Searching \ for '[OT:] Eagles V.4.03 Library with the CM8880 DTMF' 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: 'Eagles V.4.03 Library with the CM8880 DTMF'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT:] Eagles V.4.03 Library with the CM8880 DTMF'
2004\01\11@133421 by Augusto Yipmantin

flavicon
face
... hope this time will be Ok. :-(

A little help to find a Eagle4s V.4.03 Library with the CM8880 DTMF
Transceiver Device .

Regards,

Augusto


--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\01\11@162437 by Bob Barr

flavicon
face
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:34:21 -0500, Augusto Yipmantin wrote:

>... hope this time will be Ok. :-(
>
>A little help to find a Eagle4s V.4.03 Library with the CM8880 DTMF
>Transceiver Device .
>

As frequently as I see requests Eagle parts posted to the list, I've
just got to ask this question of Eagle users.

Can it possibly be that difficult to create your own parts with Eagle
that most users don't routinely just make their own when they need
them?

With AutoTRAX, the program I use most frequently, I can create most
parts from scratch more quickly than I could type out an email
requesting one. Doing a little editing on a similar part I've already
got in my library to create the new one would be even easier than
that.

Even with CircuitMaker 2000, which I use less frequently and find a
bit more difficult to use, I'd be able to get the part created before
I could possibly hope to have a response to a request for it.

Am I missing something obvious regarding the difficulty of using
Eagle's part creation process?


Regards, Bob

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu

2004\01\11@163852 by David P Harris

picon face
Yes, its quite easy to make your own parts in Eagle.  HOwever,
sometimes, someone else has done a whole library of parts, eg PIC 18F,
and so it saves you some time.  Checking the Eagle site for new
libraries often turns up popular series, too.
David

Bob Barr wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu

2004\01\11@175437 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Sunday, Jan 11, 2004, at 13:24 US/Pacific, Bob Barr wrote:

> Can it possibly be that difficult to create your own parts with Eagle
> that most users don't routinely just make their own when they need
> them?
>
No.  however, there is a significant "hump" to get over before doing
this the first time, and of course the "multiple source of errors"
issues (as in "I'm unsure enough of this circuit in the first place,
I don't want to add an additional source of error my perhaps defining
the part incorrectly!")

After a while, you also realize that library design is more complicated
than you thought, if you're sending the board out and want to have
the silkscreen and soldermask and all those "other" layers "just right."

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu

2004\01\12@030052 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> As frequently as I see requests Eagle parts posted to the list, I've
> just got to ask this question of Eagle users.
>
> Can it possibly be that difficult to create your own parts with Eagle
> that most users don't routinely just make their own when they need
> them?

From my own experience: with no TQFP-80 footprint in any library (as far
as I can see), and no experience with making SMD footprints, typing a
request and geting the perfect answer the next morning surely beats
spending a few hours creating the footprint myself, only to discover
later (after the PCB has been made) that I slightly miscalculated the
pin-to-pin distance, so the 20'th pin actually overlays the 19'th.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\12@050604 by Bob Barr

flavicon
face
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:59:24 +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>
>>From my own experience: with no TQFP-80 footprint in any library (as far
>as I can see), and no experience with making SMD footprints, typing a
>request and geting the perfect answer the next morning surely beats
>spending a few hours creating the footprint myself, only to discover
>later (after the PCB has been made) that I slightly miscalculated the
>pin-to-pin distance, so the 20'th pin actually overlays the 19'th.
>

I may have been unclear in my original post. Actually, I was referring
to schematic parts rather than PCB footprints.

Creating footprints is a whole different story in a lot of ways,
particularly when you start getting into TQFP packages. That's the
kind of a request that I wouldn't find the least bit unusual.

I wouldn't bet the farm on getting a perfect answer, though. You would
be receiving what somebody *thinks* is a perfect answer but it may not
necessarily be one.


Regards, Bob

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\12@053335 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I wouldn't bet the farm on getting a perfect answer, though. You would
> be receiving what somebody *thinks* is a perfect answer but it may not
> necessarily be one.

Something that has worked for someone else is probably as good as I
could make myself after one iteration through the boardhouse.

I agree, schematic parts are a different story. Quite easy to make,
although mistakes are easily made too.

I realy dislike the way PICs are depicted. I use schematic parts that
show the pin use (different parts for 16F628A with internal osc and with
xtal), but *not* the actual part (what's the point of having a different
part for 16F628A and 16F88? Pinout is identical). When I ever re-do
these parts I will pobably use the multiple-gate approach, so the I/O
ports can be spread around in the circuit diagram.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\12@174137 by Josh Koffman

flavicon
face
When I'm unsure of a footprint that I've created, I print it, and try to
align the component on it. This has saved me big at least once, when I
borrowed a 100 pin QFP from another library. Had I not printed it, I
wouldn't have realized that the pads were too short, and wouldn't have
lined up with the actual part.

Of course...I did miss a couple of traces that got crossed accidentally
when I resized the pads...but that's another story.

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

Bob Barr wrote:
> Creating footprints is a whole different story in a lot of ways,
> particularly when you start getting into TQFP packages. That's the
> kind of a request that I wouldn't find the least bit unusual.
>
> I wouldn't bet the farm on getting a perfect answer, though. You would
> be receiving what somebody *thinks* is a perfect answer but it may not
> necessarily be one.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...