Searching \ for '[EE]: question for EAGLE users' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/pcbs.htm?key=eagle
Search entire site for: 'question for EAGLE users'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]: question for EAGLE users'
2005\04\28@083043 by J. Gromlich

flavicon
face
Two years ago, when I was working for a different company, I used the PADs PCB package from (now) Mentor Graphics. It is a very expensive product, and beyond the needs of my present company. These days I use Eagle, which I am actually quite pleased with.

Sometimes the Schematic and the PCB get out of synch - IC4 is one thing in the Schematic and something else on the PCB.
In any case, the last PADs revision I worked with had a really neat feature - it would generate a differences list between the Schematic data base and the PCB layout data base.  It would analyze the data base and display, in side-by-side form, all the differences between the Schematic & the PCB.  You could then do an edit for each instance (object/item) to make the PCB agree with the Schematic, or to make the Schematic agree with the PCB. When you were done there would be only one design data base with (hopefully) the proper entries for everything, thus generating a BOM produced correct & consistent results.

Does anyone know of anything similar for Eagle?

Roy J. Gromlich  -  Senior Engineer
Renaissance Technologies
5000 Ritter Road  Suite 202
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-691-7090

2005\04\28@215029 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
I believe you want to do an ERC. Though if you have the schematic and
the PCB open at the same time, I don't think it should be possible to
get out of sync.

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

On 4/28/05, Roy J. Gromlich <spam_OUTrgromlichTakeThisOuTspammail.renaissance-tech.com> wrote:
> Sometimes the Schematic and the PCB get out of synch - IC4 is one thing in the Schematic and something else on the PCB.
> In any case, the last PADs revision I worked with had a really neat feature - it would generate a differences list between the Schematic data base and the PCB layout data base.  It would analyze the data base and display, in side-by-side form, all the differences between the Schematic & the PCB.  You could then do an edit for each instance (object/item) to make the PCB agree with the Schematic, or to make the Schematic agree with the PCB. When you were done there would be only one design data base with (hopefully) the proper entries for everything, thus generating a BOM produced correct & consistent results.

2005\04\29@071500 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Josh Koffman wrote:
>> Sometimes the Schematic and the PCB get out of synch - IC4 is one
>> thing in the Schematic and something else on the PCB.
>> In any case, the last PADs revision I worked with had a really neat
>> feature - it would generate a differences list between the Schematic
>> data base and the PCB layout data base.  It would analyze the data
>> base and display, in side-by-side form, all the di
>
> I believe you want to do an ERC.

No, only DRC (design rules check) verifies the board and schematic are
consistant.  The ERC (electrical rules check) only checks the schematic for
various errors like dangling power input pins, only input pins on a net,
etc.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\04\29@082534 by J. Gromlich

flavicon
face
Hi again:

For those who never saw the PADs utility I was referring to, its advantage
is probably not clear, so I will elaborate.

On occasion one picks a part from the library and misses the fact that
you wanted a thru-hole part and accidentally picked an SMT part. Or you
specified an IC using a part number which specified the wrong temp
range or tolerance.  Maybe you wanted a bi-color LED with three leads
and picked the part number for a two lead device.

None of these are killer issues, and you would almost certainly pick them
up when checking the assembly proof copies, but then what do you do
about it? In PADs these were not easy to correct without deleting parts
and replacing them - and that often produced strange results in the
netlist when done manually.

The utility in question would list every part in the design which differed
in any way between the schematic and layout files.  Sizes, shapes, colors,
a -1 instead of a -1A in a catalog number. Whatever. Then you can select
which version you want in the final data base.  The utility performs a
merge and reconciles all the differences automatically.  Unless there is
such a difference that a part has, say, a different number of pins the
result was fine.  No choosing forward or back annotation - just tell it
to resolve the differences.

Not a must have item, just a nice to have.  Saves time and surprises.

Roy J. Gromlich  -  Senior Engineer
Renaissance Technologies
5000 Ritter Road  Suite 202
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-691-7090

> {Original Message removed}

2005\04\29@090813 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
On 4/29/05, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistKILLspamspam@spam@embedinc.com> wrote:
> Josh Koffman wrote:
> > I believe you want to do an ERC.
>
> No, only DRC (design rules check) verifies the board and schematic are
> consistant.  The ERC (electrical rules check) only checks the schematic for
> various errors like dangling power input pins, only input pins on a net,
> etc.


Whoops...sorry about that. I was replying from memory. My bad! Thanks
to Olin for correcting my mistake.

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

2005\04\29@091545 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> On occasion one picks a part from the library and misses the fact that
> you wanted a thru-hole part and accidentally picked an SMT
> part.

In Eagle (at least in the version I use) you just 'change package',
either within the circuit editor or in the PCB editor. My library for
instance has one symbol for all 14-pin PICs when used with external MCLR
and internal OSC, and two packages (DIP and SOIC). For resistors I have
one symbol for various SMD and through-hole packages (including
horizontal and vertical mounting, round holes and oval holes, etc).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\04\29@100710 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Roy J. Gromlich wrote:
> For those who never saw the PADs utility I was referring to, its
> advantage is probably not clear, so I will elaborate.

The fact that you can get yourself into the trouble you describes in the
first place sounds like a big disadvantage to me.

> On occasion one picks a part from the library and misses the fact that
> you wanted a thru-hole part and accidentally picked an SMT part.

This is unlikely to happen in Eagle since you are shown a picture of the
board footprint when selecting the variant of a part.  I have never made
this particular mistake in Eagle.  Even if you did, it would be obvious once
you started working on the board layout.

> Or you
> specified an IC using a part number which specified the wrong temp
> range or tolerance.

There is no way for it to know your intent in this case as the selection is
perfectly legal.  I guess you'd have to catch this when creating the BOM.

> Maybe you wanted a bi-color LED with three leads
> and picked the part number for a two lead device.

There is no way to make that mistake in Eagle since the schematic symbol for
a two leaded and three leaded LED would necessarily be obviously different.

> None of these are killer issues, and you would almost certainly pick
> them up when checking the assembly proof copies, but then what do you do
> about it?

You are asking questions about Eagle for a process that applies to Pads.
This doesn't make any sense.  Once you learn Eagle, you'll see how
inapplicable your questions are.  The process is very different.

If you do notice you picked the wrong package while working on layout, all
you have to do is CHANGE PACKAGE and select the correct one.

> In PADs these were not easy to correct without deleting parts
> and replacing them - and that often produced strange results in the
> netlist when done manually.

If you really blow it in Eagle and put the wrong part in, not just the wrong
package for that part, you go back to the schematic, delete the part and add
the correct one.  The fact that you're asking about the netlist shows you
haven't even tried Eagle.  Eagle users don't ever generate, look at, or give
a crap about netlists.  I guess the important distinction is that Eagle is
one integrated package.  The schematic editor and board editor are not two
pieces of software you run independently by tossing a netlist over the wall.
In Eagle they are two views of your project that are "live" at the same
time.  You have to go out of your way and ignore a bunch of warnings to get
them out of sync.

> The utility in question would list every part in the design which
> differed in any way between the schematic and layout files.

Again, you don't have separate parts in the schematic and layout.  They
can't be different because each refers to the same project database.  You
add parts to your project and define their connectivity in the schematic
editor, then define their placement and interconnect routing in the board
editor, but they are the *same parts*.

> Not a must have item, just a nice to have.

Even better, a mechanism for not needed such a kludge in the first place.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\04\29@111942 by J. Gromlich

flavicon
face
Actually, I have done exactly one project using Eagle, and I will have
to agree that the process is very different from what I was used to using
PADs.  It may be that, in Eagle,  it would be difficult or impossible to
make the kind of mistake I refer to. If so, that is another advantage
attributable to Eagle.

In fact, the library functions in PADs are very difficult to use - there is
really no equivalent to the library views one has in Eagle.  I refer back to
PADs only because I spent much more time using IT than I have in using
Eagle, so I guess I am seeing potential problems where there are none.

Thank you all for your input on this.

RJG

>
> {Original Message removed}

2005\04\29@121819 by phil B

picon face
Yet another reason why you want to (er, HAVE to) make
and use your own libraries.  

You need to build the package with multiple variants
so you can "change package".  Open up the library RCL
and look at any of the packages, you'll see LOTS of
variants.

--- Wouter van Ooijen <wouterspamKILLspamvoti.nl> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> --

2005\04\29@131610 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
> On Behalf Of phil B
>
> Yet another reason why you want to (er, HAVE to) make and use
> your own libraries.  

Is anyone sending these new librarys to Eagle so they can update the
apparently poor librarys they have publically available? If so, are they
making your updates available? If not, may I be of service by providing web
hosting for your libraries?

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
.....jamesnewtonKILLspamspam.....piclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com



2005\04\29@140621 by Rob Young

picon face
>> On Behalf Of phil B
>>
>> Yet another reason why you want to (er, HAVE to) make and use
>> your own libraries.
>
> Is anyone sending these new librarys to Eagle so they can update the
> apparently poor librarys they have publically available? If so, are they
> making your updates available? If not, may I be of service by providing
> web
> hosting for your libraries?

http://www.cadsoftusa.com (or http://www.cadsoft.com) and look for the "download" section.
You can see what others have posted and follow a link to add to the
collection yourself.

One warning, some of these user created libraries are just plain wrong.
Wrong pin outs, wrong part names and wrong land patterns.  And there is no
standard in how to draw the schematic symbols so some may look quite odd.
Also, there is considerable duplication of effort.

That said, it is still a valuable resource.  Even if you can't use the part
exactly as drawn, it might be faster to edit than to start from scratch.

Just be sure to check anything you download for accuracy.

Rob Young

2005\04\29@141157 by phil B

picon face
Sure, people make contributions all the time but the
standard ones that come with the installation are
fraught with, er, quirks.  I haven't seen cadsoft
updating the core ones (though I don't look that
often).  Probably the biggest problem is the lack of
standardization of which layer the legend (aka silk
screen) symbols go into - I have spent far too much
time getting the legend gerbers right.   Not to
mention the messed up legends for SMDs.

Even if I use some one else's library, I check it out
and often tweak it.


--- "James Newton, Host" <EraseMEjamesnewtonspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTpiclist.com>
wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> --

2005\04\29@141256 by olin_piclist

face picon face
James Newton, Host wrote:
> Is anyone sending these new librarys to Eagle so they can update the
> apparently poor librarys they have publically available?

After I spend some care making a part that should have been made properly by
CadSoft in the first place, I guess I don't feel too much like rewarding
them for it.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\04\29@151911 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
> James Newton, Host wrote:
> > Is anyone sending these new librarys to Eagle so they can
> update the
> > apparently poor librarys they have publically available?
>
> After I spend some care making a part that should have been
> made properly by CadSoft in the first place, I guess I don't
> feel too much like rewarding them for it.

Well, I understand how you feel and I agree that CadSoft should pull its
head out and fix their libraries, but it isn't about helping CadSoft. It's
about helping the people who use CadSoft. Yes, that would indirectly help
CadSoft.

But, for example, if someone took the time to make a complete library that
was well done and correct, then posted it on a web page with a note
detailing the failings of the CadSoft default libraries and how these
libraries fix those problems, CadSoft would be... Chastised, I guess is the
right word, and might eventually come knocking. That would fix the problem
and perhaps even some money could be charged as a further... Discipline
(?)... For the company.

Good work that is used by only one person is a waste. I.e. "a bells not a
bell till you ring it" and all that rot...

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
@spam@jamesnewtonKILLspamspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com



2005\04\29@161502 by olin_piclist

face picon face
part 1 2527 bytes content-type:text/plain; (decoded 7bit)

James Newton, Host wrote:
> Good work that is used by only one person is a waste. I.e. "a bells not
> a bell till you ring it" and all that rot...

Well, yeah, that's true, but I don't see the upside for me in giving away my
libraries for free.  I've spent many hours making parts that either weren't
available or too ugly or sloppily made for my standards.  I'm very picky
about neatness and readability in my schematics and take some care making my
Eagle packages and symbols.

>From a global viewpoint, it does make sense for one person to make something
then as many people leverage that as possible.  But for this system to work
there has to be an advantage that outweighs the costs for that one person to
let others use his work.  When there is little or no incremental production
cost, we usually handle this with copyrights and licenses so that force the
users to in some way compensate the originator.

The disadvantages of giving away my Eagle libraries are:

1 - Even though they are just "sitting there" on the disk, it still takes
effort to package them up nicely, create the web page, write the
instructions, make sure the download works properly, and all the other
things that everyone else will take for granted.  I'm sure you understand
this better than most on this list.

2 - Dealing with the inevitable messages, some public and some private,
about why this is like that when some other way is clearly better, and oh
yes, I've got this circuit with a PIC in it, please tell me what's wrong,
it's urgent the project has to work tomorrow, it's really important.  Except
when you mention consulting rates it turns out it's not really *that*
important after all.

3 - Helping potential competitors.  This is probably not that likely, but
it's still something to consider.  In the end I'm in business to make money,
not to run a charity.

The advantages I see are:

1 - Some small amount of additional exposure for Embed Inc and myself.

Advantage 1 seems trivially small and very unlikely to ever yield a single
additional dollar.  Unlike source code, there is no reasonable way to put
your name on a package or schematic symbol.  This means most people won't
even be aware where they came from, which pretty much defeats the advantage.

However, just to see how this goes, I've exported my PIC library to a script
file, zipped it, and attached it to this message.  It's about 12Kbytes, so I
don't know if it will make it thru the server or not.


part 2 12128 bytes content-type:application/x-zip-compressed; (decode)

part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2005\04\29@164833 by David Challis

face picon face
Olin,

I just loaded your eagle pic library via the script.  It is most definitely
excellent!  So much so, that I'm willing to donate $20 to you via paypal to
say thanks.  What's your paypal id?  Perhaps other appreciative folks will
chip in also.

Thanks
Dave Challis

{Original Message removed}

2005\04\29@171617 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
'k.

I've added a few words at http://www.piclist.com/techref/pcbcads.htm by stealing a bit from Phil B.
and Rob Young (hope you don't mind) and finished up with the following:

At least one library that you can be confident in is the PIC library (
http://www.piclist.com/images/boards/pic.scr )  created by Olin Lathrop of http://www.EmbedInc.com/PIC. Mr. Lathrop is a highly paid, professional
consultant, who, from time to time, shares his valuable work in the hopes
that it will be a good advertisement for his business. It contains device
definitions for 16C773, 16F876-?, 16F877-?, 16C622A-?, 16*F628-?, 12F629-?,
12F675-?, 18F452-?, 18*F1320-?, 18*F252-?, 16F630-?, 30F2010, 18*F6520-?,
30F6010-?, 16*F648A-?, 10F206-*/?, 30F4011-?, 10F204-*/?, 10F200-*/?,
10F202-*/?, 30F4012-*/?.

Olin: You will, of course, let me know if that is ok?

I don't use Eagle so if there are any specific instructions people should
know on using a script to build a library, perhaps someone could suggest
them?

---
James.
 
> {Original Message removed}

2005\04\29@172616 by Hopkins

flavicon
face
Hi Olin

Good to see you offer the PIC library files but my eagle light version
(free) comes up with whole host of errors when I try Open/script....

Either this is not the correct why to run the scrip file or the free
version is too restricted to handle the script commands.

I hate to ask but can you either post it as a *.lbr file?

_______________________________________
Roy
Tauranga
New Zealand
_______________________________________

-----Original Message-----


However, just to see how this goes, I've exported my PIC library to a
script
file, zipped it, and attached it to this message.  It's about 12Kbytes,
so I
don't know if it will make it thru the server or not.



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/04/2005


2005\04\29@172949 by Rob Young

picon face
> I don't use Eagle so if there are any specific instructions people should
> know on using a script to build a library, perhaps someone could suggest
> them?

Create new library with library editor program and run Olin's script.  Save
library with your favorite name, "olin-pic.lbr" or "embed-pic.lbr" make good
names.

Rob Young

2005\04\29@173552 by Rob Young

picon face
> Good to see you offer the PIC library files but my eagle light version
> (free) comes up with whole host of errors when I try Open/script....
>
> Either this is not the correct why to run the scrip file or the free
> version is too restricted to handle the script commands.
>
> I hate to ask but can you either post it as a *.lbr file?
>
> _______________________________________
> Roy
> Tauranga
> New Zealand

I'm sure Olin will have something to say ;-) but the script file format is
much more portable across the different versions of Eagle and different
platform implementations.

What version of Eagle are you using?  Olin used V4.14 to export.  If you are
using a version less than 4.0 or 4.1 it may not work.

Rob Young

2005\04\29@174156 by Hopkins

flavicon
face
Oops ********* - *&^%$


Helps if I open the library editor and then go OPEN/Script

Then save the resulting library.

Now have access to all the chips that Olin has provided.

Thanks Olin.
_______________________________________
Roy
Tauranga
New Zealand
_______________________________________

{Original Message removed}

2005\04\29@175140 by olin_piclist

face picon face
David Challis wrote:
> I just loaded your eagle pic library via the script.  It is most
> definitely excellent!  So much so, that I'm willing to donate $20 to
> you via paypal to say thanks.

I really appreciate the offer and the vote of confidence, but that's not
necessary.  I wasn't fishing for a donation.  Just make sure you tell people
where you got it from if you pass it along.

Hmm, maybe I will put the PIC library up on my web site.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\04\29@175256 by olin_piclist

face picon face
James Newton, Host wrote:
> Olin: You will, of course, let me know if that is ok?

Sure.  Once I post something to the list it would be pointless to try and
restrict it even if I wanted to.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\04\29@193214 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:15:44 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>...<

> For resistors I have one symbol for various SMD and through-hole packages (including horizontal and vertical
mounting, round holes and oval holes, etc).

How do you drill oval holes?  :-)

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\04\30@012025 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
Well that's weird. I never got the message where Olin attached the
file, and now the link to http://www.piclist.com/images/boards/pic.scr
returns a 404.

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

On 4/29/05, James Newton, Host <KILLspamjamesnewtonKILLspamspampiclist.com> wrote:
> At least one library that you can be confident in is the PIC library (
> http://www.piclist.com/images/boards/pic.scr ) created by Olin Lathrop of
> http://www.EmbedInc.com/PIC. Mr. Lathrop is a highly paid, professional
> consultant, who, from time to time, shares his valuable work in the hopes
> that it will be a good advertisement for his business. It contains device
> definitions for 16C773, 16F876-?, 16F877-?, 16C622A-?, 16*F628-?, 12F629-?,
> 12F675-?, 18F452-?, 18*F1320-?, 18*F252-?, 16F630-?, 30F2010, 18*F6520-?,
> 30F6010-?, 16*F648A-?, 10F206-*/?, 30F4011-?, 10F204-*/?, 10F200-*/?,
> 10F202-*/?, 30F4012-*/?.

2005\04\30@014823 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
My bad.
http://www.piclist.com/images/boards/pic.scr.txt you should rename it to
pic.scr

---
James.



> {Original Message removed}

2005\04\30@220955 by jrem

picon face
okay, maybe it's been a long week, but I ran the script in Eagle and
can't find any of Mr. Lathrop's library files . . .    any clues?


--- James Newtons Massmind <RemoveMEjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTspammassmind.org> wrote:
> My bad.
> http://www.piclist.com/images/boards/pic.scr.txt you should rename it
> to
> pic.scr
>
> ---
> James.
>  
>  
>
> > {Original Message removed}


'[EE]: question for EAGLE users'
2005\05\01@001839 by Hopkins
flavicon
face
Did you run from inside the Library editor?

_______________________________________
Roy
Tauranga
New Zealand
_______________________________________

okay, maybe it's been a long week, but I ran the script in Eagle and
can't find any of Mr. Lathrop's library files . . .    any clues?



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/04/2005


2005\05\01@043725 by phil B

picon face

--- jrem <spamBeGonejrem123spamBeGonespamyahoo.com> wrote:
> okay, maybe it's been a long week, but I ran the
> script in Eagle and
> can't find any of Mr. Lathrop's library files . . .
>   any clues?
>

One or two things could have happened: a) you saved it
in the wrong place (rerun the script, take note of
where you save the library or search your disk) and/or
you didn't do a "use" on it (in the schematic or board
editor - library/use and select the name you saved it
as).

Sigh.  Eagle is very powerful but has so many little
stumbling blocks like this that detract from its fit
and finish.  I guess they didn't want to monitor the
directories to see when a library has been changed or
added.

Phil
ps, I paid for an upgrade so I get to complain...  :)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

2005\05\01@085125 by olin_piclist

face picon face
jrem wrote:
> okay, maybe it's been a long week, but I ran the script in Eagle and
> can't find any of Mr. Lathrop's library files

Did you run it in the library editor.  What does happen?

*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\05\01@125608 by jrem

picon face
>From the control panel I did an open/script, the scr was in the library
file, now I don't know how to identify Mr. Lathrop's artwork.

Probably doesn't really matter anyways as I'm a need-to-know guy and I
don't have any immediate use for his scripts, but you never know . . .

Yes, Eagle is very powerful but has a steep learning curve.



--- Olin Lathrop <TakeThisOuTolin_piclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTembedinc.com> wrote:
> jrem wrote:
> > okay, maybe it's been a long week, but I ran the script in Eagle
> and
> > can't find any of Mr. Lathrop's library files
>
> Did you run it in the library editor.  What does happen?
>
> *****************************************************************
> Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
> (978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
> --

2005\05\01@145313 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> How do you drill oval holes?  :-)

Try drilling at an non-90-degrees agle to the PCB plane?

(Afterthought: do you English use degrees at all? If so should I convert
to Farenheit first?)

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\05\01@162245 by PicDude

flavicon
face
On Sunday 01 May 2005 11:56 am, jrem scribbled:
> Yes, Eagle is very powerful but has a steep learning curve.


I guess that's a matter of perspective -- I found Eagle quite easy to
learn/use, and I did evaluate other programs.  It's that easy learning curve
(and available libraries) that got me hooked and convinced me to pay for the
professional version.

Cheers,
-Neil.



2005\05\01@171029 by Jinx

face picon face

> > How do you drill oval holes?  :-)

Tch tch tch, dear oh dear, it's simple as. Just use an oval bit

But if that's a serious question - my (and probably every other)
board house can route whatever size/shape hole/perimeter you
instruct them to. Through Eagle or otherwise

> Try drilling at an non-90-degrees agle to the PCB plane?
>
> (Afterthought: do you English use degrees at all? If so should I
> convert to Farenheit first?)

Nah, don't worry about it. We just guess and make crude pencil
drawings with no units at all

2005\05\01@202818 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

On Sun, 1 May 2005 20:53:12 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> > How do you drill oval holes?  :-)

> Try drilling at an non-90-degrees agle to the PCB plane?

LOL!

> (Afterthought: do you English use degrees at all?

Oh yes, very handy when we're running round in circles...

> If so should I convert to Farenheit first?)

No, that would be for the Americans - we've been using Celsius (although we often call it Centigrade) for the
past twenty years or so - although the weather people occasionally give the Farenheit equivalent for people
listening in black & white...

Cheers,

Howard
St.Albans, England (where it's currently +15C outside)

(PS: that's 59F :-)


2005\05\02@035602 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
yes basically only the americans still use english/imperial units
<- dons kevlar undies and jumps into a pool of flame retardant

> {Original Message removed}

2005\05\02@173458 by Peter

picon face


On Mon, 2 May 2005, Jake Anderson wrote:

> yes basically only the americans still use english/imperial units

Small nitpick: yes, basically only the americans who do not work for
their own standards institute (NIST) and are not aware of its
publications still use english/imperial units

Peter

2005\05\02@203707 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On May 1, 2005, at 1:20 PM, PicDude wrote:

>> Eagle is very powerful but has a steep learning curve.
>>
ALL the schematic/CAD packages seem to have pretty steep learning
curves.
I suspect it's very difficult to do a drawing package with several
different
levels of "connection" (electrical connection, PCB connection, drawing
connection)
without some "steepness" involved.

(What was the last version of Eagle you tried?  Things got MUCH better
somewhere
around version 4, when everything got put on a GUI button instead of
(actually,
in addition to) a typed command...

BillW

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...