rickman wrote:
> On Apr 12, 1:48 pm, James Morrison <sp...@stratforddigital.ca> wrote:
>> On 2008/Apr/12 11:29 AM, in article
>> 209e6958-dcc3-4f8f-a76a-014f11522...@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, "rickman"
>>
>>> I tried Eagle and the oddities of the UI were rather tricky to
>>> initially learn.  Then I came back to it 6 months later and they were
>>> just as tricky to learn the second time!  If you don't use a program
>>> very often, it is pointless to try to use such an odd bird as Eagle
>>> (so to speak).  There are much better alternatives.
[ ... ]
> I don't recall and that is the problem.  I *have* to remember how
> Eagle works vs other tools that just plain work like most other
> packages that are even vaguely related to drawing anything.  One thing
> that I think Allan got very right when he wrote FreePCB is the scroll
> button zoom.  He not only centers the screen on the cursor when you
> turn the wheel, he *only* centers it on the first click and doesn't
> start zooming until the second click.  I don't recall what Eagle does,

AFAIK, Eagle zooms using the scroll wheel, centered on the cursor 
position.  You can move the schematic within the screen by zooming out 
on one center and zooming in on another.  Once upon a time I was 
getting along quite well with Eagle, and the secret seemed to be to 
get familiar with the text commands; there were manipulations of nets 
and what not that couldn't be done any other way.  I stopped using it 
for a couple of years and now I can't remember what it was I used to do.

	Mel.

In article <36270c91-22f2-4be2-8324-5d613ab1d0a1
@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, rickman says...
> On Apr 20, 9:53 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
> > In article <2c0987d9-e17d-4797-9adf-4960fd3f3b6b@
> > 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, rickman says...
> >
> > > On Apr 10, 9:49 pm, James Morrison <sp...@stratforddigital.ca> wrote:
> > > > The real reason I like it is that the schematic and PCB are coming from the
> > > > same database (other s/w has this to, PCB123 from Sunstone is one example).
> > > > Thus there is no forward or back annotation--all modifications are applied
> > > > to both simultaneously.  This is a big bonus and seriously cuts down on
> > > > chaos when things change.
> >
> > > Is it an open database?  Can I write tools to pull data out of it and
> > > to update it without using Eagle?  For example, if I design in a part
> > > and in procurement the part is substituted, do I have to go into Eagle
> > > to make the change or can I change the database externally?
> >
> > I don't follow Rick.  If the part is form and function compatible then
> > there is no need to update the PCB or schematic.  If they are not then
> > you need to go into the programs to changes the schematic and/or PCB.
> > Surely you're not thinking of keeping approved source in the
> > PCB/Schematic? (I know people who object to keeping resistor values in
> > the schematic, preferring to keep them separately for configuration
> > flexibility)
> 
> I put part numbers in my schematic.  I then generate a BOM from the
> schematic using those part numbers.  I don't have any sort of data
> base to track component changes, so I update the schematic when I
> change components.  Not including resistor values would certainly make
> reading a schematic difficult without the lookup table for the
> values.
> 
> It has occurred to me that this is a good reason to use company part
> numbers.  A company part number can be equated to multiple qualified
> parts for that socket.  But this is another level of complexity that I
> am not currently prepared to support.

I'd bet you don't put resistor part numbers on your schematic (just 
resistance values) so you are already part way there :)  

And how do you deal with variant stuffing?

Seriously, if you are producing more than one or two boards just for 
yourself you need to do this, it'll keep you sane as part supplies vary. 
Part specs can be as simple as listing approved manufacturers and their 
associated part number up to a full set of critical to quality 
parameters to make it easier for a contract manufacturer to suggest 
alternates.  Something like Parts and Vendors helps a lot with the 
first.

> There are still plenty of situations where I would want to edit the
> parts information in the schematic like it was a spread sheet or
> externally update it.  Orcad actually provides this capability and
> would only be better if they did a more complete job of it.
> 
> It doesn't even matter if you agree with my example.  The point is
> that open formats are better for many reasons.  

That I won't disagree with.

> I don't want to work
> with closes proprietary design files anymore and I won't.  For my next
> design I will not use Orcad any more and I won't be using Eagle if
> their file formats are closed.

For myself, I find copy protection far more disagreeable and potential 
dangerous.  Eagle does have that drawback as well even if it is one of 
the lighter forms.  Eagle does have provision for getting at their 
database programmatically and writing it out so it's not fully closed. 

OTOH, I wouldn't want to give up the tight coupling between schematic 
capture and layout that Eagle provides.  It's not impossible to get the 
schematic and PCB out of sync but you have to work at it a bit.

The last time I checked the open alternatives they were pretty much in 
their infancy, little coupling between PCB and layout, and difficult to 
install.

Robert
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Apr 21, 3:46 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> >The point is that open formats are better for many reasons.
> >I don't want to work with closes proprietary design files
> >anymore and I won't.  For my next design I will not use Orcad
> >any more and I won't be using Eagle if their file formats
> >are closed.
>
> Here are two such reasons from my personal experience.
>
> Example #1
> A major aerospace company has over thirty thousand documents
> in WordPerfect for MS-DOS format -- remember when that was
> THE standard?  The document have all been part of bids on
> military contracts, and edited versions have to look the
> same when printed out on new printers that had not been
> invented yet when WordPerfect Corp. went belly up.  And,
> of course, the new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system
> chokes on the files, so a parallel set of text versions
> needs to be maintained.
>
> Example #2
> A small company has a product line that has been in production
> for many years and is still quite profitable.  All the PWBs
> were created with the 1992 version  of AutoCAD for Apple Macintosh
> Release 12.  So when a change is made they hand-edit the Gerber.
>
> So, what are you happy FreePCB users using for schematic capture?

I still have Orcad which I don't care for.  Many of the "hobbyist"
users are using TinyCad.  I took a quick look at it and I don't care
for it, but may be I just need to look harder.  Some use a variety of
tools such as gEDA.  There certainly does not seem to be a consensus,
but TinyCad is likely the single most popular.

I am just surprised at how useful the FreePCB program is and that it
is written by *one* person!  No team, no business plan, no venture
capital.  Just one guy who likes using and writing CAD software.
Doesn't that say something about how businesses write programs?!!  All
of the source is available, so you can even make your own
customizations if you want.

rickman wrote:

>The point is that open formats are better for many reasons.
>I don't want to work with closes proprietary design files 
>anymore and I won't.  For my next design I will not use Orcad 
>any more and I won't be using Eagle if their file formats 
>are closed.

Here are two such reasons from my personal experience.

Example #1
A major aerospace company has over thirty thousand documents 
in WordPerfect for MS-DOS format -- remember when that was 
THE standard?  The document have all been part of bids on 
military contracts, and edited versions have to look the 
same when printed out on new printers that had not been
invented yet when WordPerfect Corp. went belly up.  And, 
of course, the new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system 
chokes on the files, so a parallel set of text versions
needs to be maintained. 

Example #2
A small company has a product line that has been in production 
for many years and is still quite profitable.  All the PWBs 
were created with the 1992 version  of AutoCAD for Apple Macintosh 
Release 12.  So when a change is made they hand-edit the Gerber.

So, what are you happy FreePCB users using for schematic capture?


-- 
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>

On Apr 20, 9:53 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
> In article <2c0987d9-e17d-4797-9adf-4960fd3f3b6b@
> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, rickman says...
>
> > On Apr 10, 9:49 pm, James Morrison <sp...@stratforddigital.ca> wrote:
> > > The real reason I like it is that the schematic and PCB are coming from the
> > > same database (other s/w has this to, PCB123 from Sunstone is one example).
> > > Thus there is no forward or back annotation--all modifications are applied
> > > to both simultaneously.  This is a big bonus and seriously cuts down on
> > > chaos when things change.
>
> > Is it an open database?  Can I write tools to pull data out of it and
> > to update it without using Eagle?  For example, if I design in a part
> > and in procurement the part is substituted, do I have to go into Eagle
> > to make the change or can I change the database externally?
>
> I don't follow Rick.  If the part is form and function compatible then
> there is no need to update the PCB or schematic.  If they are not then
> you need to go into the programs to changes the schematic and/or PCB.
> Surely you're not thinking of keeping approved source in the
> PCB/Schematic? (I know people who object to keeping resistor values in
> the schematic, preferring to keep them separately for configuration
> flexibility)

I put part numbers in my schematic.  I then generate a BOM from the
schematic using those part numbers.  I don't have any sort of data
base to track component changes, so I update the schematic when I
change components.  Not including resistor values would certainly make
reading a schematic difficult without the lookup table for the
values.

It has occurred to me that this is a good reason to use company part
numbers.  A company part number can be equated to multiple qualified
parts for that socket.  But this is another level of complexity that I
am not currently prepared to support.

There are still plenty of situations where I would want to edit the
parts information in the schematic like it was a spread sheet or
externally update it.  Orcad actually provides this capability and
would only be better if they did a more complete job of it.

It doesn't even matter if you agree with my example.  The point is
that open formats are better for many reasons.  I don't want to work
with closes proprietary design files anymore and I won't.  For my next
design I will not use Orcad any more and I won't be using Eagle if
their file formats are closed.

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> FreeRouter does the opposite in the sense they instead of moving the
> image so the cursor is the center of the screen, they use the cursor
> as the center of the zoom!

PCB has an option for whether you want zooming to recenter the
crosshairs or not.  I like "not" but both ways have their followers.

I prefer "not" because I'm of the opinion that the applications should
NEVER move the mouse cursor.  The mouse is an input device, not an
output device.

In article <2c0987d9-e17d-4797-9adf-4960fd3f3b6b@
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, rickman says...
> On Apr 10, 9:49 pm, James Morrison <sp...@stratforddigital.ca> wrote:
> > The real reason I like it is that the schematic and PCB are coming from the
> > same database (other s/w has this to, PCB123 from Sunstone is one example).
> > Thus there is no forward or back annotation--all modifications are applied
> > to both simultaneously.  This is a big bonus and seriously cuts down on
> > chaos when things change.
> 
> Is it an open database?  Can I write tools to pull data out of it and
> to update it without using Eagle?  For example, if I design in a part
> and in procurement the part is substituted, do I have to go into Eagle
> to make the change or can I change the database externally?

I don't follow Rick.  If the part is form and function compatible then 
there is no need to update the PCB or schematic.  If they are not then 
you need to go into the programs to changes the schematic and/or PCB.  
Surely you're not thinking of keeping approved source in the 
PCB/Schematic? (I know people who object to keeping resistor values in 
the schematic, preferring to keep them separately for configuration 
flexibility)

Robert
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Apr 10, 9:49 pm, James Morrison <sp...@stratforddigital.ca> wrote:
> > Just curious about what everyone uses.  I've been using Orcad PCB editor.
>
> Disclaimer:  My company sells EAGLE online to customers in North America
> (see sig below).  But I'm also an engineer and I use EAGLE for _real_ work
> on a daily basis.
>
> I like EAGLE.  Version 4 and previous did take some getting used to the UI.
> This is a stumbling block for some people.  The main reason is that EAGLE's
> motif was to pick your function, then pick your object.  The idea being that
> you typically will perform the same function on multiple objects.  And in
> reality I find this to be true, thus this i/f is generally the optimal way
> to go.

That may be true, but the simple fact that it is different is a major
issue.  Like I said, I learned the old interface once, then when I
wanted to use it again 6 months later, I had to learn it all over
again!  That is not a good interface unless you use the tool all the
time.  My projects are typically on a 6 month cycle.


> However, Windows and other modern UI's are all object based:  pick your
> object then your function.  Anyone who is used to this will find EAGLE's old
> UI a bit obtuse at the start.  But trust me, once you use it a lot you see
> the brilliance of it all.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it "brilliant"!  It works and you can
get used to it.  But I found I work in different modes and the typical
interface does a good job with all of them.  The only thing I don't
like about nearly every package I have seen (don't recall if Eagle is
like this or not), to do a basic move, you have to select the
object(s) and *then* select a move command!  Other than PCB layout, I
have not seen a program that doesn't allow you to move objects by just
simple clicking and dragging!  That is a significant time waster in my
opinion.

I can't say anything about how well the new interface works as I won't
be using this tool.  Someone else mentioned how using a third party
footprint or schematic can result in your designs being "infected"
with an illegal copy stamp resulting in the loss of support (possibly
for all time).  Sorry, I'm not interested.

I could get going on a long rant about licensing and software locks.
But I'll just say that I *much* prefer to use software that has no
lock regardless of the cost.  This includes intended locks such as
hardware dongles or software keys, but also includes proprietary
format files and the like.  Ultimately the important part of tools is
getting the work done.  Locks get in the way of getting the work
done.


> The real reason I like it is that the schematic and PCB are coming from the
> same database (other s/w has this to, PCB123 from Sunstone is one example).
> Thus there is no forward or back annotation--all modifications are applied
> to both simultaneously.  This is a big bonus and seriously cuts down on
> chaos when things change.

Is it an open database?  Can I write tools to pull data out of it and
to update it without using Eagle?  For example, if I design in a part
and in procurement the part is substituted, do I have to go into Eagle
to make the change or can I change the database externally?

On Apr 12, 1:48 pm, James Morrison <sp...@stratforddigital.ca> wrote:
> On 2008/Apr/12 11:29 AM, in article
> 209e6958-dcc3-4f8f-a76a-014f11522...@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, "rickman"
>
> > I tried Eagle and the oddities of the UI were rather tricky to
> > initially learn.  Then I came back to it 6 months later and they were
> > just as tricky to learn the second time!  If you don't use a program
> > very often, it is pointless to try to use such an odd bird as Eagle
> > (so to speak).  There are much better alternatives.
>
> Hi rickman,
>
> With version 5.0 of EAGLE (due out soon) some of this is alleviated.  You
> can now right click on an object and pick your function.  It is a bit
> different from other UI's but to be fair, most tools are slightly different.
>
> What do you consider "that odd"?  I'd be interested to know.

I don't recall and that is the problem.  I *have* to remember how
Eagle works vs other tools that just plain work like most other
packages that are even vaguely related to drawing anything.  One thing
that I think Allan got very right when he wrote FreePCB is the scroll
button zoom.  He not only centers the screen on the cursor when you
turn the wheel, he *only* centers it on the first click and doesn't
start zooming until the second click.  I don't recall what Eagle does,
but this works better than any other program I have used for any sort
of drawing.  FreeRouter does the opposite in the sense they instead of
moving the image so the cursor is the center of the screen, they use
the cursor as the center of the zoom!  Instead of zooming in on a
feature or being a controlled way of panning the window, I find this
very, very frustrating.


> > As to the scripting, I have thought scripting could be useful, but I
> > have yet to find a real need for it.  Your example can easily be done
> > by using a simple spread sheet table to calculate the coordinates for
> > the 16 LEDs and copying them to the parts.  At least you can do this
> > in FreePCB since it lets you directly enter the coordinates if you
> > want.
>
> There are lots of things you can do.  I have tools (for sale, disclaimer)
> that auto create packages in EAGLE from a small list of IPC7351 parameters,
> import/export various netlist formats, and others to come.  You can also
> emulate higher level functions that are available on more expensive tools.
> Or if you have something you need to do in a repeated way his can be useful
> too, faster and repeatable.

The package tool is something that is a part of FreePCB.  Allan calls
it the Footprint Wizard.  It does a pretty good job of creating SIPs,
DIPs, QFPs, BGAs, headers with two methods of numbering pins, etc.  I
even use it for oddball parts since it will throw a bunch of pins on
the page that I can then tailor to suit the part.


> > That does give me an idea for a suggestion to the author of FreePCB.
> > I don't know that a scripting capability is needed, but a hierarchical
> > capability might be.  That would let you combine say, four LEDs in an
> > arc to be placed four times to form your circle.  To be maximally
> > useful, it should also include traces.
>
> Hierarchy is the one big thing that I see EAGLE missing.  I'll see what pull
> I have as a dealer to get this included in the next major version.  They
> have already stated a desire to use XML file structure which is great for a
> lot of reasons.  Of course, their revision cycle is about 2 years or more so
> don't hold your breathe :)

Actually, the LED thing is likely not something that would come up
very often.  But it can be useful to use a "pattern" to place and
route identical sections of logic.  Someone was talking about that in
the FreePCB forums and I recently found use for it.  I guess it could
be a tricky thing to make work correctly, especially the user
interface.

>
>
>
>Anton Erasmus wrote:
>>
>>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>>>David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.freestyleteam.com/index.php?topic=topor&lang;=en
>>>
>>>also see:
>>>
>>>I just spent 20 minutes trying to find a price for the
>>>TopoR topological autorouter,  AuTOP automatic component
>>>placement, and FSCapture schematic editor, with no luck.
>>>
>>>Does anyone know roughly how much these cost?
>>
>>For the router I got the following prices:
>>(From memory)
>>
>>8 routing layers        US$2400
>>16 routing layers US$4000
>>32 routing layers US$6000
>>
>>2 and 4 routing layer versions are also available at lower cost.
>>There is also a Lite version available which is limited to 125 nets
>>and which is freely downloadable. This is still quite useful.
>
>I just downladed and tried it, and was not impressed.  The autoplace 
>demo didn't allow any manual placing, the autorouter demo crashed,
>and there was no demo allowing me to evaluate schematic capture.
>
>
>-- 
>misc.business.product-dev: a Usenet newsgroup 
>about the Business of Product Development.
>     -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
>
>

Does anybody use Pro/E's ECAD-MCAD Collaboration Extension for board
geometry or component placement?  Its not a bad system as Its much easier
to do complex shaped boards using an actual modeling program.