Please remove the BOM feature from Schematic Capture

[xfer]

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.

[Alex]

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.

[xfer]

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??

[bird]

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.

[mpaalanen]

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.

[xfer]

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.

[bird]

"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" ?