Eagle is horrible software

[tom66]

beginning of a RANT...:

I have been using Eagle for the past four weeks working on my university 2nd year project. I've never used it before -- it was a course requirement to submit eagle BRDs instead of gerber files, so... I'm using Eagle.

Eagle is... umm... probably best described as "special".

And it may have just cost me a board.

I have personal experience of gEDA (decent and easy to use, but lacks features) and Cadence Allegro/OrCAD (at work/internship.) Cadence is very, very powerful and fast, but with a somewhat initially unintuitive interface. However, once I got used to it (which took only about a week) I found it incredibly powerful. I was able to create small and large projects easily in it. Great workflow, although annoying that you have to restart the PCB editor if you want to back-annotate it... I haven't tried Altium yet, but I might end up at my next job. So I'll pass judgement on Altium another time.

Eagle is none of these things. Eagle is horrible.

So... How do I select and move group of objects on a schematic or PCB? Oh. That makes sense. Select "MOVE" tool, select "GROUP" tool, highlight group, right click and select "Move: Group", THEN move it. No key shortcuts for major commands. No proper command queuing.  You have to NAME a NET, but if you copy a block, and try to rename that net, you short the two old nets together - WTF? So how do you do block copying? Just make sure you don't name any nets before, or you'll have to delete them all and try again. If you connect two nets, I get a question asking if I want to name it N$22 or N$32... how the hell do I know???

Good luck drawing planes too. Make sure to set the RANK ORDER correctly, and hopefully you don't have more than 6 overlapping polys. Oh, and if you draw a trace into a plane, it disappears until you update it manually. Cadence and gEDA both do this live. Why can't EAGLE?

If you say "CANNOT SET VIA TO LAYER 16" one more time I will lose it.

OK, that's bad enough, and with all that I finally finished a board. But I'm trying to bring it up and as soon as my P-FET for the sonar sensor turns the power on, the 5V rail collapses. I look at the PCB and immediately see it. Boom. Dead short across this cap. So, I must have missed it in DRC. Nope. Not detected. Neither in ERC. In fact EAGLE has back-annotated the net change I accidentally made on the PCB.

You know the one thing Eagle actually gets right -- if you make a change in the schematic, it immediately updates the PCB. I really like that. Both Cadence and gEDA workflows required a restart of the PCB editor.

Luckily, this isn't a killer fault. I can cut that trace and bypass the cap, then use a mod wire on the bottom of the board. But it's mighty frustrating.

/rant

[Mr Smiley]

Have you checked the footprint.

All other components have a white cross indicating the centre of the component. That looks like a similar cross but with one of the lines extended 

Can you change the colour of the rats nest lines and see if it really is a rats nest line.

 

[DavidDLC]

If it is horrible, change to a different one and stop complaining.

David.

[JoeO]

If it is horrible, change to a different one and stop complaining.

David.

You didn't read his post.  He has to use it for his school project.

[tom66]

The rat is yellow, cross is white. It's faintly visible but there is a rat there. Also, it only affected this component so far, an 0805 SMD cap.

If it is horrible, change to a different one and stop complaining.

Can't. Course requirement. Don't understand why it's so standard with such an awkward design.

[Mr Smiley]

Where does SNS_5V1 go and where do the two pins on the two connectors shown connected to the positive side of the capacitor go. Are any of them grounded somewhere else.

 

[marshallh]

Yes eagle is horrible. That's why I stopped using it


Ctrl-right click moves gruops btw, you can also copy entire groups with the same procedure.


It is a total pile of fail which I realized after I stopped using it. It's not as bad as Kicad though

[Dago]

Yes eagle is horrible. That's why I stopped using it


Ctrl-right click moves gruops btw, you can also copy entire groups with the same procedure.


It is a total pile of fail which I realized after I stopped using it. It's not as bad as Kicad though

In my opinion (even) KiCAD is way nicer than EAGLE.

[AndyC_772]

In Cadence, there's no restart needed. Just:

- update schematic
- Tools > Create Netlist
- select the PCB Editor tab, and set the net list file directory. You only need to do this once.
- click OK

...then in the PCB software, with your board file still open...

- File > Import Logic
- ensure that 'Import logic type: Design entry CIS (Capture)' is selected
- click 'Import Cadence'

Once the net list type and folder have been selected once, it's literally three clicks in each tool and you're done. The net list gets updated, any changed components are either removed or updated in place depending on which option you selected, and you can carry on editing without interruption. Don't forget you can also enable inter-tool communication, so you can select parts in one package and have them automatically selected in the other too. It helps if you have dual monitors for this.

I'm guessing you're doing it the other way, which is to get the schematic package to update the .BRD file directly. If you do this, then you're quite right, the board file has to be reloaded. So don't!

Don't understand why it's so standard with such an awkward design.

It's cheap.

[Corporate666]

Eagle is a HORRIBLE piece of software.  Unfortunately, I know how to use it well, and it's "fast and light" compared to something like Altium, so like an old pair of shoes, I find myself going back to it because it's comfortable.

That being said, in many years of using Eagle and many hundreds of boards made, I have never ever seen Eagle make a mistake in airwires and routing.  I am positive that there is something going on in your schematic that led to this error.  I am sure it was an unwitting mistake, but it's not Eagle's fault anymore than it's Windows fault when my aunt calls me to say "OMG!  Windows just erased all my pictures!".

[tom66]

I did eventually find the mistake. The stub net coming out of the capacitor has the netname GND, so the two nets are shorted - why you can name a little stub (without it being visible!) and short them together is unknown to me. I guess this must have happened when I rotated the capacitor and neglected to check it.

[tom66]

I'm guessing you're doing it the other way, which is to get the schematic package to update the .BRD file directly. If you do this, then you're quite right, the board file has to be reloaded. So don't!

It was set up at work so you had to restart it. There might be a reason they didn't enable it or maybe they weren't aware of it. The IT guy was also one of the engineers (or rather, one of the engineers was also the IT guy?) Oddly though, inter-tool did work, and quite well.

Wasn't frequent enough to bother me. Overall a nice piece of software. Only crashed it once.

[T3sl4co1l]

Weird.  Different packages have different worldviews on connectivity and stuff...

Altium autogenerates names on compilation (not live), which is a "bring it all together" step on the schematic.  With that done, you can probe a wire to see what net it thinks it belongs to.  Net names normally come from a pin on some component (I assume the first pin it finds attached), or if used, an off-sheet connector or port (also depending on project settings).  Altium will remind you if things are funny (multiple possible net names warning), but doesn't ever really screw things up.  The worst that can happen is, you've referenced an auto-named net, by name, and the name changes.  Which I think only happens in simulation postprocessing (since SPICE nets are named by the netlist, of course).  And that's basically your fault for not using an explicitly named net; if you want it named, name it.

Altium also uses nets as a property of each physical object on the board: pads, traces, polys, anything.  Suppose you have a bus (a set of related traces, running in parallel), and need to swap some around (maybe you can save a via or two with a pin swap at one end or the other, a typical example).  You can't just delete the bits touching the pads, draw new copper and have it work; no, you've shorted between nets, because the copper doesn't auto update.  You have to do a "connectivity by physical connection" or whatever, or change the nets manually.  So, they treat every little line segment as a fully privileged, first class object with net name and layer and position and all these attributes.  (Which, since everything is an object, isn't too bad, it's logical and consistent from the computational direction at least; but it may not be the most convenient.)

The other package I've used a lot is Multisim/Ultiboard.  This is much more special-case programmed, so you only get so-and-so fields on components, net names are autogenerated on drawing (not regenerated on every 'compile' procedure), names are usually persistent once placed or specified, and connections can be made globally in any number of ways (on/off sheet connectors, global supply symbols, manually specified net names, buses..).  One thing that pisses me off: it seems to handle net names better than component names.  I can specify that a circuit should be IC4B exactly, or a hierarchical sheet be "DQ1" or something.  But then it'll go and rename it to U12A when I place a new component!  It seems like, when it searches for a next-available-index to name the new component, that causes a "recompile" sort of event.  Despite not having one accessible in the menus.  So, labels, user fields, but not usually net names, are sometimes fragile and weird.

As for Ultiboard, forward/backward annotation is done through a file, and seems well behaved (random renamings notwithstanding).  It's no worse than Altium, which does it through ECOs (which generate a file, but the process is done all within Altium, not between two programs; whether it actually parses the ECO, or transfers the changes internally, I have no idea, but it's just a couple of clicks in both cases).  In Ultiboard, traces are second class objects, they don't really have attributes (there's something of an object system too, but not nearly as accessible or as fixed as, like, being able to use Altium's Inspector box on literally everything).  As such, you can delete connecting segments, and floating copper defaults to 'no net'.  You can short a new net onto said copper, and accomplish that bus trace swap I talked about earlier.  Though cleanup is worse, because it doesn't really give you object snap or anything.  Manipulating things is very manual, heavily mouse driven, one object at a time, diving into dialogs and such (for both Ultiboard and Multisim).  Absolutely no design rule engine, only the most basic trace/pad clearance sorts of things can be set.

As for heritage, I guess Altium is kind of unique; it comes from Protel and whatever, which has always been its thing, so it operates in its own way.  Like AutoCAD works in its own way, and SolidWorks, and so on.  Multisim/Ultiboard are again different, probably with more influence from the Mentor Graphics side of things (I notice some similarities with PADS, but, I haven't used the latter enough to really comment on it... except to say there's no way it's worth its price).

S'pose I should try Eagle some time, just to see how truely awful it actually is, and if it's possible to do real work in it at all (I guess it is, people are making boards... but..??).  I've also got gEDA, but only ever opened it, just to see nothing of interest or value; looks like a righteous pain to get anything done in it, let alone the work flow between umpteen different, fully independent applications.  But I didn't pay anything for it, so that's just the way of FOSS; it's written by programmers, for programmers.  Probably great on data structures, crap on CAD, that kind of thing, what do you expect.

Tim

[Mr Smiley]

I did eventually find the mistake. The stub net coming out of the capacitor has the netname GND, so the two nets are shorted - why you can name a little stub (without it being visible!) and short them together is unknown to me. I guess this must have happened when I rotated the capacitor and neglected to check it.

Yep, problem occurred between the keyboard and the chair 

 

[KedasProbe]

Yep, problem occurred between the keyboard and the chair 

 

I vote for the keyboard and chair of the program designers

[poorchava]

Eagle is shit. They are dominating on hobby market only because there is no other alternative on even roughly comparable level. If things go as they are going now, I can see DipTrace or KiCad replacing Eagle in near future. I don't like KiCad and gEDA, but they are free and Eagle is something that somebody actually charges money for, whereas they should be paying people for using that crap.

To be honest my personal low-end program of choice is DipTrace.

[jpb]

I'm interested in this thread because I'm in the process of deciding which (low cost) board layout software to invest time (learning it) and money. A long time ago I had a copy of EasyPC from number one systems. I see that it is still in existence but looking on the associated forums it seems that the users are not that happy and it is not updated much (edit - also they charge for libraries!).

I'm slightly wary of open-source software in the sense that I feel if you're not paying for something then you have no leverage on getting things fixed or what is prioritised. I like the idea of open-source, and it works very well for OSs and compilers like gcc but it doesn't seem to work so well for tools like drawing programs (like Gimp vs Photoshop). I think one problem is too many people with different ideas working on the same project leads to lots of separate features and complexity.

So, within my budget, it seems to come down to Eagle or DipTrace.

From this thread (and others) people don't seem very keen on Eagle! But it does seem to have the most comprehensive library which seems a big plus for someone like me who will be using standard parts probably bought from Farnell who now own Eagle I think or are closely associated with it.

The question I have is,

is Eagle bad because it does things differently so those of you used to other packages keep running up against annoyances, or is it intrinsically doing things in an awkward way and lacking in key functionality?

(The reason for the question is that I've not yet committed to any system so I won't have any preconceptions as to how things should be done.)

[tom66]

Intrinsic awkwardness, in my opinion. I'm sure if you worked with it for long enough it could work well. But you need to be careful - it's easy to slip up like I did. As featureful as necessary for most basic applications, although you'd be a little crazy IMHO to use it for a BGA or high density design, in my opinion, unless some of the software options improve the feature set significantly.

[Hypernova]

That last time I tried Eagle (3 years ago), it didn't even have a measuring tool, as in ctrl-m in Altium and you can get dx/dy etc between two points. How the coders manage to miss a basic feature like that is beyond me.

[PlainName]

So, within my budget, it seems to come down to Eagle or DipTrace

Have you considered Proteus from Labcenter?

http://www.labcenter.com/

Started as a DOS program, I think, so the user interface is ..ah.. not what you would expect from an app designed for Windows, but it is OK once you get over that small step. It has recently been redesigned to allow Altium-like features to be added (relatively) easily.

Pricing is on pin count rather than PCB size or similar,  but there are pros and cons either - whatever suits your circumstances is best

[poorchava]

I'm interested in this thread because I'm in the process of deciding which (low cost) board layout software to invest time (learning it) and money. A long time ago I had a copy of EasyPC from number one systems. I see that it is still in existence but looking on the associated forums it seems that the users are not that happy and it is not updated much (edit - also they charge for libraries!).

I'm slightly wary of open-source software in the sense that I feel if you're not paying for something then you have no leverage on getting things fixed or what is prioritised. I like the idea of open-source, and it works very well for OSs and compilers like gcc but it doesn't seem to work so well for tools like drawing programs (like Gimp vs Photoshop). I think one problem is too many people with different ideas working on the same project leads to lots of separate features and complexity.

So, within my budget, it seems to come down to Eagle or DipTrace.

From this thread (and others) people don't seem very keen on Eagle! But it does seem to have the most comprehensive library which seems a big plus for someone like me who will be using standard parts probably bought from Farnell who now own Eagle I think or are closely associated with it.

The question I have is,

is Eagle bad because it does things differently so those of you used to other packages keep running up against annoyances, or is it intrinsically doing things in an awkward way and lacking in key functionality?

(The reason for the question is that I've not yet committed to any system so I won't have any preconceptions as to how things should be done.)

Take DipTrace. It's being developed quite actively and devs are responsive to user suggestions, complaints and bug reports. There are some feature requests that have been hanging for some time (eg. teardrops), but in general the development is pretty good.
It has some shortcomings like for example impractical footprint and component library management (it's being totally reworked on and released in next build IIRC). They have recently added STEP 3D support (although it's currently in beta phase and some stuff is lacking and bugs happen).
Real time DRC is in place and it's really good and fast. Component library creator is even better than Altium's in my opinion. Eagle doesn't compare.

[jpb]

So, within my budget, it seems to come down to Eagle or DipTrace

Have you considered Proteus from Labcenter?

http://www.labcenter.com/

Started as a DOS program, I think, so the user interface is ..ah.. not what you would expect from an app designed for Windows, but it is OK once you get over that small step. It has recently been redesigned to allow Altium-like features to be added (relatively) easily.

Pricing is on pin count rather than PCB size or similar,  but there are pros and cons either - whatever suits your circumstances is best

Thanks for the link. No I've not considered them though the name sounds vaguely familiar. I'll look into it. They seem a bit pricier than DipTrace but of the same order.

[jpb]

Take DipTrace. It's being developed quite actively and devs are responsive to user suggestions, complaints and bug reports. There are some feature requests that have been hanging for some time (eg. teardrops), but in general the development is pretty good.
It has some shortcomings like for example impractical footprint and component library management (it's being totally reworked on and released in next build IIRC). They have recently added STEP 3D support (although it's currently in beta phase and some stuff is lacking and bugs happen).
Real time DRC is in place and it's really good and fast. Component library creator is even better than Altium's in my opinion. Eagle doesn't compare.

Thanks for the information - it is good to have the experience of real users, there is a plethora of layout programs (there is a massive list on this forum that I browsed) and each claim to be brilliant and cover everything.

[poorchava]

I'm not a 100% DipTrace user, I use Altium for most of the work and only occasionally DipTrace, but if I didn't have Altium I would for sure use DipTrace. I was thrown off DipTrace for bigger projects because of library management issues.

Case study: Imagine that you have separate position in your library for every resistor value (like you should) and then your assembly subcontractor tells you that they suggest changing the pad and soldermask opening dimensions a bit for all 0805's because of excessive tombstoning during reflow. You have to change the footprint and then update components one by one in the component library... There is no "update multiple components" option. I had to update 100+ components one by one... (I think they have reworked that part of library system, btw). Other thing that may throw off many people is that while there is a lot of keyboard shortcuts, they are not for every single function and they are not remappable (it's on their todo list I think).

Just download the trial, sit on it a bit, do a project on it and you will know. There is a community forum on DipTrace website and people there (both users and devs) are quite helpful.

[IanJ]

Beats me why folks are comparing Eagle to Altium.................two completely different levels of software.

I use Eagle mainly because it's the app I just so happened to pick up on after using DOS apps for many years. I have tried DipTrace & Kicad a couple of times but always went back to Eagle........I guess I'm an old stick-in-the-mud who just prefers to use what I know.

To see where you can go with Eagle check out Bob Starr - http://www.bobstarr.net/pages/pcb.html

PS. Bob Starr has made available his own ULP's which extend Eagle with new toolbars (sch & pcb) - http://www.bobstarr.net/pages/downloads.html

Ian.

[liquibyte]

I think one of the things to also consider, which most people don't, is that Eagle runs natively in Linux where Diptrace, Altium, and the rest don't.  Geda is uninteresting as a program outright.  Kicad is probably going to get there one day but not today.  I tried building from source and gave up when even building the custom toolchain didn't work out well.  I think Diptrace will run in Wine, however Altium won't even install.

The Starr stuff is awesome and I use his default components instead of the defaults that come with Eagle out of the box if there is a choice.

As for measuring, there is Gridrunner which is a nice tool.  There are two versions 20cm measured from the end and 20cm measured from the middle. I recently used these to help me lay out a front panel and they were extremely useful.  It would be trivial to make one of these using imperial measurements though it would be time consuming.

[miceuz]

I'd like to add one for Kicad. Sure it's ugly and has it's own kinks, but overall it's a pretty capable software.

I was hesitating to switch from Eagle to Kicad for some time as I was pretty comfortable in Eagle workflow, learned all the key bindings, etc, but I wanted to use an open source package for open source designs I do. Suffice to say, I grit my teeth now when I have to fire up eagle to revise an old design.

For one thing Kicad workflow allows to work on schematics without knowing what footprints you will use. Eagle makes you to design the whole part (schematics and footprint) or use something that's in the library and replace it later - I hate that. I usually start without knowing how the final board will be manufactured, what parts I will be using, hell, I just want a diode there and I don't know the package yet! In my opinion, Kicad's schematic tool is superior to Eagle one, don't know, just a feeling, it's easier to move stuff around and change pin locations in symbols for easier routing.

PCB routing is as bad as in Eagle, but at least Kicad stays frank with you - I'm dumb and i don't know how to do it. Move/rotate a part in eagle - all tracks connected to that part get screwed up (that was the problem the OP stumbled on) Kicad just leaves tracks unconnected. One nice feature of kicad - if you redraw a part of the track, it will remove the old part. Keyboard shortcuts are somewhat "shorter" in kicad - delete deletes the whole net, backspace - a segment of a track. Another thing I like is that it's really easy and fast to get to footprint editing.

The thing that irritates me in Eagle the most is grouping and working with the grouped stuff - that's plain retarded. Kicad grouping in PCB tool is pretty poor, but in schematics editor it's far more superior to Eagle one.

I didn't use "push and shove" routing for a real design yet, but it looks promising.

Kicad pcb tool has a working 3D display, eagle does not have it.

In general Kicad has "programmers have designed this piece of software" written all around it. I'm a programmer myself by dayjob and by education, so it's pretty easy to follow the line of thought for me. They've used a lot of "programmer like" shortcuts to add more functionality and more control at expense of clarity and user interface. You can see that clearly when importing a netlist in the PCB tool for example.

[ajb]

I completely agree about parts management in Eagle vs KiCad.  I use Eagle at work (was purchased before I started, but hopefully when some money comes available we'll move to something else), and I find it's really not well suited to production work.  I think part of its popularity comes from the fact that its biggest weaknesses aren't really exposed until you try to deal with a fairly large (in terms of part count/complexity) design.  Or want to panelize something.

For instance, it's annoying to swap packages on a dozen resistors, but something else entirely to swap a hundred resistors.  The ability to add arbitrary attributes to components is nice, but there's no way to do it in bulk, or to import attributes from an external file, or to export those extra attributes in one partslist.  The steps required to duplicate a portion of a PCB layout are ridiculous: create the initial schematic and layout, close the board file, copy & paste the schematic block, close the schematic and open the board, copy and paste the layout, then open the schematic, THEN MANUALLY RECONCILE EVERY COMPONENT/NET NAME BETWEEN THE SCHEMATIC AND BOARD.  WTF? If you want to copy and paste something from one design to another you have to open two separate instances of the application (and then keep track of which control panel goes with which open schematic).  There's not even a way, AFAICT, to natively export proper placement information!  A lot of these shortcomings can be worked around through ULPs (bom-ex is a good one), but it's a real pain to have to find a ULP to do something that really ought to be baked into the application.

For all of that, though, Eagle is at least stable and relatively bug free in my experience, and I've had a few too many problems with buggy/bizarre behavior with KiCAD to start using it at work.  I do really like the way that KiCAD does manual routing, though, with the ability to snap to clearances between features, and displaying two trace segments while each mouse click only commits the first.  Also the net class system is handy.

[mamalala]

That last time I tried Eagle (3 years ago), it didn't even have a measuring tool, as in ctrl-m in Altium and you can get dx/dy etc between two points. How the coders manage to miss a basic feature like that is beyond me.

Uh, it does. The command is "mark", where you set a reference point. It then shows you the distance between that point and the actual cursor, as well as the angle relative to it. The icon for that command is in the second top row of the toolbox, on the right.

You would have found that if you looked into the manual

Greetings,

Chris

[mamalala]

A major difference between Eagle and some other packages is that it's UI is a mainly modal interface. This means you first select a mode, and then apply that to whatever you need to. Other packages work the other way around, you first select the object(s) and then apply the operation(s).

The former is pretty much what almost all CAD packages used to do (and most still do), while the latter is something you see in stuff like word processing (select text -> change font, etc..) If you are used to the "old ways of CAD" you will get used to Eagle pretty quickly. However, if you never (or rarely) used such a paradigm, you will have a rather hard time initially. But then, each new program has a learning curve for the user.

Greetings,

Chris

[Zero999]

I agree, Eagle is horrible software. I've used other CAD programs such as AutoCAD which do selection that way and it isn't that which bothers me. Altium is definitely the best but of course there's no point in comparing it with Eagle. I've tried KiCad which is much better than Eagle and is great for hobby use.

[Corporate666]

That last time I tried Eagle (3 years ago), it didn't even have a measuring tool, as in ctrl-m in Altium and you can get dx/dy etc between two points. How the coders manage to miss a basic feature like that is beyond me.

Uh, it does. The command is "mark", where you set a reference point. It then shows you the distance between that point and the actual cursor, as well as the angle relative to it. The icon for that command is in the second top row of the toolbox, on the right.

You would have found that if you looked into the manual

Greetings,

Chris

Mark isn't a measurement tool and using it as such as a hack/workaround that shouldn't be necessary.  A real, professional tool should have the ability to select more than one item and tell you the distance between them.  Mark can be used if you first check the location of one part, then type in a mark at that address, then look at the relative values of the other... but that's something one could have done by just subtracting the X/Y coordinates of the two items in the first place... and it doesn't help when you need to check a diagonal distance (not without doing some math, anyway).

I think CadSoft (Newark now, I guess) realize these limitations because they are adding features which should have been there all along.  The latest version of Eagle does include a measurement/dimension tool.

I think everyone agrees that Eagle is shit.  It's not that there is so much that Eagle can't do - it's just that so much basic functionality is provided only through workarounds/hacks/tweaks that inevitably cause much hassle to the user.  Some examples - multi layer boards (so many issues), support for multiple pads connected to one schematic pin, non-standard shaped pads, library management, changing things like annular rings/isolation distances, importing CAD drawings and sooo much more.  Some of this is very basic functionality and it's obscene that Eagle doesn't do it, or makes the user jump through hoops to achieve it.  You still can't just import a CAD outline into Eagle without using a crappy 3-rd party tool that doesn't even support splines and arcs correctly.  Crazy!

[Mysion]

As some one who started out with Dip Trace this thread makes me very happy! Now I'm certain I made the right choice.
It's due to rants like these that lead me to choose dip Trace in the first place.

I have no experience with Eagle but Dip Trace is fairly intuitive.  The first board I made with it was a break out board with two SMD sensor's. One of them was an accelerometer with a really odd LGA 15 foot print. I found it impressive that a novice user like my self, could go in and be able to create the weird pattern correctly with no prior experience with any PCB design program. 

[Royce]

A major difference between Eagle and some other packages is that it's UI is a mainly modal interface. This means you first select a mode, and then apply that to whatever you need to. Other packages work the other way around, you first select the object(s) and then apply the operation(s).

The former is pretty much what almost all CAD packages used to do (and most still do), while the latter is something you see in stuff like word processing (select text -> change font, etc..) If you are used to the "old ways of CAD" you will get used to Eagle pretty quickly. However, if you never (or rarely) used such a paradigm, you will have a rather hard time initially. But then, each new program has a learning curve for the user.

Greetings,

Chris

I started with Eagle and when I found Diptrace, converted immediately. It was issues like you describe. The mode/operation then target is a hold over from before the mouse! But there is other nonsense too. I grouped some objects together and then poked at the GUI for 15+ minutes looking for ungroup. I ultimately had to google it. It's called "smash" in Eagle. Senseless!

Good 'user experience' doesn't mean hewing to 40 year old user interface standards. There is tremendous value to modern GUI workflow standards like those published by Microsoft and Apple. Those standards make software more intuitive AND the basic workflow is continually reinforced in the course of interacting with most modern programs of any stripe.

I want to study the art of making electronics. I do not want to study the art of using a tool that is used to make electronics. Tools are supposed to help me, not be a problem domain of their own.

Diptrace isn't perfect in this regard, but it is a damn sight better than Eagle.

[Q-Kernel]

I agree with most of the comments. Eagle is strange, it takes a long time to get used to it, DipTrace is the best low-cost choice and Altium is by far the best. By the way Eagle is not very cheap. As soon if you want to do something bigger it is actually expensive

my 2ct

[DerekG]

Eagle is strange, it takes a long time to get used to it.

I note many of the respondents say that Eagle is "strange", "difficult", "hard to learn" etc.

Much of this is because we have grown up with operating systems developed in the USA. We therefore expect other programs & their menus to operate in the same way. Eagle has been developed in Germany & they often have a different perspective on how things should operate.

Probably, if we grew up in Germany, we would not find the menu system so difficult to master.

DipTrace is the best low-cost choice and Altium is by far the best. By the way Eagle is not very cheap. As soon if you want to do something bigger it is actually expensive

DipTrace is a good bottom-to-mid-end package, generally much easier to master than KiCAD, Design Spark, Eagle etc.

You are quite correct in saying that if "you want to do something bigger (Eagle) is actually quite expensive". You have hit the nail right on the head.

If you keep your board size under 160mm x 100mm, the cost of the Eagle schematic + layout + autorouter is US$820. When you compare this to the power & ease of use of Proteus, Eagle is just not in the running.

In fact, Proteus is a strong contender against DipTrace if you stay under 2000 pins & don't need the auto-place function.

Proteus:

500 pin   US$248
1000 pin US$487
2000 pin US$652

I use both Altium & DipTrace for work. I have 24 years of learning with Protel/Altium. I have no idea where Proteus was 24 years ago, but if I were starting out now, choosing Proteus would save me many thousands of dollars & many hours of learning time.

[AndyC_772]

I agree, it's an odd argument given that the market for PCs is global and we've all grown up using the same operating systems.

[Corporate666]

I note many of the respondents say that Eagle is "strange", "difficult", "hard to learn" etc.

Much of this is because we have grown up with operating systems developed in the USA. We therefore expect other programs & their menus to operate in the same way. Eagle has been developed in Germany & they often have a different perspective on how things should operate.

Probably, if we grew up in Germany, we would not find the menu system so difficult to master.

I don't agree with that.  The 'standard' GUI is not the standard because it is an American invention, but because the companies who develop it (Microsoft and Apple) spend millions of dollars on research and development on their GUI's to be the most easy to use and powerful.  For a company like CadSoft to think they can do a better job and completely go against the sum of all the research and collective experience of billions of computer users is a recipe for disaster.

In the case of Eagle, it is as clunky and frumpy as it is because it's patches on top of workarounds on top of kludges on top of band-aids.  At this point, it would be a huge task to totally re-write it.  And now that people are used to its quirky workflow, they would probably squeal if it was changed.

[hans]

Eagle is strange, it takes a long time to get used to it.

I note many of the respondents say that Eagle is "strange", "difficult", "hard to learn" etc.

Much of this is because we have grown up with operating systems developed in the USA. We therefore expect other programs & their menus to operate in the same way. Eagle has been developed in Germany & they often have a different perspective on how things should operate.

Probably, if we grew up in Germany, we would not find the menu system so difficult to master.

 
Sorry, but thats sounds so unreasonable to me. I'm Dutch (which is close to Germany, if that matters), should I now like the interface work on any (oldschool) Dutch program? There is also software that just has a downright horrible interface. I think Eagle is one of them.

Why it's now downright horrible, because back in the day this is how things were done. We would singletask on our PC's, and we had to use all these menu's to get things done. But we are in the 2000s for 14 years now, and Eagle stuck with it forever just like it sticks with a lack of features & information about the design. There are so many obvious things missing from Eagle:
- Overhaul the UI aspect; use a "rich" UI element that interprets dragging stuff around by itself & introduce stuff like clarify selection
- Measurement tool
- Net names in PCB
- Edit individual pins/pads on components in the PCB, not via "a copy of a copy of a library of a copied library edition + where did I leave that editted component?"-issue
- Configurable DRC connectivity matrix
- Hierarchical design (oh wait.. light editions can only draw schematics on 1 sheet.. , that's not limiting the product result, that's just to crapify it)
- Annotation
- Better copy/paste functionality
- Don't make nets "stick" to components
- Have a DRC that makes sense. Also, be applicable to specific nets/netclasses/components/etc.

Some of these things may be preference, but I can't account any of those to Germany.

[homebrew]

Well, it is as with any other software. People tend to get religious with it. Vi or Emacs, Linux or Windows, Tex or Word ... countless examples.
And you can not say which is better over the other globally (or that one is globally crap), because it is a multidimensional optimisation problem and there are trade-offs to make.

You just won't get an ultra complex CAD environment for high frequency, high density and whatnot stuff that is completely learnable in a weekend, completely compatible to what you think is intuitive, completely error free and of course free of cost and open source! You just can't have that! Just as you can't have a car that does not use any energy and still moves you around fast.

So eagle isn't crap software after all. It has its niche. No one said, that you should try to route a server mainboard with it. The same as you won't use Vi as a replacement for a full blown IDE when the task demands that functionality.

And eagle supports hobbyists quite a lot, which is a big thumbs up - of course with the hidden intention of makreting in mind. You can't blame them for not giving you the whole product for free - they are a company as any other. Yes you only have one sheet (which by the way doesn't prevent you to put on multiple frames in the right distance so that you can print out as many pages as you want ...) and yes you only 80x100mm routing space. But you can still do awesome projects on that space! They even acknowledge the fact that many people are doing non-comerical designs and offer a less limited version to a fairly low price.

Other tool vendors don't do that at all: Cadence, Mentor etc, etc.

So stop bashing a product. If you don't like it, use another one.
And if you screw up don't blame the tool. I once used gEDA and for some reasons the standard diode symbols of gSchem are incompatible to gPCB which ended having their pins swapped! I ranted, too but in the end it was completely my fault of not reading the documentation properly.

But you are all right - every CAD I know software has a totally screwed up / unintuitive user interface when you are not used to it ...

[IanJ]

Well, it is as with any other software. People tend to get religious with it. Vi or Emacs, Linux or Windows, Tex or Word ... countless examples.
And you can not say which is better over the other globally (or that one is globally crap), because it is a multidimensional optimisation problem and there are trade-offs to make.

You just won't get an ultra complex CAD environment for high frequency, high density and whatnot stuff that is completely learnable in a weekend, completely compatible to what you think is intuitive, completely error free and of course free of cost and open source! You just can't have that! Just as you can't have a car that does not use any energy and still moves you around fast.

So eagle isn't crap software after all. It has its niche. No one said, that you should try to route a server mainboard with it. The same as you won't use Vi as a replacement for a full blown IDE when the task demands that functionality.

And eagle supports hobbyists quite a lot, which is a big thumbs up - of course with the hidden intention of makreting in mind. You can't blame them for not giving you the whole product for free - they are a company as any other. Yes you only have one sheet (which by the way doesn't prevent you to put on multiple frames in the right distance so that you can print out as many pages as you want ...) and yes you only 80x100mm routing space. But you can still do awesome projects on that space! They even acknowledge the fact that many people are doing non-comerical designs and offer a less limited version to a fairly low price.

Other tool vendors don't do that at all: Cadence, Mentor etc, etc.

So stop bashing a product. If you don't like it, use another one.
And if you screw up don't blame the tool. I once used gEDA and for some reasons the standard diode symbols of gSchem are incompatible to gPCB which ended having their pins swapped! I ranted, too but in the end it was completely my fault of not reading the documentation properly.

But you are all right - every CAD I know software has a totally screwed up / unintuitive user interface when you are not used to it ...

Great post.

Even the defacto standard CAD apps have issues. Take AutoCAD which up until recent versions meant you couldn't batch print a whole load of drawings without first enduring the unintuitive built in publishing wizard.

Speaking of which, maybe thats why I like Eagle......because it's UI to me (for the most part) is intuitive........I am also an AutoCAD user.

I do like Eagle.......I just wish CadSoft (Element14) would put more effort in to adding extra features, fixing bugs and tweaking stuff. They are extremely slow in that regard......it's almost as if they have a development team that is not totally focused on Eagle PCB alone. Huge efforts to re-write sections of the software to make saved files/libraries etc XML based.....then not much!

Ian.

[PlainName]

If you don't like it, use another one.

I think these 'bashers' probably are using another one

Nevertheless, suppose they all just quietly sloped off and used the competition: how would the authors know what's wrong if no-one whined about the faults? They would be unable to fix it, and we would end up with a series of niche apps forever not getting it right.

There may also be a subtle sub-context: that these bashers would like to use it were it not for whatever faults they describe. Of course, just saying it is crap is not particularly useful, but expanding on the reasons why they think so could be useful, even if it's not diplomatic.

[homebrew]

If you don't like it, use another one.

I think these 'bashers' probably are using another one

Nevertheless, suppose they all just quietly sloped off and used the competition: how would the authors know what's wrong if no-one whined about the faults? They would be unable to fix it, and we would end up with a series of niche apps forever not getting it right.

There may also be a subtle sub-context: that these bashers would like to use it were it not for whatever faults they describe. Of course, just saying it is crap is not particularly useful, but expanding on the reasons why they think so could be useful, even if it's not diplomatic.

I'm totally with you but it would require the employees of the company to read this blog ...
Also, if their sales figures don't drop they would probably not change anything regardless of the whining ...

[Kjelt]

I agree Eagle is not the best and its backwards stupid command compatibility (use cut so you can copy by groupselection is rediculous  ) makes it somewhat a steap learner but the price is right, there is a lot of support from the community and pcb fabs and at least this has never happened to me:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/altium/altium-ate-my-fucking-schematic/msg420311/#msg420311
to say that even incredible professional expensive software does not mean you don't have problems.

[AndyC_772]

Restore from overnight backup and get on with your life.

Relying on ANY software to be bug-free in order to avoid losing your work is crazy.

[at2marty]

O.K. I feel like I need to post my rant/backup for Eagle.

First of all, a bit of background.  I was trained by the U.S. Navy in electronics, specifically avionics.  I went through the navy school which was fast paced and not exactly easy.  After going through school I was assigned to an aircraft squadron which was designated an "O level" position.  What this means is, if a certain box failed in the aircraft, we simply changed the box and sent it to "I level" to get repaired.  The tools of my "trade" back then were simply a multimeter and a TDR.  Much of the troubleshooting was utilizing the onboard General Purpose Digital Computer (GPDC).

Fast forward a few years when personal computers first started being "mainstream" or "popular" (early-to-mid 90's).  I obtained one and discovered the internet.  Back then, a 14.4 baud modem was the shit!  I found a few "geeky" BBS's that dealt with computers and electronics.

Fast forward a few more years...  Redhat Linux was in it's infancy, and I got introduced to it.  I started using it, learned to  compile programs and eventually got comfortable with the "clunky interface" and the "quirks" of using X-11.  I also embraced the Open Source idea and learned that if I didn't like the way some piece of software worked, I could download the source and modify it to suit my needs.  Thus I learned how to program in not only C, but also learned about PERL, Python, C++ and other languages.

Fast forward a few more years and I ran across an article somewhere on the internet that was about Arduino.  It captured my interest, and I dove into playing with one.  Then, I started seeing that I could do more complex stuff with other AVR chips, and I started doing that.  Then, I discovered that I could do the same stuff with a PIC, an ARM Cortex, etc.  and I got the "bug" to get back into electronics again.

When I first was introduced to Eagle, much of it was centered around doing Arduino stuff.  Since I had a background with Linux and the tools available, I was able to adapt easily.  Yes it is a bit "clunky" if you use "professional software" such as AutoCad, but for me it was quite easy to learn, use and work with.  Is it easy to work with and use?  For me the answer is yes.  Does it get the job done?  Again, for me the answer is yes.  Is is a professional piece of software?  I would say no.

The bottom line is, Eagle isn't targeted so much at the "professional" crowd.  I would venture to say that the target is more the hobbyist (like me) and for that it is a fine piece of software.

[TerraHertz]

It's very interesting and useful, reading this thread.
Back when I used to do PCBs (up till around 2003) I'd used mainly Protel and Orcad. Eventually this year or next I hope to be doing some small designs again, but for myself. So the question is, what CAD package to use?

One thing that really irritates me is stupidly designed (or just plain undesigned) user interfaces. And I hate wasting time learning something to the point that I can fairly judge it, only to come to the conclusion that it's a piece of sh*t.

Till now I'd assumed that I should probably get Eagle, and invest the learning curve time with that.
From the comments on Eagle's arse-backwards modal interface, it seems like I'd hate it. Thanks for saving me a lot of time and effort. Old brain, 'new things' are not so easy anymore.

Ah well. Maybe I'll just stay with my very old Protel & Orcad packs. They do work, and gerber files are gerber files, who cares what produced them.
Also thanks for the list of alternatives.

[DerekG]

So the question is, what CAD package to use?

I guess it depends on how much design work you anticipate doing, how big the boards will be & how swollen your wallet is.

I have Protel EasyTrax all the way through to their final AutoTrax. I also have DXP & Altium ver 6.9 & the current version of DipTrace.

If I had my time again & my pcbs were less than 1000 pins, I would choose DipTrace (more bottom to mid end) or Proteus (more mid end) as their interfaces are perhaps the easiest to learn & their pin limited versions are really pretty cheap for what they offer.

I opened Protel PCB the other day to check an old board ................. and remember it is limited to listing only short directory names & short file names. Also, the mouse has no zoom, pans in 3 directions only (a bug since 1996!), no delete etc etc.

So, it all comes back to my first words above.

Let us know what you eventually decide.

[SArepairman]

I learned eagle first, made a few medium-density medium complexity boards and I found that Altium, despite raising my blood pressure a few times, is a much superior software package.

I have yet to use a sharpie to add something in alitum like I did in eagle, and I spent way less time trying to google arcane problems with altium, eagle stopped the show for me quite a few times and actually discouraged me from making PCBs.

But, eagle did get the job done, it did produce some working PCBs for me, altium would not have done them any better, its useful but frustrating in comparison. Hand mixer vs heavy duty kitchen mixer.

*I only ever made home etched PCBs. I don't know how much better it is for getting pcbs made.

[madires]

Eagle isn't horrible, I saw worse. Take BAE for example. It has all the professional features Eagle lacks but the UI needs getting used to. New components in Eagle are a piece of cake while in BAE you'll start cursing if you don't edit libs daily. But you can setup complex pin/gate swapping rules. The only PCB software with an intuitive UI was newio. Maybe you won't believe it, but it was an Amiga software and several companies used it for designing their PCBs.

[LukeW]

For people who say Eagle is horrible, what are you comparing it to?

If you're comparing Eagle vs. Altium, or some $10,000 commercial software product, then obviously it's not a fair comparison. If you want an expensive product like that then go and use it.

I have seen people bitch about Eagle when they have never used any other EDA/CAD software other than Eagle, ever! WTF?

At least with Eagle you can install it and use it quite easily on any major OS family you choose to use - Windows, Linux or Mac - with no problems. What other software options offer you that?

[Kjelt]

If you're comparing Eagle vs. Altium, or some $10,000 commercial software product, then obviously it's not a fair comparison.

Agree, it's time for a "Altium is horribly expensive software" topic. 

[Q-Kernel]

If you're comparing Eagle vs. Altium, or some $10,000 commercial software product, then obviously it's not a fair comparison.

Compare it with DipTrace. DipTrace is not free but it starts from $75 and the full version ($895) is cheaper than the Eagle full version ($1145). And Diptrace is much better than Eagle

[kikib]

If you're comparing Eagle vs. Altium, or some $10,000 commercial software product, then obviously it's not a fair comparison.

Compare it with DipTrace. DipTrace is not free but it starts from $75 and the full version ($895) is cheaper than the Eagle full version ($1145). And Diptrace is much better than Eagle

If you are talking about a more intuitive UI then you can say Diptrace is better than Eagle in that regard. But if you are talking about making more complex PCB's then Eagle is much better.

[Mechatrommer]

If you are talking about a more intuitive UI then you can say Diptrace is better than Eagle in that regard. But if you are talking about making more complex PCB's then Eagle is much better.

are you sure? since this kind of info should come from an unlimited licensed version users, are you unlimited version user? and made a complex circuits with diptrace up to the point where performance lagging are really significant?

[kikib]

If you are talking about a more intuitive UI then you can say Diptrace is better than Eagle in that regard. But if you are talking about making more complex PCB's then Eagle is much better.

are you sure? since this kind of info should come from an unlimited licensed version users, are you unlimited version user? and made a complex circuits with diptrace up to the point where performance lagging are really significant?

Haha are you? Clearly you are jumping ahead and trying to suggest that you can't evaluate a software's features fully if you aren't using the full version where in this case the only difference between the versions are pin-count and signal layer count. The complexity of a design doesn't necessarily relate to pin-count but other features. If it lacks feature X, Y, and Z then no-matter what pin-count you have it won't matter, will it?

[Mechatrommer]

Haha are you? Clearly you are jumping ahead and trying to suggest that you can't evaluate a software's features fully if you aren't using the full version where in this case the only difference between the versions are pin-count and signal layer count. The complexity of a design doesn't necessarily relate to pin-count but other features. If it lacks feature X, Y, and Z then no-matter what pin-count you have it won't matter, will it?

i wouldnt ask if i am sure. yes i cant evaluate software performance to its full extend with 300 pin count and 2 layers limit. i did a design which hit the limit and i didnt see any performance lag in diptrace. number of traces (complexity) is highly related to pin counts, not to mention the number of layers' overlay or alphablend that need to be drawn. unless you want to do something specific for the test such as making alot of redundant traces, which i never did. even if i did or want to do, i dont see the point or validity of "simulated performance test" instead of "real life very complex pcb design" experience, no?

[kikib]

Haha are you? Clearly you are jumping ahead and trying to suggest that you can't evaluate a software's features fully if you aren't using the full version where in this case the only difference between the versions are pin-count and signal layer count. The complexity of a design doesn't necessarily relate to pin-count but other features. If it lacks feature X, Y, and Z then no-matter what pin-count you have it won't matter, will it?

i wouldnt ask if i am sure. yes i cant evaluate software performance to its full extend with 300 pin count and 2 layers limit. i did a design which hit the limit and i didnt see any performance lag in diptrace. number of traces (complexity) is highly related to pin counts, not to mention the number of layers' overlay or alphablend that need to be drawn. unless you want to do something specific for the test such as making alot of redundant traces, which i never did. even if i did or want to do, i dont see the point or validity of "simulated performance test" instead of "real life very complex pcb design" experience, no?

I'm not talking about size of the board or the pin-count when I say "complexity" or the performance (speed/lag) of the program itself, I am talking about designs which have high-speed signals involved. For example, ARM microcontrollers running at 100MHz+, ethernet controllers 25MHz+, RF designs, and such typical stuff. Projects using high-speed signals require careful component placement and routing, differential pair routing, trace meandering, impedance matching and so on. Diptrace doesn't provide these features which makes it unsuitable for complex designs. So again, it's not about pin-count or board size but rather complexity of the design itself. In that regard Eagle has several nice features that allows you to do these kind of designs, which are typical in the commercial industry, and it is closer to software like Altium which also has these features.

[Wilksey]

What exactly makes Eagle "Horrible" ?

From what I have read so far all I can see is peoples inability to navigate and use it properly?

I have used Kicad, Diptrace, Altium, OrCad / Allegro, Pulsonix, Design Spark, Proteus, CadStar, Ultiboard and a few others when evaluating, I didn't end up making the final PCB run, bit I designed a board with 4 layers and about 500 pins, not all entirely what you might call "Licensed" evaluation copies, but some were and some didn't need licensing.

Anyway, I always used Eagle and another program called Ranger XL and was wondering at the time if there were any better CAD systems to use, I went by ease of use, how easy a footprint / component was to produce and how easy I could measure things on the layout.

I spent on / off about a year looking at these different packages, and I went to a design show where several were being showcased, I was already familiar with some packages as I use them at work.

My initial thoughts were that Proteus was a really good, nice to use package, but could be quite expensive, the likes of Altium and Orcad were quite good, had a lot of features that I didn't need and would never use, so in that respect made things a bit wasteful and seemingly more complicated to use.

Kicad is good for what it is, free.

Diptrace is very good, but apart from the interface, which is always going to look nicer as it was done in Delphi, didn't seem to be more intuitive or possess any immediate feature that would make me want to switch from Eagle.

From what I could gather they are both similarly matched in performance, I haven't found either to be particularly clunky in design, it really does come down to personal preference, Eagle arguably has the most parts in it's library and the fact you can download them direct from Farnell / Element 14 is a bonus, RS is doing something similar with Design Spark.

It really does boil down to the same question that people ask over and over again ( I asked myself at one point) which is the best PCB software to use?  Answer: all of them, they all do things their own way and have their own pro's and con's, if you are doing high speed systems maybe Altium or Cadence is your best bet, I have seen DDR5 routed with Eagle no problem though, at the end of the day it is down to personal preference, they will all do what you want them to do, even Kicad these days is quite powerful.

So, my conclusion is that Eagle is not "shit" it is just not as easy to grasp as some of the other packages, you would be surprised (and maybe shocked) if you have seen some of the things that Eagle was used to design, it IS used in the industry for commercial and transport based systems and I am pretty sure I read that the Military use or used to use it as well for designs, I know of at least one company designing high speed cable testing facilities for the aerospace industry that use it as it was in one of their job descriptions!

Yes there are differences, there always will be, it's like comparing Windows to Linux, sure Windows isn't as open as Linux, but they both ultimately do the same job, and Windows didn't suffer from the "heartbleed" bug, unlinke Linux, which is a +1 for Windows.

Sorry for the long read, but it makes me laugh when people compare packages and call one crap and another brilliant because of some reason that boils down to misunderstanding or not RTFM.

For those wanting to chose a package, do what I did, download several, have a go in all of them, with the same design, it might seem pointless to begin with repeating work, especially if you have to make a footprint, and it will take some time, but will be worth it in the end, and after all, if you can't make a footprint then what's the point in trying to design a PCB?  PCB Design is time consuming, so use a tool you are happy with rather that one someone said you should use because it can measure a track with one less click than another package.

[Monkeh]

Yes there are differences, there always will be, it's like comparing Windows to Linux, sure Windows isn't as open as Linux, but they both ultimately do the same job, and Windows didn't suffer from the "heartbleed" bug, unlinke Linux, which is a +1 for Windows.

Neither Windows nor Linux 'suffered' from Heartbleed, the software running on them did. Yes, them, vulnerable versions of OpenSSL can be and were deployed on Windows boxes, not to mention other platforms!

[Wilksey]

OK,
I am generalising as it is a PCB package topic, but my Ubuntu box running Apache had the bug, my Windows box running IIS didn't, I probably should have specified that it was from my own setup rather than people's general perceived view.

[Mechatrommer]

sure Windows isn't as open as Linux, but they both ultimately do the same job.

no they dont. with windows, you buy a device with cd driver or download from internet, install and done its working. with linux, you buy a device, you search the internet for linux driver, good luck on that. or finding forum or ask someone how to, or probably code somthing to make the device works. and linux doesnt have professional (good) grade of commercial software meant for business, or at least not as abundant as windows. hence they both are not doing the same job.

similarly with eagle vs say diptrace. to do a job you need 10 clicks in eagle but 3 clicks in diptrace, hence they are not the same. well, from my perspective at least. i dont say yours is wrong they probably are the same, but how you do it is different.

[Wilksey]

OK, drivers aside, lol, as I say, I didn't want to specifically break down windows vs linux, I was just trying to say that they can both serve as a desktop operating system and allow you to do everyday tasks, for everyday people, i.e. write a text document, open a web page etc.

In a round about (or arse about) way I was just trying to say that because one application does something different to another one it does not make it rubbish, it makes it different, and if you like it then you will learn how to use it regardless if your old favourite one did it in less clicks (or if you need to compile a driver  ).

It is very much down to personal preferences and stubbornness for older players.

[Monkeh]

sure Windows isn't as open as Linux, but they both ultimately do the same job.

no they dont. with windows, you buy a device with cd driver or download from internet, install and done its working. with linux, you buy a device, you search the internet for linux driver, good luck on that. or finding forum or ask someone how to, or probably code somthing to make the device works.

Learn a little something and get some modern experience, and/or stop badly trolling.

I bought a new printer the other week. Getting it running on Linux took two minutes and a manufacturer supplied file less than 100KiB in size. Getting it running on Windows took 20, and a manufacturer supplied installer over 100MiB in size.

Vast majority of hardware is not a problem, the year is not 1998 any more.

[SeanB]

You bought a HP just like me, with the horrible built in driver disk. Took 3 minutes on the HP website to get it working, just like if it was a Windows driver, just not a 350Mb download installer. Only drawback is it does not match the rest of the desktop, but I am not going to make some custom icons to get the tray applet to match when it shows.

[Monkeh]

You bought a HP just like me, with the horrible built in driver disk. Took 3 minutes on the HP website to get it working, just like if it was a Windows driver, just not a 350Mb download installer. Only drawback is it does not match the rest of the desktop, but I am not going to make some custom icons to get the tray applet to match when it shows.

No, I didn't. I bought a Lexmark, never touched the disk, and I don't have any tray applets on any machine (why the fuck would I need a tray applet? The printer will email me when it needs toner, or jams. Yes, I am quite serious.).

[SeanB]

Network printer then, not a USB one. Those generally have a pretty good support from the CUPS built in driver set, though I admit I am using a new HP PCL6 printer still with the existing PPD of the old 4MV it replaced 3 printers ago, never bothered to change as I just installed new with same IP. Makes absolutely no difference.

[Kjelt]

BOT please

[Corporate666]

What exactly makes Eagle "Horrible" ?

From what I have read so far all I can see is peoples inability to navigate and use it properly?

Sorry for the long read, but it makes me laugh when people compare packages and call one crap and another brilliant because of some reason that boils down to misunderstanding or not RTFM.

I think that if that is what you took from the complaints against Eagle, then you likely weren't reading closely or are making excuses.  Several people pointed out big gaping holes in Eagle functionality.

A very few off the top of my head...

1) You can't change the orientation of a non-solid ground pour.  For obvious reasons, when using a crosshatch ground pour, you want it at a 45 degree angle to your existing horizontal/vertical traces.  Eagle does not allow this.  The software manufacturers response?  Make your whole board, turn on all layers, group-select it and then rotate everything to 45-degrees.  Then use a crosshatch pour which will be at 45 degrees.   Is that reasonable, considering it essentially means if you ever need to make any changes, you must remove all your crosshatch pours, re-rotate the board back 45 degrees, make changes, then re-select everything, rotate 45 degrees and re-apply the pour.  That's ridiculous.

2) The way arbitrary pad shapes are supported is a total hack and gives DRC errors if you don't connect your pads in a manner that works around the hacked way they implemented arbitrary pad shapes.

3) Eagle is incapable of reading standard CAD formats, so if you have some sort of arbitrary board outline, it's impossible to open it in Eagle.  The two tools (Eagle Power Tools and DXF2SCR) are horrendous.  One is paid only and hasn't been updated in years.  The other also hasn't been updated in years and does not support splines, meaning you must open CAD files in another program and explode them into discrete segments.  All because Eagle is incapable of reading standard CAD formats.

4) The way Eagle handles panelization is a total hack and breaks DRC and forward/back annotation.  Making changes to a panelized board becomes a giant mess.  Panelization is a basic aspect of modern PCB fabrication and Eagle being so unable to handle it is shit.

There are so many more - especially when you get to multi-layer boards, inability to measure and reference parts from one another, library management, clearancing, BOM management, and so much more.

I use Eagle and I know the software very well.  I find it comfortable to use because I have gotten to be an expert in the past 10 years with it... but it's total shit software full of kludges, workarounds, half-assed fixes and is missing some basic fundamental features that any serious PCB tool should have.

[DerekG]

I find it comfortable to use because I have gotten to be an expert in the past 10 years with it... but it's total shit software full of kludges, workarounds, half-assed fixes and is missing some basic fundamental features that any serious PCB tool should have.

You should continue to email Eagle each month, pointing out all their problems & pointing them to your forum criticisms.

Point out that you will continue to do this each month until they fix the bugs & add the extra features to make Eagle easy to use.

If they listen, then you have accomplished what you have set out to do (& will end up with a much better PCB design program).

If Eagle do nothing, you can add "lack of support" to your criticisms in the forums for the world to view.

I actually don't like Altium as a company, but if enough users complain about something, it usually (eventually) gets fixed.

[copper dog]

Like any CAD program the learning curve is steep. It took me a while to get the hang of Eagle but now the toughest part of any design is finding a library with the package I need. Even then I don't spend a lot of time looking since creating your own packages is fairly simple just longer. I can certainly understand the frustration of a deadline while trying to learn a software program though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[techydude]

a lifetime ago I was proficient & regular Protel/Altium user.  being unable to afford the $redonkulous for Altium for the time being, I looked at Eagle, Kicad & DIPtrace, the latter two after watching Dave's reviews of them a while back.

I loath Eagle, the workflow was not at all what I was used to after Protel/Altium.  As others have contributed, you can get used to anything, even Eagle (like wearing that old pair of sneakers, even though there's half an inch different sole thickness form one side to the other, & getting worse by the day...), but my attitude is there's plenty of other options in the low end EDA tools, so I kept looking.  Kicad didn't really grab me, but DIPtrace was "good enough", and has some nice features that set it well apart from Eagle.

[BloodyCactus]

As a linux user, I have no other choice but Eagle, I have got used to its idiosyncrasies.

I tried kicad but damn that was some horrible shit, and a non existant part library. At least with Eagle the part library is huge, and its very easy to find other part libraries people have made. Having access to the sparkfun, adafruit, etc libraries is also very nice.

Obviously I'm only a hobbyist, and I have the standard Eagle (6"x4" limitation). I need to make something bigger than 6x4 and my only choice... pay for upgrade to the full size Eagle, because... there is no other choice on Linux.

They say driptrace can run under wine, but I dont trust that kind of crap emulation.

I guess my other option is running it in VirtualBox but I would rather stay native.

[AndyC_772]

It sounds more as though it's the choice to use Linux that's giving you problems.

[BloodyCactus]

I dont think so, as I said, I'm using Eagle just fine, but ponying up 1600$ to scale up outside the 6x4" pcb limitation makes me think, if I can run diptrace in virtual box, maybe thats a better investment.

For native Linux, Eagle is the only choice.

[liquibyte]

It sounds more as though it's the choice to use Linux that's giving you problems.

It wouldn't be if Microsoft hadn't illegally dominated the PC market from day one.  More and more people are using Linux and more and more people will be as the support for XP has dropped away.  "If" they ever fix Kicad to the point of being usable, I expect that it may just replace Eagle as the defacto hobbyists software to use for PCB design.

I've been using Linux since '96 exclusively as my OS and telling me that I have to put up with software problems because I'm a Linux user is a shills argument.  Paying $400 for an operating system is why I use Linux, paying $10000 for a software package to design hobby boards is a non starter in my book, hell, paying $100 is too.  There are only two software categories that lack in the open source realm and you'll be especially surprised at what they are.  CAD and simulation.  Want to use a horribly designed CAD program?  Try BRL-CAD, the most overly complicated and unintuitive thing I've ever tried to use.  I wish people would stop bashing Linux because windows is not better, not by any stretch of the imagination.  Eventually all our problems will be solved because that's what Linux users are, problem solvers.

[IanJ]

"If" they ever fix Kicad to the point of being usable, I expect that it may just replace Eagle as the defacto hobbyists software to use for PCB design.

I've been using Linux since '96 exclusively as my OS and telling me that I have to put up with software problems because I'm a Linux user is a shills argument.  Paying $400 for an operating system is why I use Linux, paying $10000 for a software package to design hobby boards is a non starter in my book, hell, paying $100 is too.  There are only two software categories that lack in the open source realm and you'll be especially surprised at what they are.  CAD and simulation.  Want to use a horribly designed CAD program?  Try BRL-CAD, the most overly complicated and unintuitive thing I've ever tried to use.  I wish people would stop bashing Linux because windows is not better, not by any stretch of the imagination.  Eventually all our problems will be solved because that's what Linux users are, problem solvers.

"if they fix Kicad".........the same can be said for Eagle!

A good friend of mine went down the Linux route many, many years ago as I stayed with Windows........and we've had many, many discussion on Linux's evolution. The net result is that both OS's have their good points..........but the bit that wins for me is that it's much more adopted and in terms of apps if you want the best of them then you need to hand over some money to MS. Anyone that goes Linux will compromise on that part.
Yes, I've tried CAD on Linux (I use AutoCad on Win7 daily) and yes it sucked BIG time.
I'd also hazard a guess to say Linux also sucks at Pro audio/music mixing/production apps......I could be wrong here though.....just a guess.

Ian.

[liquibyte]

"if they fix Kicad".........the same can be said for Eagle!

The only thing I truly don't like about Eagle and can't reasonably work around is library and part management.  They seriously need to fix that or I'll never consider a license.  If they did, I might, maybe.

I'd also hazard a guess to say Linux also sucks at Pro audio/music mixing/production apps......I could be wrong here though.....just a guess.

Depends on if you want someone to hold your hand in point and click world or if you're comfortable with the command line.  I'd hazard that there are musicians out there that quite successfully use Linux in post production.  I've never recorded before but occasionally consider trying but my barrier to entry is the hardware itself.  I've successfully done video and can say, at least in an editing context, that Linux runs circles around windows.  I've only messed with the sound apps a little so can't really say for sure how good they are to someone in the pro world.  I've seen the complaints though. 

Realistically, the problem isn't the OS, it's the devs.  If people would start porting or writing for posix then we'd have the apps and this conversation wouldn't have to be had.  The kernel itself has come a long way since I started using it and can be used by someone that knows nothing about "under the hood".  For those of us that do, windows is just not an option even if there's more software out there in Redmond land.

[BloodyCactus]

2D CAD is pretty good, DraftSight runs on linux and its an AutoCAD clone. Renoise is a fantastic DAW. There is no good NLE video program I find (something like sony vegas etc)

Back to Schematics and PCBs...

Right now I'm going to try DipTrace under Wine and VirtualBox and see how it goes.

[T3sl4co1l]

As a linux user, I have no other choice but...

gEDA?

If your answer is anything but, you must be a terrible *nix user

[BloodyCactus]

As a linux user, I have no other choice but...

gEDA?

If your answer is anything but, you must be a terrible *nix user

gEDA is a steaming pile of garbage. I'd rather bang my head against kicad than use the gEDA suite of tools.

[Monkeh]

They say driptrace can run under wine, but I dont trust that kind of crap emulation.

Wine Is Not an Emulator.

[BloodyCactus]

They say driptrace can run under wine, but I dont trust that kind of crap emulation.

Wine Is Not an Emulator.

  thats right, it just approximates. close enough is good enough for wine.

Seems stable so far under wine1.7. I need to go through some tutorials and see how it handles.

[Refrigerator]

What about ExpressPCB ?

[zapta]

Eagle is a horrible software but it's also the best I found for my needs. I first tried diptrace but it was unreliable (e.g. I lost changes when moving from library to the schematic) and had poor library (not even 0.1" headers).  Kicad web site was down for about two weeks (!) and latter when I tried to install it, all I could find for the 'supported' Max OSX was a script to built the binary myself.

Eagle on the other hand worked out of the box, has a rich library, is very stable and is supported by vendors like OshPark and OshStencils.  It's not perfect but works. I was even able to export outlines for laser cutting and the auto router gives me very good results (after routing manually the critical networks).

[BloodyCactus]

I first tried diptrace but it was unreliable (e.g. I lost changes when moving from library to the schematic) and had poor library (not even 0.1" headers).

ha! I  just ran into this testing diptrace. the issue is, the parts exist but no schematic symbol exist. so you have to make the schematic, and just attach the existing footprint.

crazy they have parts that have physical footprint but no schematic drawing!

[tom66]

Adding further to this.

About 2 weeks ago, the class received their boards back.

Here's a favourite pick of a number of errors EAGLE introduced.

One guy had an array of buttons hooked up to his MCU. He drew a button with a pulldown resistor and copied it four times for four buttons.

The small trace between the pulldown and the switch had the same NAME property... and so all his switches were shorted together.

There is NO VISUAL INDICATION in the schematic of this. He did not check the PCB thoroughly, but given this was a first-ever PCB project... how much can you expect?

About 1/10th the class had problems in part caused by EAGLE and its unintuitive interface. As such no actual bugs in the program but unclear user interfaces and odd ways of doing stuff.

[Tac Eht Xilef]

One guy had an array of buttons hooked up to his MCU. He drew a button with a pulldown resistor and copied it four times for four buttons.

The small trace between the pulldown and the switch had the same NAME property... and so all his switches were shorted together.

There is NO VISUAL INDICATION in the schematic of this

AFAIK (though it's been a long time since I've used it), Altium won't give you a visual indication or warning of duplicate net names either. Net labels give an indication - but you can turn them on in Eagle too, and it's still dependent on you noticing the duplicate labels.

He did not check the PCB thoroughly, but given this was a first-ever PCB project... how much can you expect?

There's a good lesson there, and it's not restricted to Eagle: always check the PCB layout - because that's what's getting made, not the schematic.

[kizzap]

He did not check the PCB thoroughly, but given this was a first-ever PCB project... how much can you expect?

There's a good lesson there, and it's not restricted to Eagle: always check the PCB layout - because that's what's getting made, not the schematic.

Hell, it is a good lesson to everyone. If you are sending out gerbers to be manufactured. CHECK THEM. I once got burnt by CAM350 changing the size of some vias on me.

[zapta]

Here's a favourite pick of a number of errors EAGLE introduced.
One guy had an array of buttons hooked up to his MCU. He drew a button with a pulldown resistor and copied it four times for four buttons.
The small trace between the pulldown and the switch had the same NAME property... and so all his switches were shorted together.

That's why I verify manually the net list before starting the layout (print the net list, go one by one, mark on the schematic and make sure all is correct). With waiting time of ~8 days for the PCBs to arrive from manufacturing, I want to reduce the chance of having to redo them.

[Mechatrommer]

some lesson learnt is that 2 persons is better than 1 person. hence a good DRC in SW + a guy manually checking it is better than a guy checking it alone. a good DRC will save alot of time, and time is more expensive than gold.

[Kjelt]

Adding further to this.
One guy had an array of buttons hooked up to his MCU. He drew a button with a pulldown resistor and copied it four times for four buttons.
The small trace between the pulldown and the switch had the same NAME property... and so all his switches were shorted together. 

Well I just tried to reproduce this using v6.4:
- I grouped: a net from a powersupply to a resistor, the resistor, a universal net (named N$2) from the resistor to a led, the led,  and a gnd net from the led to the gnd.
- I copied the group using the copy button and CTRl-right mouse clik
- and the result was that the universal net between the new resistor and the new led is named uniquely to the next open possible value in my case N$8. So NO PROBLEM here

So when does this go wrong? Probably if you (re)name the specific net with some personal or reserved value other then the eagle generic netname.
In that case it might go wrong because eagle assumes that the user specifically WANTS this net to be the same why did he otherwise rename it from the eagle generic netname in the first place?

So if you really want to blame I would suggest differently:
1) the teacher that should supervise the process with students that do this for the first time and do not know better then to screw up , but hey that is called learning, if you never make mistakes what can you learn?
2) the person between the chair and the keyboard.

[zapta]

...
So if you really want to blame I would suggest differently:
1) the teacher that should supervise the process with students that do this for the first time and do not know better then to screw up , but hey that is called learning, if you never make mistakes what can you learn?
2) the person between the chair and the keyboard.

The problem is with the tool. It allows two schematics with different net list to look the same on the screen.

(I am an Eagle user so no hate here).

[Wilksey]

I just did something similar with 6.5 and I custom named the net and when I copied the group it named the net the same but with '1' on the end, and they were not shorted together.

I suspect they may have improved this, what version did your students use?

I don't think there is an excuse for education to use older versions as the lite version is free and students would surely not need more than the board limitation imposed on the lite version?

[Kjelt]

The problem is with the tool. It allows two schematics with different net list to look the same on the screen.
(I am an Eagle user so no hate here).

Unless you label the nets. But how does another tool for instance Altium show this then?

[IanJ]

Guys,

In the release notes for 6.5 (UPDATE_en.txt).

Ian.

Code: [Select]

  - COPY of net or bus wires: Creation of a new segment for the wire copy
    if it's endpoints are apart from the source segment.

[silent]

I have been using Eagle for my projects. Yes, it has its disadvantages, like net naming problems, no differential routing in versions before 6 and so on, but there's also some good sides.
For example the text commands and ULP (it's very convenient to type the command from keyboard instead picking the option from menus) and it's very stable (at least in my case). It didn't crashed (or malfunctioned) even once during last few years.

It's nice for learning (intuitive, IMO) and small things, but for the larger project... yeah, time to learn something new, like Altium. ;-)

[oPossum]

One guy had an array of buttons hooked up to his MCU. He drew a button with a pulldown resistor and copied it four times for four buttons.

The small trace between the pulldown and the switch had the same NAME property... and so all his switches were shorted together.

There is NO VISUAL INDICATION in the schematic of this. He did not check the PCB thoroughly, but given this was a first-ever PCB project... how much can you expect?

There is a visual indication in the schematic. Use the show command (eye button on toolbar) to show everything connected to a net. It will be very clear. Also the airwire in the PCB is clear. This was an error due to inexperience with PCB design, not a problem with Eagle.

About 1/10th the class had problems in part caused by EAGLE and its unintuitive interface. As such no actual bugs in the program but unclear user interfaces and odd ways of doing stuff.

How may would have had problems cause by KiCad?

[Monkeh]

How may would have had problems cause by KiCad?

Surely it'd be easier to count the number of people KiCad didn't crash on?

[larry42]

A small user report here.

I needed to quickly get a PCB made for testing something at the hospital lab. I downloaded DipTrace and within 3 work days I had added a 80pin Samtec QSE connector and a 96pin DIN 41612 connector to the library, done the schematic (~400 pins), routed the 200x80mm 4 layer board by hand, created the Gerbers and sent of to production.

I had to refer to the DipTrace manual / google search about 3-4 times during the process. The DipTrace UI is just really intuitive. I've used Mentor BoardStation and Zuken CR-5000 before, which are industrial grade packages, so I'm fairly au fait with the PCB design process. 

In the meantime - Eagle, which I have been experimenting with for a couple of weeks, requires me to look things up for nearly every operation. I believe Eagle is more powerful than DipTrace, but the Eagle UI is just obtuse and many of the translations don't conform to any of the vocabulary used in the PCB industry (again, I'm looking at this from Mentor / Zuken). Eagle is hard to use, because it's poorly designed and dripping with legacy.

The Eagle autorouter is better than the Diptrace one, but the only reason I use the autorouter in Eagle is because the manual routing UI is just awful (can't move traces whilst maintaining 90, 45deg angles, etc). By contrast the manual routing in DipTrace is pretty good. Not as good as CR-5000 with real DRC and push-aside routing, but much better than Eagle.

I'm seriously considering buying DipTrace license instead of Eagle, especially as Eagle require the Auto-router module to get online DRC during manual routing. I don't want to pay for the autorouter which I'll never use anyway.

[WarSim]

Adding further to this.
One guy had an array of buttons hooked up to his MCU. He drew a button with a pulldown resistor and copied it four times for four buttons.
The small trace between the pulldown and the switch had the same NAME property... and so all his switches were shorted together. 

Well I just tried to reproduce this using v6.4:
- I grouped: a net from a powersupply to a resistor, the resistor, a universal net (named N$2) from the resistor to a led, the led,  and a gnd net from the led to the gnd.
- I copied the group using the copy button and CTRl-right mouse clik
- and the result was that the universal net between the new resistor and the new led is named uniquely to the next open possible value in my case N$8. So NO PROBLEM here

So when does this go wrong? Probably if you (re)name the specific net with some personal or reserved value other then the eagle generic netname.
In that case it might go wrong because eagle assumes that the user specifically WANTS this net to be the same why did he otherwise rename it from the eagle generic netname in the first place?

So if you really want to blame I would suggest differently:
1) the teacher that should supervise the process with students that do this for the first time and do not know better then to screw up , but hey that is called learning, if you never make mistakes what can you learn?
2) the person between the chair and the keyboard.

If something is copied there needs to be some indication of intent.  If something needs to extend a net give it a unique name.  If it is a new instance of a net then use a serialized sequence name, the default net names are serialized sequence.  No program can read your mind, you need to tell it. 
The cut and paste "solution" relied on the effect that naming associations are broken when removed from the schematic by the cut precess. 
Just another RTFM problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[WarSim]

A small user report here.

I needed to quickly get a PCB made for testing something at the hospital lab. I downloaded DipTrace and within 3 work days I had added a 80pin Samtec QSE connector and a 96pin DIN 41612 connector to the library, done the schematic (~400 pins), routed the 200x80mm 4 layer board by hand, created the Gerbers and sent of to production.

I had to refer to the DipTrace manual / google search about 3-4 times during the process. The DipTrace UI is just really intuitive. I've used Mentor BoardStation and Zuken CR-5000 before, which are industrial grade packages, so I'm fairly au fait with the PCB design process. 

In the meantime - Eagle, which I have been experimenting with for a couple of weeks, requires me to look things up for nearly every operation. I believe Eagle is more powerful than DipTrace, but the Eagle UI is just obtuse and many of the translations don't conform to any of the vocabulary used in the PCB industry (again, I'm looking at this from Mentor / Zuken). Eagle is hard to use, because it's poorly designed and dripping with legacy.

The Eagle autorouter is better than the Diptrace one, but the only reason I use the autorouter in Eagle is because the manual routing UI is just awful (can't move traces whilst maintaining 90, 45deg angles, etc). By contrast the manual routing in DipTrace is pretty good. Not as good as CR-5000 with real DRC and push-aside routing, but much better than Eagle.

I'm seriously considering buying DipTrace license instead of Eagle, especially as Eagle require the Auto-router module to get online DRC during manual routing. I don't want to pay for the autorouter which I'll never use anyway.

To maintain an angle while moving move the midpoint not an end point.  How can this not be intuitive?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[larry42]

To maintain an angle while moving move the midpoint not an end point.  How can this not be intuitive?

When I select a routed segment (routed with 45deg corners) and try to adjust the position up or down, the 45degree angles of the adjoining segments move to arb angles. This is not expected or desired (Cadstar, CR-5000,  Mentor Boardstation and DipTrace don't do this). It's necessary for trace tidying.

It seems I'm not the only one that wonders about this - and it doesnt seem to be possible in Eagle support board from another user:
"> how do you move a segment of wire 45 degrée aligned ?
> when I use move and click on a 45 segement all the wire move ?

If I understand your question, you'll need to rip up the affected
segments and re-route them with the 45 degree wire bend selected.

- Chuck"

IMO this is a deal-breaker. Trace tidying is vital in achieving good quality analog designs, not to mention aesthetics. I really wanted to standardise on Eagle for my designs, as I believe that it's very powerful due to the scripting possibilities, but the UI and the learning curve just aren't worth it in my case, when there are alternatives. PS I use an RPN style calculator.

[WarSim]

Any program has two choices when a joining node is moved from the joining segment axis.  Break the connection and for an air wire or drag the node.  Eagle has elected to drag the node which I prefer.  I prefer not to look for hundreds if tiny air-wires. 
Because they know that moving a node off access maybe required they have supplied the trace modify tool to reform the bend.  Rip-up is not required, learn about the tool that looks like a bow. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kjelt]

Just another RTFM problem

Tell that to the OP who had the problem, not me i have no problem with eagle.

[rob77]

my 2 cents...

not a single software is perfect... and actually Eagle does the job for me.
i learned to tolerate the annoying parts of it and learned to workaround the bugs (e.g. disconnect the part before rotating or mirroring, delete & re-invoke if gate swap doesn't work...etc.)

but at the end of the day... Eagle is a usable tool which does the job, and i kind of like it for my hobby projects.

[WarSim]

Just another RTFM problem

Tell that to the OP who had the problem, not me i have no problem with eagle.

Just expanding you explanation.  Defiantly not correcting you. 
I just assumed the op would read the post even though he/she wasn't quoted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DerekG]

I needed to quickly get a PCB made for testing something at the hospital lab. I downloaded DipTrace and within 3 work days I had added a 80pin Samtec QSE connector and a 96pin DIN 41612 connector to the library, done the schematic (~400 pins), routed the 200x80mm 4 layer board by hand, created the Gerbers and sent of to production. I had to refer to the DipTrace manual / google search about 3-4 times during the process. The DipTrace UI is just really intuitive. I've used Mentor BoardStation and Z:u:k:e:n before, which are industrial grade packages, so I'm fairly au fait with the PCB design process. 

Yes, I agree the DipTrace user interface is pretty logical - alongside of Circad for menu simplicity. I do however wish there were more shortcut keys (like in Altium) as these are faster than mouse clicking the menus.

The Eagle autorouter is better than the Diptrace one

I've actually found the DipTrace one to be quite reasonable if you spend the time setting it up.

Another (even better) autorouter that can interface with any Electra/Specctra supported interface (as DipTrace does) is the f_r_e_e--:--r_o_u_t_i_n_g one. I see from their website that Z_u_:k:_e_n has now taken them to task for so alleged copyright infringement ............. so it must be good

This was open source since 2008 & the programmer used to work for that big company but claims the end result was from his own personal work. Locate the forum by doing a Google search for more info.

Send me a message too 

Of course you can also add the Electra autorouter which I think is at least 95% as good as the one supplied with Altium for EU495 (for 2 layer) & EU695 (for 4 layer).

By contrast the manual routing in DipTrace is pretty good. Not as good as Z:u:k:e:n with real DRC and push-aside routing, but much better than Eagle.

DipTrace will do real-time DRC. Select "Verification" then "Design Rules" then tick the box "Enable Real-time DRC" (RHS near the bottom of the pop up box).

I often use DipTrace even though I own Altium. One of my biggest gripes is that it is not easy to open up the bottom solder mask so that the wave soldering process can thicken specific copper tracks for extra current carrying capabilities. For this, I need to export from DipTrace (via the P-Cad export filter), then import into Altium to complete that task.

[larry42]

Yes, I agree the DipTrace user interface is pretty logical - alongside of Circad for menu simplicity. I do however wish there were more shortcut keys (like in Altium) as these are faster than mouse clicking the menus.

Good point, the lack of configurable shortcut keys on DipTrace almost kills the productivity (by contrast, that's the one thing that gives Eagle a huge edge is being able to define keys, so that you don't have to look at the meaningless icons, coupled with the Germano-English translations ('wire' when they mean 'line', 'smash' etc).

I hope DT adds configurable shortcuts soon - which has got to be programmatically trivial...

DipTrace will do real-time DRC. Select "Verification" then "Design Rules" then tick the box "Enable Real-time DRC" (RHS near the bottom of the pop up box).

I know, but it's not the same as the big boys handle it (where you're prevented from laying the trace until you're out of DRC violation, and can do things like push a bundle of tracks to be at min. clearance, or equi-spaced etc)

I often use DipTrace even though I own Altium. One of my biggest gripes is that it is not easy to open up the bottom solder mask so that the wave soldering process can thicken specific copper tracks for extra current carrying capabilities. For this, I need to export from DipTrace (via the P-Cad export filter), then import into Altium to complete that task.

Seems you can do the cutout pretty easily as follows (added filled rectangle, set properties to Top/Bottom Mask):
http://www.diptrace.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&p=6994

[DerekG]

I hope DT adds configurable shortcuts soon - which has got to be programmatically trivial...

Me too. I would set up many/most of the shortcuts to replicate those used by Altium (actually with a few changes as some of the Altium shortcuts are a bit cryptic).

I know, but it's (Real-time DRC) not the same as the big boys handle it (where you're prevented from laying the trace until you're out of DRC violation, and can do things like push a bundle of tracks to be at min. clearance, or equi-spaced etc)

Quite true.

Seems you can do the cutout pretty easily as follows (added filled rectangle, set properties to Top/Bottom Mask):
http://www.diptrace.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&p=6994

Yes, but it is very cumbersome having to do it track by track (one at a time or as a polygon fill). Once imported into Altium I can simply follow the multitude of bottom copper layer tracks on the bottom solder mask having set the mask track width just the once.

[PedroDaGr8]

Yes, I agree the DipTrace user interface is pretty logical - alongside of Circad for menu simplicity. I do however wish there were more shortcut keys (like in Altium) as these are faster than mouse clicking the menus.

Good point, the lack of configurable shortcut keys on DipTrace almost kills the productivity (by contrast, that's the one thing that gives Eagle a huge edge is being able to define keys, so that you don't have to look at the meaningless icons, coupled with the Germano-English translations ('wire' when they mean 'line', 'smash' etc).

I hope DT adds configurable shortcuts soon - which has got to be programmatically trivial...

I have posted this as a feature request on the DipTrace forum here:

http://www.diptrace.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9986

Chime in if you are actually interested because the more people that support this, the quicker they will add it.

[djacobow]

PS I use an RPN style calculator.

Ha! Me, too. When HP stopped making them, I actually bought some spares because I could not imagine adapting back to infix in the future. But they are back making calculators with RPN modes again, so I guess we're set.

But is this an example of your willingness to accept a difficult but productive UI or an example of being unwilling to learn a new thing?

I think for me, RPN is a little of both. I put the time in to make it 2nd nature, and now it is and I don't want to put the time in again to switch back.

[idpromnut]

Since this thread is about Eagle, it is the perfect place to comment on Kicad    For a little context, my background is total newbie, only been playing around with electronics for just over a year and a bit now. I have designed, laid out and had manufactured a number of boards now (although nothing terribly complicated, and only 2-layers).

That said, I had the same issue of which PCB suite to learn to use. I tried Eagle (since this is the software that a colleague of mine at work has used forever) and then I tried Kicad.  By no stretch is Kicad better than Eagle (in completeness, stability and general maturity level of the software), but it is very useable for a hobbyist such as myself. The work flow seems relatively straight-forward for me (although I think not being able to add a component to the PCB layout and be able to back port it back into the schematic would be a handy feature).

While I haven't had to do any panelization, I can see that doing this manually will not be fun (I really really liked the panelization feature in Altium that Dave was showing in his DFM series on the uCurrent).

[texaspyro]

I dont think so, as I said, I'm using Eagle just fine, but ponying up 1600$ to scale up outside the 6x4" pcb limitation makes me think,

Well,  there is an alternative you can do if you are a real cheapskate.  Build (or convert) your libraries to something like 1/4 or 1/10th scale.   Do your layout using the shrunk parts (1/10 scale makes life easier... just remember to shift measurements a digit).  Then upscale your Gerbers back to the proper size.  There are programs out there that can do those tasks... 

Yep,  takes some work,  can be error prone,  is a pain the ass...  but voila... you can now make 1000x1600 mm boards with the semi-freeware version of Eagle.

[djacobow]

I dont think so, as I said, I'm using Eagle just fine, but ponying up 1600$ to scale up outside the 6x4" pcb limitation makes me think,

Well,  there is an alternative you can do if you are a real cheapskate.  Build (or convert) your libraries to something like 1/4 or 1/10th scale. 

Does it bother anybody else that you can't even WORK in Eagle over the size limit for your license? I'm not talking about exporting gerbers, I'm just talking about moving components around while you're getting sorted. When I start a board, I like to spread components around in useful groups as I start my placement: a blob of PSU-like stuff over here, a grid of buttons over there, etc. As I have the local-placement as I like it, I start to bring the blobs together. This works nicely in DipTrace but in EAGLE it's impossible.

The size limitation is the most user-unfriendly restriction ever. Ugh. What were they thinking?

[DerekG]

Well,  there is an alternative you can do if you are a real cheapskate.

Yes. Move over to DipTrace.

It will add years to your life due to a significant reduction in your stress levels. I own Altium 6.9 & use Altium 13 & 14 for work, but I'm using DipTrace more & more, simply because I like it & it gets the job done without stress.

[texaspyro]

It would be nice if Eagle's limit was area based instead of dimension based...

[smackaay]

The biggest killing feature for Eagle is the size limitation. a 1-user standard license is $820 with 6" x 4" footprint. For some stuff that's ok but $820 for crippleware is ridiculous. Not only that, it's clumsy and difficult to use, though if it's true that it's German software, then I fully understand why.

The Germans can make beautiful cars, machines and various other things but their software is perhaps the worst I've ever seen, in many cases they are even beat by the Chinese in terms of software stability and usability. I've used various industrial machines and software packages from Germany over the last 20 years and while the machine builds are great, the software is only barely usable. It's almost as though they design the software to require outside training in order to use it or that it's an afterthought. Unfortunate really.

[texaspyro]

The biggest killing feature for Eagle is the size limitation. a 1-user standard license is $820 with 6" x 4" footprint.

Their 4x6" non-commercial license is around $200.

As far as crapitude goes,  I have used a LOT of different CAD packages over the last 40 years,  and guess what?  They ALL suck.  They suck to the left.  The suck to the right.  They suck up.  They suck down.  They all worked (OK, somewhat).  They all have their quirks.  Find one that works for you.  Learn to use it.  Get over its' quirks.  Quit griping about it.  Gripe like hell about it.  Whatever works for you...

[rx8pilot]

I have used $100k software that is just as quirky. I have been in the motion picture business for a little over 20 years which is built on expensive specialty software and they all have major annoyances. My present normal day is split between SolidWorks, Eagle, and Atmel Studio. While Eagle is definitely the weirdest, just focus on the task and learn the workarounds. I have done some complex designs in Eagle and have learned it well enough to like it. I friend of mine got so upset with the various software stupidity at his company that he could not get anything done. He spent all of his time calling for support and complaining on forums - he went out of business. I will throw in my $.02, but I will not let quirks slow me down. There are SO many people making high quality PCB's with Eagle every day, if you are having issues it's your fault for not learning it.

When I can actually commit a ton of time to learning a new tool, I would not hesitate to move up. For now, I am getting PCB's done and have had ZERO failures, very few crashes and the ULP library continues to add great features. The user community is huge and very helpful as well.

[Wilksey]

Very very well put rx8pilot!

[DerekG]

Eagle is horrible.

Well, it is not likely to get better anytime soon.

Newark Corporation (who own CadSoft) have advised that that they must financially stand on their own two feet. Story is now that staff cuts are on the way.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/altium/altium-circuit-studio/msg618742/#msg618742

[rx8pilot]

For the time being, I am able to work with Eagle to get some very dense PCB's with 6 layers. i did, however, get more information on Altium and will likely go that route when the business can cover it. I feel like it will speed me up enough to pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time just like Eagle did.

I won't defend any of the Eagle quirks, but it is definitely a way to make money just like I did. Eagle has been a great way for me to start a business without the financial burden of Altium. Like I said earlier, focus on your design goals, not the tool and you will get PCB's done.

[AndyC_772]

I feel compelled to point out that you can rent Orcad PCB Designer annually for no more than the cost of maintenance. I pay about £600/yr to keep my copy up-to-date, including unlimited technical support.

You don't need to spend thousands on Altium, unless you have your heart set on that particular package. Learn PCB Designer and you've learned Allegro... you may never need to learn another PCB tool.

[DerekG]

For the time being, I am able to work with Eagle to get some very dense PCB's with 6 layers. I did, however, get more information on Altium and will likely go that route when the business can cover it.

Eagle has been a great way for me to start a business without the financial burden of Altium.

There are plenty of lower cost alternatives. As the poster above says, take a look at Orcad PCB Designer.

Also take a look at Proteus & DipTrace. If you are laying out larger boards, both of these work out to be better value than EAGLE.

[Wilksey]

I use a selection of CAD packages, and I would prefer to use Proteus over say,the new Altium Circuit Studio offering as I have said in a previous post, however, it is not just about "value for money" with a design tool, if you are starting out and never used one before then fair enough, go for Diptrace or <insert another CAD package here> it is about what you are comfortable using and what you / your company are using.

I have used EAGLE for quite a number of years now, and yes, there are better value packages around etc, but I also use Proteus and Altium Designer, even KiCAD at home, and I have gotten used to all of their quirks and oddities, they all have them, and I am happy using any of those 4 to do design work.

I have used DipTrace, and although, a decent package, a few quirks some say they add better usability, but again, it depends what yo are used to, I had no requirement to learn another entry level package.

The only package I would like to learn more about is OrCAD, I have used Design Spark for a brief period of time, and didn't really get on with it, and the more powerful Pulsonix, which again, I didn't get on with.

I have used CADSTAR (which I detest) and Ranger XL in previous lives, they can all produce valid PCB artwork, and if you have a part library built for one, that is proven to be correct, you would have to start all over again going to a new package.

If you don't like a package, use a different one, you will find one that works for you eventually.

[ben7]

I have used $100k software that is just as quirky. I have been in the motion picture business for a little over 20 years which is built on expensive specialty software and they all have major annoyances. My present normal day is split between SolidWorks, Eagle, and Atmel Studio. While Eagle is definitely the weirdest, just focus on the task and learn the workarounds. I have done some complex designs in Eagle and have learned it well enough to like it. I friend of mine got so upset with the various software stupidity at his company that he could not get anything done. He spent all of his time calling for support and complaining on forums - he went out of business. I will throw in my $.02, but I will not let quirks slow me down. There are SO many people making high quality PCB's with Eagle every day, if you are having issues it's your fault for not learning it.

When I can actually commit a ton of time to learning a new tool, I would not hesitate to move up. For now, I am getting PCB's done and have had ZERO failures, very few crashes and the ULP library continues to add great features. The user community is huge and very helpful as well.

I can totally agree with what you say. I'm not trying to bash any people who don't like eagle, but I think eagle is great. Yeah, it could have some nicer features in it, but it gets the job done. I too had to get over the hill when learning how to use eagle. But now I don't have much trouble (if at all) with it. The ULP's are nice, you can make custom tools with them. And then you can set a keyboard shortcut to run them at your leisure

I haven't tried any other packages yet, but I'll never know, I might like them better. But eagle is good for now, and with a new package I'd have to learn how to do everything in it, which would take a while (and a number of headaches xD)

-Ben

[workwithme]

I don't think it was mentioned in the thread already, but Upverter has an open source community edition for hobbyists.

https://upverter.com/community/

[rx8pilot]

E14 is the only one I know of. I have never seen a well organized searchable ULP database. Its a bit of a chore to sift through the options. So far I have found some gems like DXF import, BOM tools, re-number components, resize all text, and more. I also use Sunstone for DRC. In general, closing out a design for manufacturing is pretty quick and totally predictable.

[nctnico]

I feel compelled to point out that you can rent Orcad PCB Designer annually for no more than the cost of maintenance. I pay about £600/yr to keep my copy up-to-date, including unlimited technical support.

That is good to know. I may go that route as well.
BTW I installed Eagle once, started it, scratched my head once or twice figuring out how to start a design and removed it. Altium is uber-complicated and it still can't do simple things like changing the font on a symbol. But maybe I'm too stuck with Orcad schematic entry after 25 years 

[DerekG]

BTW I installed Eagle once, started it, scratched my head once or twice figuring out how to start a design and removed it.

Cadsoft is currently under lots of pressure to pick up their game. If they don't do this quickly, EAGLE will die a slow death:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/altium/altium-circuit-studio/msg629792/#msg629792

Altium is uber-complicated and it still can't do simple things like changing the font on a symbol.

Altium is relatively complicated because it offers so many options. You can certainly change the fonts of any text that is displayed, both in Schematic & in PCB.

[Wilksey]

http://blog.cadsoftusa.com/2015/03/eagle-won/

It seems that EAGLE still has a fairly large following.

[DerekG]

http://blog.cadsoftusa.com/2015/03/eagle-won/

It seems that EAGLE still has a fairly large following.

Yes, a user base built up over many years.

The current problem for CadSoft is that they are not selling many new seats & the average age of its user base gets older each year.

[Howardlong]

It's similar to when you see "most popular airline" when it just means they have a lot of people use it.

For example, the infamous Ryanair is apparently more than twice as popular as British Airways by passenger numbers. But I know which one I'd rather be on.

After about 15 years of using it, I still find everything in Eagle is a push against the flow. I've yet to find a reasonable and easily maintainable way to make it do a simple RF layout as a small part of a board for example, so that when you do a DRC it accepts that you really did want to do what you did without it forcing you to approve everything.

Or, say you want to have the option to have two different parts depending on version, have them overlapping each other on the board, with a DNP depending on version.

[MarkL]

Or, say you want to have the option to have two different parts depending on version, have them overlapping each other on the board, with a DNP depending on version.

I have done this with eagle.  What's the problem?