends DipTrace as its PCB design software. https://intranet.ee.ucl.ac.uk/facilities/teaching-lab/pcb (see also https://www.ucl.ac.uk/electronic-electrical-engineering/study/life-eee )
4. Southern Illinois University, School of Electrical, Computer & Biomedical Engineering — lists DipTrace among the software installed in its Electronics I and II teaching labs. https://ecbe.siu.edu/laboratories/

Separately, the existing claim "In January 2011, Parallax switched from EAGLE to DipTrace" is currently cited to a DipTrace forum post (a primary, affiliated source). I'd actually suggest removing or softening it rather than keeping it: I could not locate an independent secondary source for it, the relationship was a commercial distribution partnership (Parallax became a US distributor of DipTrace), and Parallax later moved to other tools. I'm flagging this against my own interest because the article is better without a weakly-sourced affiliated claim.

I'll leave all article edits to uninvolved editors. Thanks. Viktor Savenko (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: sourcing and infobox updates

Disclosure: I'm affiliated with Novarm/DipTrace (see my user page). Per WP:COI I'm not editing the article directly. This is a follow-up to my June 19 post above, now filed as a formal edit request. Four specific changes:

1. Source-reliability tag (November 2018). In the section above I listed four independent sources that name and discuss DipTrace: two peer-reviewed ASEE/Cal Poly papers (one of which compares several PCB tools against defined criteria before selecting DipTrace), a University College London teaching-lab page, and a Southern Illinois University lab software listing. I'd suggest they support a sentence in the article such as: "DipTrace is used as a teaching tool in university electronics courses, including at California Polytechnic State University, University College London, and Southern Illinois University." Full URLs are in the section above.

2. Please remove the Parallax sentence. The claim "In January 2011, Parallax switched from EAGLE to DipTrace" is cited to reference [10], a page on the DipTrace website — a primary, affiliated source. I could not find independent secondary coverage for it, the relationship was a commercial distribution arrangement, and Parallax has since moved to other tools. I'm requesting removal of a claim that is favourable to my own company, because the article is better without a weakly-sourced affiliated statement.

3. Infobox — stable release. Currently "5.2.0.4 / 2 December 2025". Please update to "5.3.0.2 / 15 July 2026", per the official download page: https://diptrace.com/download/download-diptrace/ (primary source, but acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF for an uncontroversial factual detail about the product).

4. Infobox — operating systems. Currently "Windows XP to 10; Linux (Wine); macOS Catalina & Big Sur". Please update to "Windows XP to 11; Linux (Wine); macOS 10.15.4 Catalina or later", per the same download page.

I'll leave all article edits to uninvolved editors. Thanks. Viktor Savenko (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done   Spintendo  19:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: neutrality cleanup with independent sourcing

I am affiliated with Novarm Ltd. and DipTrace, as disclosed on my user page. Because of this conflict of interest, I am not making these edits myself and would prefer uninvolved editors to review them.

Thanks to User:Spintendo for the August edits, in particular the removal of the Parallax section.

A promotional tag was added in August. Looking through the article again, I think some of the feature descriptions may be part of the problem. Several are written more like product descriptions than encyclopedia text. I tried to replace these with shorter factual descriptions supported by independent sources.

The main source I used is:

• Akanksha Sondhi Gaur, DipTrace: A Practical EDA Tool for Modern PCB Engineering, Electronics For You, 24 December 2025.
• https://www.electronicsforu.com/technology-trends/diptrace-a-practical-eda-tool-for-modern-pcb-engineering

There is also an older Designline blog review by Adam Carlson published by EE Times:

• Adam Carlson, Getting Started With the DipTrace PCB Design Tool, Designline blog, EE Times, 6 December 2013.
• https://www.eetimes.com/getting-started-with-the-diptrace-pcb-design-tool/
• Page 2 (routing and 3D preview): https://www.eetimes.com/getting-started-with-the-diptrace-pcb-design-tool/2/

There is an important difference between the two sources because they describe the software twelve years apart. The 2013 review describes an autorouter without impedance or length matching and notes that STEP export was not available at the time. These features were added later, so I use the 2025 article for the current capabilities and the 2013 article only where it describes features available at that time.

Here are the changes I am proposing.

1. Schematic editor

Current text

"Advanced circuit design tool with support of multi-sheet and multi-level hierarchical schematics that delivers a number of features for visual and logical pin connections."

Suggested text

"The schematic editor supports hierarchical and multi-sheet schematic capture and SPICE integration for circuit validation."

Source: Electronics For You. The first page of the EE Times article also describes hierarchical blocks and multi-sheet schematics.

2. PCB editor

Current text

"Engineering tool for board design with smart manual routing, differential pairs, length-matching tools, shape-based autorouter, advanced verification, layer stackup manager, and wide import/export capabilities. Design requirements are defined by net classes, class-to-class rules, and detailed settings by object types for each class or layer. When routing with real-time DRC, the program reports errors on the fly before actually making them."

Suggested text

"The PCB layout editor provides shape-based autorouting and push-and-shove manual routing, real-time design-rule checking, and support for high-speed and differential-pair routing."

Source: Electronics For You. Page 2 of the EE Times article also describes the autorouter as it existed in 2013.

3. 3D preview

Current text

"Rotate board in three axes, zoom in and out in real time, change colors of the board, copper areas, solder mask, silkscreen, and background."

Suggested text

"The suite provides 3D preview of the assembled board and STEP export for mechanical verification."

Source: Electronics For You. Page 2 of the EE Times article describes the 3D preview available in 2013 and notes that STEP support was absent at that time.

4. Features section

The current list includes wording such as "Simple user interface", "Advanced verifications with real-time DRC", and "Wide import/export compatibility". "Simple", "advanced", and "wide" are subjective descriptions. The underlying features, including real-time DRC, can instead be stated directly.

I suggest replacing these descriptions with:

"Hierarchical and multi-sheet schematic capture; shape-based autorouting and push-and-shove manual routing; real-time design-rule checking; high-speed and differential-pair routing; 3D preview with STEP export; import/export compatibility including Gerber, IPC-2581C and ODB++."

Source: Electronics For You. The older EE Times article also covers hierarchical and multi-sheet schematics on page 1, and the autorouter and 3D preview on page 2.

5. Quantitative claims

The article currently says:

• "More than 7500 3D models of PCB packages are supplied for free."
• "More than 140000 components in standard libraries."

These numbers appear to come from the developer and may change over time. I think the simplest option would be to remove them. If editors prefer to keep them, they should at least be attributed to the developer.

The 2013 EE Times article mentions a library of more than 100,000 parts at that time, but that does not verify the current figure of more than 140,000.

The developer's own FAQ currently gives a different figure (160,000+), which illustrates why I think these numbers are better left out — they change between releases and go stale in the article.

I am not asking for the promotional tag, or any other maintenance tag, to be removed as part of this request. That is for uninvolved editors to decide after reviewing the article.

Thanks for taking a look.

Viktor Savenko (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)