im about to cry please help

[justin66]

so i start working with cadsoft eagle pcb design software and im kind of made my circuit until i checked for errors and noticed that a lot of connections isnt connected. i tryed messing with grid size and so on nothing helped its now seems tricky to do it and i have made short video how buggy and out of place it looks

i seen many people using this software with out any problems and it looks straight forward but for me it feels cursed 


please watch it

also search is messed up too
when i search for tda it doesnt find anything witch is seen in the video. when i have downloaded a library it only came up with search term tda2003 and as i later figured out there is an other one witch only could be found with tda2003v term 

[kripton2035]

try diptrace it's free for hobby use 300 pins limit - you can ask for a 500 pins it's free too but have to ask for it
diptrace has IMHO a far better user interface than eagle is more easy to learn.
you also have DEX Autotrax recently came, but there are still some issues with the software but the original author wants to correct them.

[justin66]

thanks and btw if i saw schematic in data sheet witch has tag test circuit is it on that i use it for day to day application or do i need to add more parts to make input cleaner and so on?

[Jeroen3]

Never change grid in schematic editors!
Use Alternative grid (by holding alt) to move texts off main grid. But never change main grid.

To get stuff back on main grid, hold ctrl while using the move tool to grab the component.

[rdl]

Before you get in too deep, switch to Diptrace.

I tried Eagle when I first started and found its user interface to be very difficult to use. Diptrace is very straight forward and generally follows the familiar Windows ways of doing things. Eagle apparently, was designed by aliens from another planet.

I do agree with starting your own library. In Diptrace creating a new part is trivial. The editor is not much more complex than Windows Paint. Spending a lot of time to find a part in the libraries is not good. Then most of the time you find that the part has problems like hole size is off, or doesn't snap to grid right, or whatever, and you have to fix it. I actually removed most of the default libraries, since I don't have much time for that.

So whatever you do, at least download Diptrace and give it a try.

[Relaxed]

You need to use wildcards like * if you are searching for parts of a component name. For example "TDA*" and you will find every component starting with "TDA".

[Monkeh]

Stop screwing with your schematic grid. Leave it on 0.1".

There is a manual and I highly suggest reading it. You really can't just dive in to a tool like this and expect to get places quickly.

[kurt]

Some years ago when I was lokking for a schematic capture and PCB package, I fond that there was 2 main kandidates for free. Eagle and DipTrace. I wanted to give them both a fair chance so I finished one project in Eagle first and then tried DipTrace. I never looked back at Eagle. In my opinion it have one of the most horrible user interface I have ever seen in any software. I'm sure they have both evolved since then, but I have stuck with DipTrace.

[kripton2035]

I'm sure they have both evolved since then, but I have stuck with DipTrace.

yep - no they did not evolve the user interface ...

[calexanian]

Patience. Whenyou connect your netlines in the schematic window you have to make sure your green netlines meet up right at the tip of the pins in the components. It takes a little practice but you will get it. to insure its connected use the info button and click on the pin to see if it is connected to the right net. There are many youtube videos that will walk you through it. Once you get the hang of it and have your go to parts in your library Eagle is actually one of the faster ones to use. Its not as slick, but once you think in its method, it is really not bad.

[MoighonFweeman]

If your circuits use common components, you can use Fritzing as a circuit editor. You simply cannot compare Eagle and Fritzing: Eagle is so much more powerful. However, the interface of Fritzing is pretty intuitive, so it's good for drawing out a simple circuit.

[CatalinaWOW]

I actually am not an Eagle user.  Tried it but didn't like it.  But I also suggest patience.  NONE of the CAD programs are easy.  There is a fairly steep learning curve for all of them.  Once you make it up the curve it becomes natural.  I would think twice before you throw away your current investment in learning Eagle.  It is a very usable program, liked by many.

[Jeroen3]

It is a very usable program, liked by many.

Because of that, plenty of parts are available on the internet. Farnell even supplies scripts (to add a part to a lib) for some parts.

Eagle uses the same interface from the early days. I'm sure that was just as any other program with the tools on the left, and the menu/options at the top. Much like CorelDraw for example.
Only the latest version changed all the icons. Fortunately they've added a option to use the old icons.

Once you've done a few boards in eagle, collected/created some .lbr's (see sparkfun, dangerousprototypes or microbuilder), some .ulp's and made a .scr with your settings. Then you'll see that eagle is a useful tool.
I'm sure that there are plenty of other tools around. From unaffordable to open source. From total garbage to overpowered.
Eagle does it's job. When you know how to use it.

I remember using eagle for the first time after using only Altium designer. Eagle looked like a horrible piece of antiques. But the job got done.
Then had to use Multisim and Ultiboard for a while. Lets just say that Eagle is faster to use and more reliable.

I have no experience with diptrace. It looks like a viable alternative to eagle. It's in the same price range.

[Tac Eht Xilef]

Eagle uses the same interface from the early days. I'm sure that was just as any other program with the tools on the left, and the menu/options at the top. Much like CorelDraw for example.

It's earlier than that - Eagle was originally a DOS-based graphical program, and has largely stuck to the 'choose action -> select object to apply it to' (aka 'verb-noun') paradigm of many pre-Windows programs. Windows (eventually) settled on the other way around; 'select object -> choose action to apply to it' (aka 'noun-verb').

If you keep that basic difference in mind then Eagle makes a lot more sense. Interestingly, the verb-noun paradigm stuck around longer in CAD & drawing software than anywhere else.

(Those who remember Windows 1 & 2 will remember that things weren't nearly as settled, and both paradigms were used by both programs & the Windows shell itself. It wasn't until Windows 3, or maybe Win/286 & Win/386, that Windows settled on it's current way.)

[justin66]

Stop screwing with your schematic grid. Leave it on 0.1".

There is a manual and I highly suggest reading it. You really can't just dive in to a tool like this and expect to get places quickly.

it doesnt apply to eagle because than i cant even touch wire to a component especially IC

[justin66]

i got somewhat carried away ... and modded my "template" into a sub sized plate of symbols . as you can see left side are the still normal types with size 70 font.

1 good thing about an eagle .SCH file. if you grab a SCH file to use from someone, you could save it, and you could use the ULP export function, and re-export that sheet into a single library and re-use it as an actual library reference. this is how i try to re-condense the entire jumble of libraries (and into a single library that becomes a starter "template", with all the normally used components or miniaturized symbols in my case), but then again ... quite a waste of time. but im quite intrigue by the use of smaller symbols, its just a me thing ( i find the larger symbols taking too much space and requiring a really large span of sheet or sheets). and i have also tweaked this library into somewhat a format similar to KICAD, into more footprint oriented placement (post schematic), instead of part specific.

this tweaking can also be accomplished by editing the library directly in the initial program panel. ie : by opening your favourite library, (not schematic / board), then you scroll down the OTHER libraries looking at all the device/symbol, then add anything you fancy into your library. this action can also ADD aditional footprints to an existing symbol ie : SOT23 ... SOT23W ... TO220 flat?, TO220 vertical? (sort of like "stealing" footprints) but drawback is, because there is so many kinds of parts, my way of organizing it is by common footprint instead of individual part name. however as individual circuits may demand a special way of orienting a part, the footprint variations also will grow in numbers.

come to think of it, does ISO standards dictate the size of schematic symbols?

i will use kicad because diptrace is so bizarre i did proper circuit and did auto routing and that fucking diptrace routed some caps + to ground point and i figured that out after drilling 100 holes eching it tin'ing copper with solider because i didnt had liquid tin and also putting all components in when i powered it one trace burnt. what a fuck man? im so dissapointed

[kjs]

I am using Eagle since the DOS days and once you are familiar with it it is very easy to use. It's major strength is the scripting and user language part. Most of what I do is now handled by ULP's like automatic panel creation, tape-out and document generation. Something I never got working right in other programs. KiCAD looks like it is going slowly in the right direction but why change.

The schematic editor only connects if the pin is on the grid. Another thing is that if you insert a part from the paste buffer it will NOT connect. That's a bit strange but if you know it you won't do it.
The suggestion made here several times to leave the grid as it is (100mil or 0.1") is the best one. Do the same when you generate new devices in a library.

Another thing (for me) is to never use the pre-made libraries because the majority of them are pretty crude and not practical for production. One example is the stencil (or cream) which is always all the way to the corners of the pad and you just reduce it with the scaling. This isn't the way many SMD parts want it in production. I only work from my own libraries which evolved over the years.

[rdl]

Eagle is old, archaic, out-dated, and difficult to use. The only reason it ever gained any following is because at one time, many years ago, it was pretty much the only free option. That is no longer the case. Life is too short to waste time with software that fights you every step of the way and makes you want to bang your head on the desk more than anything else.

On the other hand, the problems you've described using Diptrace makes me think the real issue is not the software.

[Monkeh]

Stop screwing with your schematic grid. Leave it on 0.1".

There is a manual and I highly suggest reading it. You really can't just dive in to a tool like this and expect to get places quickly.

it doesnt apply to eagle because than i cant even touch wire to a component especially IC

Yes, it does apply, and yes, you can connect a net to a component pin on the schematic at the default 0.1" grid. It's about the easiest thing to do.

There is nothing wrong with the tool. Please slow down, stop richocheting from tool to tool like a runaway flubber (.. do people even know what that is these days?), and put some effort into learning. If you ask questions, there are many here, myself included, who will be happy to answer and help you.

Life is too short to waste time with software that fights you every step of the way and makes you want to bang your head on the desk more than anything else.

Eagle does not fight you, you fight Eagle because you have preconceptions about how it should work.

It's not perfect but it works.

[justin66]

I am using Eagle since the DOS days and once you are familiar with it it is very easy to use. It's major strength is the scripting and user language part. Most of what I do is now handled by ULP's like automatic panel creation, tape-out and document generation. Something I never got working right in other programs. KiCAD looks like it is going slowly in the right direction but why change.

The schematic editor only connects if the pin is on the grid. Another thing is that if you insert a part from the paste buffer it will NOT connect. That's a bit strange but if you know it you won't do it.
The suggestion made here several times to leave the grid as it is (100mil or 0.1") is the best one. Do the same when you generate new devices in a library.

Another thing (for me) is to never use the pre-made libraries because the majority of them are pretty crude and not practical for production. One example is the stencil (or cream) which is always all the way to the corners of the pad and you just reduce it with the scaling. This isn't the way many SMD parts want it in production. I only work from my own libraries which evolved over the years.

i was using eagle at first too but i got too frusturated when i wasnt abble to connect dam traces to an ic look at this

[justin66]

Eagle is old, archaic, out-dated, and difficult to use. The only reason it ever gained any following is because at one time, many years ago, it was pretty much the only free option. That is no longer the case. Life is too short to waste time with software that fights you every step of the way and makes you want to bang your head on the desk more than anything else.

On the other hand, the problems you've described using Diptrace makes me think the real issue is not the software.

take a look at my other post lol
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/am-i-stupid-or-diptrace-is-completely-bullshit-crap/

[Monkeh]

I am using Eagle since the DOS days and once you are familiar with it it is very easy to use. It's major strength is the scripting and user language part. Most of what I do is now handled by ULP's like automatic panel creation, tape-out and document generation. Something I never got working right in other programs. KiCAD looks like it is going slowly in the right direction but why change.

The schematic editor only connects if the pin is on the grid. Another thing is that if you insert a part from the paste buffer it will NOT connect. That's a bit strange but if you know it you won't do it.
The suggestion made here several times to leave the grid as it is (100mil or 0.1") is the best one. Do the same when you generate new devices in a library.

Another thing (for me) is to never use the pre-made libraries because the majority of them are pretty crude and not practical for production. One example is the stencil (or cream) which is always all the way to the corners of the pad and you just reduce it with the scaling. This isn't the way many SMD parts want it in production. I only work from my own libraries which evolved over the years.

i was using eagle at first too but i got too frusturated when i wasnt abble to connect dam traces to an ic look at this

This is 100% user error. You are throwing things around and changing settings without understanding what you're doing.

Slow down, maybe read the manual, ask some questions.. and do not change grid on the schematic.

[justin66]

Stop screwing with your schematic grid. Leave it on 0.1".

There is a manual and I highly suggest reading it. You really can't just dive in to a tool like this and expect to get places quickly.

it doesnt apply to eagle because than i cant even touch wire to a component especially IC

Yes, it does apply, and yes, you can connect a net to a component pin on the schematic at the default 0.1" grid. It's about the easiest thing to do.

There is nothing wrong with the tool. Please slow down, stop richocheting from tool to tool like a runaway flubber (.. do people even know what that is these days?), and put some effort into learning. If you ask questions, there are many here, myself included, who will be happy to answer and help you.

Life is too short to waste time with software that fights you every step of the way and makes you want to bang your head on the desk more than anything else.

Eagle does not fight you, you fight Eagle because you have preconceptions about how it should work.

It's not perfect but it works.

compared to diptrace eagle is crap in my opinion. traces happily connect to components in diptrace when eagle doesnt want me to connect them serriously i was wanting to to this when i was using eagle. tutorials didnt help eather. diptrace was like blessed rescue for me i did everything pretty straigt forward and i didnt ran into any problems except autorouter fucked up my circuit and now i don know if my tda1554q's are blown or not because . look at this https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/am-i-stupid-or-diptrace-is-completely-bullshit-crap/

[Monkeh]

compared to diptrace eagle is crap in my opinion. traces happily connect to components in diptrace when eagle doesnt want me to connect them serriously i was wanting to to this when i was using eagle. tutorials didnt help eather.

Eagle works fine. It is absolutely trivial to connect a net to two pins if you don't muck with settings.

Please calm down, slow down, and examine what you are doing, no matter the tool you choose to use. And do not judge a complex piece of software based on ten minutes of blindly clicking.

[miguelvp]

easy, use diptrace then.

I never had trouble with eagle but maybe i'm lucky or too methodical.