What areas of OrCAD Capture would users like to see improved?

jgregoire said:

When placing a CIS part, I should be able to select which Manufacturer Part and Distributor Part I want! I don't want to have to print 6 alternate part columns just to get the part I want to export to the BOM.

That's unusual.   Are you selecting alternates for tolerance, voltage rating, resonant frequencies, etc?   DigiKey/Mouser.  We've had to pull back a couple of designs because an LDO or a switch/connector suddenly went months leadtime zero stock.

If it isn't an equivalent, I believe you should create a separate CIS part. 

Parts availability issues/obsolescence issues should not force a schematic spin.  Operations needs a short list of equivalent parts interchangeable for fit, manufacturing, and more important:  performance and regulatory.   

We have given up capturing Digikey/Mouser information.  Instead, we put the primary manufacturer/MPN field in CIS along with an OctoPart web search URL.  Included on each BOM line item, it saves purchasing hours of time finding the right parts to build a kit.

Engineers tend to capture designs on a D-size sheet so they won't have to tangle with off-sheet connectors.

I get it.  Get the design captured, then structure the schematic for flow and readability.

It would really help if there was a special method to make an identical copy of a sheet so I can subdivide the page (delete stuff) without designators changing.

I work on programs with a wide range of QA requirements. On some, I can buy parts from just about anyone. On others, I can only buy from particular approved vendors. For example, Mouser is generally great, but they do not provide part traceability documentation, so I cannot use them on programs with strict QA.

On some programs we procure all parts ahead of time, give them program-specific PNs, and keep them in inventory. In that case, I would like to use *us* as the vendor in CIS so that when I export Vendor/Vendor PN to the BOM, it populates with our company name and program-specific PN. We found this to be a good way to make it clear to assemblers on partial turnkey or consigned orders, where each part is coming from. I do all that manually right now, and it leads to mistakes.

If you value your sanity, avoid working anywhere with ISO:9001/AS9100 QA. :)

This behavior drives me nuts. Our mechanical designers use C and D size by default, but the largest printer we have is 11x17. Good luck reading those dimensions...

In ECAD land we stick to B (default) and A. Almost every reasonable subcircuit fits on 1 B-size page.

Our purchasing support victim would love that.  But, RF designs, we have to outmaneuver tier-1's who, on reflex, buy entire inventories of that inductor or capacitor we need for a notch filter.  We don't pass regulatory emissions if we don't test equivalent parts first.