Searching \ for '[EE] Don't want diagonal routing from Eagle!!!' 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: 'Don't want diagonal routing from Eagle!!!'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Don't want diagonal routing from Eagle!!!'
2006\04\13@082448 by Nicholasdatt

flavicon
face
I specify 99 for DiagStep as instructed in the user manual, and yet
i do receive some diagonal lines. Why??

Also, is there a way to prevent tracks from top and bottom overlapping -
this is when the red and the blue on the screen merge and form pink??

2006\04\13@095703 by olin piclist

face picon face
nicholasdatt@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> I specify 99 for DiagStep as instructed in the user manual, and yet
> i do receive some diagonal lines. Why??

Because the cost of all other solutions was higher.  99 only makes it
unlikely, not impossible.

> Also, is there a way to prevent tracks from top and bottom overlapping -
> this is when the red and the blue on the screen merge and form pink??

Not that I can think of.  You can specify keepout areas for the autorouter,
but not automatically make a trace on one layer a keepout on another.  Why
do you want this?  This sounds like you are getting stuck in an
implementation rathole, and need to step back and think about how to solve
the true problem.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\04\13@114813 by Nicholasdatt

flavicon
face
> > Also, is there a way to prevent tracks from top and bottom overlapping -
> > this is when the red and the blue on the screen merge and form pink??
>
> Not that I can think of.  You can specify keepout areas for the
autorouter,
> but not automatically make a trace on one layer a keepout on another.  Why
> do you want this?  This sounds like you are getting stuck in an
> implementation rathole, and need to step back and think about how to solve
> the true problem.

No, it's because I am working with a stripboard. In a stripboard the blue
layer
must be implemented on both sides (because the strips are one way.) This
leaves us with a situation that if the red layer overlaps the blue layer and
if the
blue layer needs to be implemented on top(the other direction to the strips)
we get an impossibility.

2006\04\13@132531 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
>From all the stripboard autorouting requests on the list, I'm guessing
someone could make a little bit of money by developing a stripboard
EDA package.  Given the restraints of stripboard, it wouldn't be
overly difficult either...

Then they can hope to be bought out by veroboard and live in luxury
for a few months.

-Adam

On 4/13/06, spam_OUTnicholasdattTakeThisOuTspamyahoo.co.uk <.....nicholasdattKILLspamspam@spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\04\13@173145 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Apr 13, 2006, at 8:46 AM, nicholasdattspamKILLspamyahoo.co.uk wrote:

> it's because I am working with a stripboard.

I played with things briefly last time the list was talking about
stripboard, and came to the conclusion that it's not very practical
to use Eagle's autorouter for stripboard-like situations...

BillW

2006\04\13@174059 by Robert Young

picon face

>
> > it's because I am working with a stripboard.
>

http://www.vutrax.co.uk/san206.htm

There may be other programs available.

Rob

2006\04\14@133614 by Peter

picon face

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, William Chops Westfield wrote:

> On Apr 13, 2006, at 8:46 AM, .....nicholasdattKILLspamspam.....yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>> it's because I am working with a stripboard.
>
> I played with things briefly last time the list was talking about
> stripboard, and came to the conclusion that it's not very practical
> to use Eagle's autorouter for stripboard-like situations...

I will post a cfg that does stripboard-compatible layout later, after I
clean out my computer. Since I switched to *nix 10 years ago I no longer
lose stuff. This means that I have to sift through ~6GB of stuff. Will
take a while.

Peter

2006\04\14@144138 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 4/13/06, EraseMEnicholasdattspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTyahoo.co.uk <nicholasdattspamspam_OUTyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Also, is there a way to prevent tracks from top and bottom overlapping -
> > > this is when the red and the blue on the screen merge and form pink??
> >
> > Not that I can think of.  You can specify keepout areas for the
> autorouter,
> > but not automatically make a trace on one layer a keepout on another.  Why
> > do you want this?  This sounds like you are getting stuck in an
> > implementation rathole, and need to step back and think about how to solve
> > the true problem.
>
> No, it's because I am working with a stripboard. In a stripboard the blue
> layer
> must be implemented on both sides (because the strips are one way.) This
> leaves us with a situation that if the red layer overlaps the blue layer and
> if the
> blue layer needs to be implemented on top(the other direction to the strips)
> we get an impossibility.

Hmm, I don't understand  this. Blue = one layer. Red = other layer
Usually red = top and blue = bottom for two layers Eagle style.
So, why you can't design a dual layer stripboard ?
Light me please.

greetings,
Vasile

BTW, if you want a real CAD, incomparable with Eagle, then try Pads.

2006\04\16@103501 by Nicholasdatt

flavicon
face
> > > > Also, is there a way to prevent tracks from top and bottom
overlapping -
> > > > this is when the red and the blue on the screen merge and form
pink??
> > >
> > > Not that I can think of.  You can specify keepout areas for the
> > autorouter,
> > > but not automatically make a trace on one layer a keepout on another.
Why
> > > do you want this?  This sounds like you are getting stuck in an
> > > implementation rathole, and need to step back and think about how to
solve
> > > the true problem.
> >
> > No, it's because I am working with a stripboard. In a stripboard the
blue
> > layer
> > must be implemented on both sides (because the strips are one way.) This
> > leaves us with a situation that if the red layer overlaps the blue layer
and
> > if the
> > blue layer needs to be implemented on top(the other direction to the
strips)
> > we get an impossibility.
>
>  Hmm, I don't understand  this. Blue = one layer. Red = other layer
> Usually red = top and blue = bottom for two layers Eagle style.
> So, why you can't design a dual layer stripboard ?
> Light me please.

Stripboards are not double sided

>
> greetings,
> Vasile
>
> BTW, if you want a real CAD, incomparable with Eagle, then try Pads.

Is Eagle not "real" ? why ?
If you want me to checkout Pads - send me a link.
tia.

2006\04\16@131612 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 4/16/06, @spam@nicholasdattKILLspamspamyahoo.co.uk <KILLspamnicholasdattKILLspamspamyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

 And does not require autoruter either... just copy and paste. So
which is the problem then?

>
> >
> > greetings,
> > Vasile
> >
> > BTW, if you want a real CAD, incomparable with Eagle, then try Pads.
>
> Is Eagle not "real" ? why ?

too many to say...

> If you want me to checkout Pads - send me a link.

http://www.mentor.com/products/pcb/pads/demos/request.cfm

download, run and see till the end the "Pads layout with Pads Router
tour". It's a video.
If you know well Eagle, you'll understand pronto the major differences
between those two.

greetings,
Vasile


> tia.
> -

2006\04\16@133313 by blackcat

face picon face
0000000000000
Hi Vasile
PADs is a commercial offering with no apparent "freebie" version.
Eagle has "freebie" versions that run on Linux, WINDOZE and OS X.
It appears to me that comparing these is " apples to oranges "

Gus
0000000000000


On 2006-Apr 16, at 11:16 AM, Vasile Surducan wrote:

On 4/16/06, RemoveMEnicholasdattTakeThisOuTspamyahoo.co.uk <spamBeGonenicholasdattspamBeGonespamyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

  And does not require autoruter either... just copy and paste. So
which is the problem then?

>
>>
>> greetings,
>> Vasile
>>
>> BTW, if you want a real CAD, incomparable with Eagle, then try Pads.
>
> Is Eagle not "real" ? why ?

too many to say...

> If you want me to checkout Pads - send me a link.

http://www.mentor.com/products/pcb/pads/demos/request.cfm

download, run and see till the end the "Pads layout with Pads Router
tour". It's a video.
If you know well Eagle, you'll understand pronto the major differences
between those two.

greetings,
Vasile


> tia.
> -

2006\04\16@180024 by Jinx

face picon face
> > So, why you can't design a dual layer stripboard ?
> > Light me please.
>
> Stripboards are not double sided

You can't put two pieces back-to-back ? You can have the strips
on each side parallel or perpendicular to the other. Maybe I'm a
good 3D thinker or maybe I'm just used to laying out, but I've never
used or even thought about using Eagle for routing either Vero or
PCBs that I'm going to draw up and etch personally. Generally does
way too complicated a layout

2006\04\16@195517 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Apr 16, 2006, at 10:33 AM, blackcat wrote:

> PADs is a commercial offering...

"Starting at under $3500"  :-)


> Eagle has "freebie" versions that run on Linux, WINDOZE and OS X.

Cadsoft is a veritable mecca of software distribution enlightenment.
In addition to their freeware (which has some restrictions on
"professional" use), they have a cheap "lite" version, a "non-profit"
version (less size restrictions, but back to non-professional use),
and a set of scaled and less restricted versions topping out at
$1200 for one user...


> It appears to me that comparing these is " apples to oranges "

Perhaps.  I've read enough professionals on the Cadsoft newsgroups
describing how they like Eagle better than the much-more-expensive
package they used to use that I no longer dismiss Eagle as a baby
implementation usable only by those who want a free package...
There are things it doesn't do that perhaps are important in
some arenas (thermal analysis, circuit simulation, automatic
placement; there are LOTS of "advanced features" that Eagle
doesn't have, but apparently their presence comes with a price.
(If you think the learning curve for Eagle is steep, apparently
you haven't seen ANYTHING!)

I've been very impressed with the level of support that Cadsoft
provides; far above what many of the other free cad packages
provide.  Questions get answered.  Bugs I find have already been
fixed, or are fixed promptly and released quickly.   And with the
amount of improvement between successive release has been
impressive; today's Eagle is a lot better than the first version
I tried...  Eagle doesn't do everything everyone wants, but it's
clear that the engineers there ARE paying attention.  That's
really good.  For freeware, that's phenomenal!

BillW


2006\04\16@203942 by olin piclist

face picon face
William Chops Westfield wrote:
> Cadsoft is a veritable mecca of software distribution enlightenment.
> In addition to their freeware (which has some restrictions on
> "professional" use), they have a cheap "lite" version, a "non-profit"
> version (less size restrictions, but back to non-professional use),
> and a set of scaled and less restricted versions topping out at
> $1200 for one user...

And the next few additional users are only $300 each.  I think that's quite
a bargain.  We've got 3 licenses at Embed.  I got one of my customers to get
me an Eagle license for use there.  It wasn't too hard a sell since my $1200
first user Eagle license cost a lot less than an additional license to what
some people were sortof using.  Once they saw that I could produce
professional results with it, they readily got two more licenses for
additional engineers.  Nobody is using the big expensive package anymore.

My biggest gripe with Eagle is that they still seem to be aiming too much at
the university and not enough at the professional market.  Real support for
BOM production is missing, which is a shame since it would be so easy to get
to the 90% level from 10% where they are now.  All they would have to do is
implement at least one additional >VALUE string, like >VAL2 maybe.  This
could be shown, or not, on the schematic or elsewhere as you wanted to.  I
would not show it and use it for part number information.  I would then
write a ULP that would parse this VAL2 string to build most of the BOM
automatically.

The next step would be to add more strings, some specifically for common
things like part number and manufacturer, but a few uncommitted strings the
user could use with a ULP any way they wanted.  This would still be easy for
them to do.

The next step up would be much more difficult and probably there is no way
to please everyone.  Eagle would would have a part number database, which
would totally automate BOM production.  However, they are unlikely to get
that right, so I'd rather they just gave me a string or a few and let me
take care of the rest my way.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\04\17@005122 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 4/17/06, Olin Lathrop <TakeThisOuTolin_piclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTembedinc.com> wrote:
> William Chops Westfield wrote:
> > Cadsoft is a veritable mecca of software distribution enlightenment.
> > In addition to their freeware (which has some restrictions on
> > "professional" use), they have a cheap "lite" version, a "non-profit"
> > version (less size restrictions, but back to non-professional use),
> > and a set of scaled and less restricted versions topping out at
> > $1200 for one user...
>
> And the next few additional users are only $300 each.  I think that's quite
> a bargain.  We've got 3 licenses at Embed.  I got one of my customers to get
> me an Eagle license for use there.  It wasn't too hard a sell since my $1200
> first user Eagle license cost a lot less than an additional license to what
> some people were sortof using.  Once they saw that I could produce
> professional results with it, they readily got two more licenses for
> additional engineers.  Nobody is using the big expensive package anymore.
>
> My biggest gripe with Eagle is that they still seem to be aiming too much at
> the university and not enough at the professional market.  Real support for
> BOM production is missing,

Hi Olin,
this is just one small problem and it's not a problem for hobbists.
I've cried on it on my last project having about 400 passive components
writting the shit BOM manually. All proffesional CAD packages has
solved this for a long time: Orcad, Protel, P-Cad are just three of
them where the component have indeed 7 fields, so you can cover the
name, value, vendor code, vendor description, seller code, the AVL
field and other comments about mounting,
in *.xls compatible files.

If you've tried RF projects where quadrature routes must be egual
lenght and parallel routed, or high frequency clock distributions
where again the routes lenght must be perfect equal, you know that
eagle can't be usefull only with a lot of struggle. It can't measure
distances only ortogonally or the RF lines are not allways
ortogonally. Placing a component other than on ox or oy (with a
variable angle) is the hell thing.

Rerouting manually a route does not move automatically the adjacent
routes, you have to delete and reroute them. Dying till finish.

Multiple ground planes (on double eurocard size, four layers) with
resonable widths (16 or 24 mil) take up to 15 seconds for redrawing on
a top 3.3GHz HP pentium with 512Mb of video memory. In fact the video
size does not matter for Eagle...

Eagle is an ugly joke for a proffesional PCB designer (my opinion, you
all could have any other). However it works ok for hobby and small
projects where BOM ulp is perfect.

About the price I'm not telling nothing (a deep search on the web will
reveal a lot of things, nice or not...), there is a *complete free*
french CAD package (yes, the same which built the Liberty statue...)
with the same functionality as proffesional Eagle, and open source on
Yahoo groups.


best regards,
Vasile


which is a shame since it would be so easy to get
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\04\17@093609 by Peter Todd

picon face
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:51:22AM +0300, Vasile Surducan wrote:
> About the price I'm not telling nothing (a deep search on the web will
> reveal a lot of things, nice or not...), there is a *complete free*
> french CAD package (yes, the same which built the Liberty statue...)
> with the same functionality as proffesional Eagle, and open source on
> Yahoo groups.

Interesting! What's the name of it?

--
RemoveMEpetespamTakeThisOuTpetertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...