"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" wrote:> > > The Eagle software from CadSoft seemed like it had the most promise, but > > I tried to download the older version 4.09 as someone recommended and > > could not get either release to install. Both complain of bad files > > This is really bizarre. What OS are you trying to install on? Are you > running antivirus software, automatic file restoration utilities or > other weird programs that may be hooking file I/O? > > My guess is that you probably downloaded with Internet Explorer, and > the download silently timed out, so you have a partial file only. Try, > try again :) Eagle has one of the least restricted eval modes you'll > find.I agree. Eagle seems like the best approach and seems to be well recommended. But I don't get what's with the file errors. I have downloaded both the rel 1 and rel 2 versions of 4.09 twice and get the same error each time. The sizes match the expected sizes and are the same each time. The current version 4.11 seems to be downloading now. I guess they may have had the server down for some of the weekend. That would not be the first time a company did maintenance over the weekend. We'll see how the current release goes. I'm sorry that one poster said the GUI is not intuitive. Seems to me that a layout package should be very straightforward. But then I am not a board layout expert. I guess there can be subtleties that I am not aware of that make it complex.
Low cost PCB layout software
Started by ●December 23, 2003
Reply by ●December 27, 20032003-12-27
Reply by ●December 28, 20032003-12-28
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:26:35 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:>I agree. Eagle seems like the best approach and seems to be well >recommended. But I don't get what's with the file errors. I have >downloaded both the rel 1 and rel 2 versions of 4.09 twice and get the >same error each time. The sizes match the expected sizes and are the >same each time.It would be a Good Thing if the Windows app vendors would post MD5 sums alongside the download links -- at least for large files -- as is common practice over in the Linux side of things. FWIW, my connection here is usually pretty clean and the 4.11 I just downloaded installed OK. The checksum is FA53F89BCD6430F6B3F610FCD84044C6 eagle-4.11e.exe If you don't have md5sum, here's one place to get a Windows binary, along with a usage summary. I think there are GUI-ized versions, too. http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/using_md5sums.html -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Reply by ●December 28, 20032003-12-28
> We'll see how the current release goes. I'm sorry that one poster said > the GUI is not intuitive. Seems to me that a layout package should be > very straightforward. But then I am not a board layout expert. I guess > there can be subtleties that I am not aware of that make it complex.It's a personal preference thing as much as anything else. When I *first* started working with EAGLE, I also found it unintuitive, because it doesn't behave like other Windows applications. There are a couple of things that are decidedly non-Windows-standard. For instance, you don't use the Copy tool to copy, you use the Cut tool. And the procedure is not simply "select item to copy, and click copy". The procedure is: * select item(s) to copy * click Cut * either click Go, or right-click on where you want the pickup point to be. The reason for this, by the way, is so that you can select where the grab point on a group lies. The default (clicking Go) is the center of the selection. Like all of its counterparts, EAGLE is descended from a DOS package. (It was also at one time available for OS/2). Cadsoft decided to stay with consistency with the old DOS interface in preference to moving to a more standardized way of doing things. 4.11 has ironed out some of the oddities in the library manager, which was also a bit unusual to use. The bottom line is, whatever package you use will have a learning curve. My experience with Eagle and OrCAD, both of which I've used for my "daily bread" (plus a couple of packages I just evaluated) is that you have to expect a significant learning curve to use any of these packages *effectively*. I wouldn't say EAGLE's is steeper or longer than any of the others.
Reply by ●December 28, 20032003-12-28
Reply by ●December 28, 20032003-12-28
Rich Webb wrote:> > On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:26:35 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >I agree. Eagle seems like the best approach and seems to be well > >recommended. But I don't get what's with the file errors. I have > >downloaded both the rel 1 and rel 2 versions of 4.09 twice and get the > >same error each time. The sizes match the expected sizes and are the > >same each time. > > It would be a Good Thing if the Windows app vendors would post MD5 sums > alongside the download links -- at least for large files -- as is common > practice over in the Linux side of things. > > FWIW, my connection here is usually pretty clean and the 4.11 I just > downloaded installed OK. The checksum is > > FA53F89BCD6430F6B3F610FCD84044C6 eagle-4.11e.exe > > If you don't have md5sum, here's one place to get a Windows binary, > along with a usage summary. I think there are GUI-ized versions, too. > > http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/using_md5sums.htmlHelp me with this. I downloaded the MD5sum program and the checksum is not ok, then what do I try to fix? I have done the same downloads several times from this website and they just don't seem to work. Other sites download just fine and the programs run. I use a download utility called Star Downloader 1.42 and have never had any trouble with it before. I repeated the download and got a different wrong checksum. Can anyone make these files available from a different source?
Reply by ●December 28, 20032003-12-28
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:47:20 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:>Ralph Malph wrote: >> >> Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free >> packages are not viable. > >Well, I have read all the replies and have looked at most, if not all of >the recommended systems. Unfortunately I have not found any of them to >be workable (or at least easily used). > >The Eagle software from CadSoft seemed like it had the most promise, but >I tried to download the older version 4.09 as someone recommended and >could not get either release to install. Both complain of bad files >even though I downloaded them twice. I then tried to download 4.11 and >can't seem to connect to the server. > >So at this point I am still looking. The Protel Autotrax software is >very much a DOS package complete with a memory manager which did not >seem to initialize correctly under Win2k. So I don't think it is worth >trying to get it to work with a modern OS. Other packages installed ok, >but are very limited including providing nearly no parts library. If >they are going to limit the number of layers and pins, why don't they at >least include a moderately complete library? My idea was to do a >simple, small project to evaluate the tool. But with all the work >required to learn how to create my own device footprints, it is not >worth it. > >I find it expecially odd when they don't provide a file save >capability. If you can't do *any* useful work with their eval package, >just how much time do they expect you to spend with it? > > >Eagle Cadsoft Can't download or install >Autotrax Protel DOS based memory management >Easytrax Protel Poor UI >EasyPC Numberone Demo has no save or plot functionality >Cadstar Zuken Not simple >RangerXL Seetrax Still haven't gotten a password file (not sure >if it is time limited or not) > >I'll keep trying to download one of the Eagle versions. But otherwise I >have found all of these demo programs to be lacking for my needs.Greetings, I am a retired consulting EE. I have been using Eagle for many years. I was a beta tester for the OS2 version and have just bought the 4.1Pro version but I have not installed it yet. I like the autorouter and think it works quite well. I would be willing to sell it all to you or I offer my services to do the schematic capture and board layout for you. I'm always looking for ways to make a little extra money to support my R/C airplane habit. My email is:ahorne1 at comcast dot net. If I can be any help feel free to contact me. Regards, Art
Reply by ●December 28, 20032003-12-28
Rich Webb wrote:> Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I agree. Eagle seems like the best approach and seems to be > > well recommended. But I don't get what's with the file errors. > > I have downloaded both the rel 1 and rel 2 versions of 4.09 > > twice and get the same error each time. The sizes match the > > expected sizes and are the same each time. > > It would be a Good Thing if the Windows app vendors would post > MD5 sums alongside the download links -- at least for large files > -- as is common practice over in the Linux side of things.It would be quite enough to use ZIP (or ARJ, LHZ, etc) formats, possibly combined with a self extractor for the unwashed. All such formats include internal consistency checks and can be examined before installation. MD5 is simply overkill, but can also be used internally for the consistency checks. *** Ad Hoc Committee to Stamp Out Delivery in Executables *** -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
Reply by ●December 28, 20032003-12-28
Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote: Well, I'll throw in the lone voice of the Macintosh community. I use Osmond, which is currently a freeware package being created, but is VERY good. It can't autoroute (which no one seems to like anyway) but it does support partlist and netlist files, copper floods and "ratsnesting" which allows you to see what pins should be connected. Building your own libraries is very easy, as is doing minute individual mods after the board is done. It can handle any number of board layers and does the standard modern Gerber and drill file outputs. Joe (the author) also does a Gerber-to-PDF tool so you can look at the gerber file outputs to make yourself feel better about the final product. I've used the files on a bunch of PCB manufacturers and never had any complaints. He has both OS9 and OSX versions of the software. You can get it here: http://www.swcp.com/~jchavez/osmond.html If you are into Mac electronics, don't bother with the Douglas PC layout system, it looks like the last time they gave that package a facelift the 80286 was the hottest thing on the market... I use LogicWorks 4.0 to do my schematic capture, then massage the parts and connection list files to work with Osmond to give me a GREAT CAD package for PC boards. Designworks would be a better package, but Logicworks is about $80 and comes with a book on Amazon.com - Osmond is free. have fun, DLC : I am looking for low cost PCB layout software. My designs are not : overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small : parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space. I have : looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found : two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that : are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab : house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them. : Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free : packages are not viable. The PCB package from : http://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~haceaton/pcb/ seems to work, but is not : supported under windows. It is not clear if it will run under Cygwin. : I guess I could dedicate a machine to PCB design and run Linix, but I am : pretty sure I would end up creating problems from my lack of experience : with *NIX. : I looked at a few of the PCB vendor packages and have done one design : and ordered boards. It was fairly low risk since it only cost $59 : including shipping from expressPCB. But these boards have no soldermask : or silk screen. I can live without silk screen, but the solder mask is : important when using fine pitch parts. In general, I am not happy being : tied to a vendor and having to duplicate the layout work to use a : different vendor. Reentering a schematic is no big deal, but layout is : very time intensive and each tool is toally different. : So that brings us to the commercial layout packages. Most of them are : several kilobucks and out of my budget. I found a list at : http://www.olimex.com/pcb/dtools.html of a lot of packages, but there is : no real info on them. So that is why I am here. Can I ask for opinions : on what tools will give the best benifit for the cost of the low end : tools? I hate to spend even $100 on a tool that I am not sure I will : want to continue to use, but if I have confidence that it will be a good : tool, I would not mind paying $500. : So what are my options and how good are they for fine pitch work, up to : 6 layers? : And does anyone have any experience with TCI3? It seems to be a free : tool, but when I follow the link, the page is in French. Anyone know if : the tool can be used by English speakers (and readers)? Any English : docs? I guess I could learn metric dimensions; 0.15 trace - 0.15 space : :). -- ============================================================================ * Dennis Clark dlc@frii.com www.techtoystoday.com * * "Programming and Customizing the OOPic Microcontroller" Mcgraw-Hill 2003 * ============================================================================
Reply by ●December 28, 20032003-12-28
Thanks for the info, but other than this one tool, there are not many engineering uses for Macs; at least there are not many that I can use. The bulk of my work is doing DSP and FPGA design and FPGA tools just don't exist on the Mac. I don't know of any DSP tools on the Mac either. Dennis Clark wrote:> > Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote: > Well, > > I'll throw in the lone voice of the Macintosh community. I use Osmond, > which is currently a freeware package being created, but is VERY good. It > can't autoroute (which no one seems to like anyway) but it does support > partlist and netlist files, copper floods and "ratsnesting" which allows > you to see what pins should be connected. Building your own libraries is > very easy, as is doing minute individual mods after the board is done. It > can handle any number of board layers and does the standard modern Gerber > and drill file outputs. Joe (the author) also does a Gerber-to-PDF tool > so you can look at the gerber file outputs to make yourself feel better about > the final product. I've used the files on a bunch of PCB manufacturers and > never had any complaints. > > He has both OS9 and OSX versions of the software. You can get it here: > http://www.swcp.com/~jchavez/osmond.html > > If you are into Mac electronics, don't bother with the Douglas PC layout > system, it looks like the last time they gave that package a facelift the > 80286 was the hottest thing on the market... > > I use LogicWorks 4.0 to do my schematic capture, then massage the parts > and connection list files to work with Osmond to give me a GREAT CAD package > for PC boards. Designworks would be a better package, but Logicworks is > about $80 and comes with a book on Amazon.com - Osmond is free. > > have fun, > DLC > > : I am looking for low cost PCB layout software. My designs are not > : overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small > : parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space. I have > : looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found > : two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that > : are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab > : house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them. > > : Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free > : packages are not viable. The PCB package from > : http://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~haceaton/pcb/ seems to work, but is not > : supported under windows. It is not clear if it will run under Cygwin. > : I guess I could dedicate a machine to PCB design and run Linix, but I am > : pretty sure I would end up creating problems from my lack of experience > : with *NIX. > > : I looked at a few of the PCB vendor packages and have done one design > : and ordered boards. It was fairly low risk since it only cost $59 > : including shipping from expressPCB. But these boards have no soldermask > : or silk screen. I can live without silk screen, but the solder mask is > : important when using fine pitch parts. In general, I am not happy being > : tied to a vendor and having to duplicate the layout work to use a > : different vendor. Reentering a schematic is no big deal, but layout is > : very time intensive and each tool is toally different. > > : So that brings us to the commercial layout packages. Most of them are > : several kilobucks and out of my budget. I found a list at > : http://www.olimex.com/pcb/dtools.html of a lot of packages, but there is > : no real info on them. So that is why I am here. Can I ask for opinions > : on what tools will give the best benifit for the cost of the low end > : tools? I hate to spend even $100 on a tool that I am not sure I will > : want to continue to use, but if I have confidence that it will be a good > : tool, I would not mind paying $500. > > : So what are my options and how good are they for fine pitch work, up to > : 6 layers? > > : And does anyone have any experience with TCI3? It seems to be a free > : tool, but when I follow the link, the page is in French. Anyone know if > : the tool can be used by English speakers (and readers)? Any English > : docs? I guess I could learn metric dimensions; 0.15 trace - 0.15 space > : :). > > -- > ============================================================================ > * Dennis Clark dlc@frii.com www.techtoystoday.com * > * "Programming and Customizing the OOPic Microcontroller" Mcgraw-Hill 2003 * > ============================================================================
Reply by ●December 28, 20032003-12-28
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:54:42 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:>Help me with this. I downloaded the MD5sum program and the checksum is >not ok, then what do I try to fix? I have done the same downloads >several times from this website and they just don't seem to work. Other >sites download just fine and the programs run. > >I use a download utility called Star Downloader 1.42 and have never had >any trouble with it before. I repeated the download and got a different >wrong checksum.Try a simple FTP from ftp://ftp.cadsoft.de/pub/program/4.11/. If you don't have an FTP client, there's one available from http://sourceforge.net/projects/filezilla -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
