Author Topic: The Autodesk Eagle edition  (Read 144273 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5741
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #375 on: February 04, 2017, 11:04:57 am »
Because in-between $100 CAD and $10,000+ CAD, there is no dominant product, but there is certainly a market demand for a product.  If Autodesk can create an attractive platform out of Eagle, there's likely more than a few high-end amateurs and professionals that would jump on board for an annual cost that's close to 1/4th of Altium's annual maintenance fee.

Please see http://www.ibfriedrich.com/en/index.html#productsPage and also have a look at the features.
 

Offline Jeroen3

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3619
  • Country: nl
  • Embedded Engineer
    • jeroen3.nl
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #376 on: February 04, 2017, 11:30:36 am »
3D flex board design. I have never seen that before. I guess this is something Autodesk could add.
Or vice versa, merge parts of eagle in their 3D stuff.
 

Offline cx05

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: de
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #377 on: February 04, 2017, 01:04:30 pm »
3D flex board design. I have never seen that before. I guess this is something Autodesk could add.
Or vice versa, merge parts of eagle in their 3D stuff.
You mean something like this?
http://techdocs.altium.com/display/ADOH/Presenting+a+Rigid-Flex+Design+in+3D
Although I admit that the Target! 3D Design goes a bit further by allowing a 3d shape for routing. However, the (current) market for this seems somewhat smaller to me.

Seriously, why kill a hobbyist level product to create a professional level one
Because in-between $100 CAD and $10,000+ CAD, there is no dominant product, but there is certainly a market demand for a product.  If Autodesk can create an attractive platform out of Eagle, there's likely more than a few high-end amateurs and professionals that would jump on board for an annual cost that's close to 1/4th of Altium's annual maintenance fee. 
Last time I looked, Circuit Studio was  900€ ($970) and there are plenty of others (e.g. Diptrace) in that range. If you said $100 to $1000, I would have agreed that there is no decent product (or none of the decent products without severe imposed limitations). And as james_s has pointed out, these are perpetual licenses. I don't think that in this price range regular updates are really such a strong selling point once the software has a reasonable amount of features and is stable.
So the "subscription only" model doesn't make sense here, and Eagle doesn't make much sense for the mid-to-high-end market. Apart from that, I think the ROI for a decent product is bad below $1000. Otherwise someone else would have established a better/uncrippled product there. There are plenty of small CAD packages, so it's not like nobody is trying.

Because in a worst case scenario the Eagle name is established. And maybe that is all Autodesk is after, the Splash Screen.
I would think that large portions of the UI still have value to Autodesk.

For all we know Autodesk is using Version 8 as sort of a stalking horse to test market acceptance. Maybe after substantial input they jump to version 10. With more customer feedback they make another overhaul and release it as Eagle 2 Version 1.0.0 The Eagle name is still there.
Large portions of the UI? Autodesk might be accused of many things, but the UIs of their (recent) products seem to be up to date. Apart from the fact that it is multi-platform capable, the same is not true for Eagle. Lots of modal dialogues, no multi-document handling etc. I doubt Eagle would fit very well there.

As for the name, I'm not sure whether it's worth that much. Most professionals frown on it (no matter whether they are right), most hobbyists/SMEs associate a strange interface with it. You can say there is no such thing as bad publicity, but the Eagle brand has pretty much opposite connotations as Autodesk. I could understand, if they would like to expand to the low-end market, Eagle would be useful. But then they shouldn't have changed the licensing model, as this only reinforces their current image of being expensive and aimed at corporations. No one will buy Eagle because it used to be a good deal when it's not any more.

And as was pointed out before, the cost of switching ECAD packages is immensely high, once you've become accustomed to one. So in order to gain users from the existing packages in the same price area, they have to deliver a much better product. Until they give away their 3D MCAD for the same price (which would be a no brainer on it's own, but is very unlikely to happen for their parametric packages), they don't have any edge over their competition.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2017, 01:10:51 pm by cx05 »
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #378 on: February 04, 2017, 06:16:57 pm »
Last time I looked, Circuit Studio was  900€ ($970) and there are plenty of others (e.g. Diptrace) in that range. If you said $100 to $1000, I would have agreed that there is no decent product (or none of the decent products without severe imposed limitations). And as james_s has pointed out, these are perpetual licenses. I don't think that in this price range regular updates are really such a strong selling point once the software has a reasonable amount of features and is stable.
So the "subscription only" model doesn't make sense here, and Eagle doesn't make much sense for the mid-to-high-end market. Apart from that, I think the ROI for a decent product is bad below $1000. Otherwise someone else would have established a better/uncrippled product there. There are plenty of small CAD packages, so it's not like nobody is trying.

Circuit Studio is a month of my life that I will never get back.  It *kind of* works.  The support is virtually non-existent.  The split between Newark taking on tech support and Altium doing the development is a complete disaster.  The price is attractive, but the result is unattractive at any price.  I wouldn't bother with Circuit Studio, even if it was free.
 
The following users thanked this post: rx8pilot

Offline cx05

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: de
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #379 on: February 05, 2017, 11:33:05 am »
Circuit Studio is a month of my life that I will never get back.  It *kind of* works.  The support is virtually non-existent.  The split between Newark taking on tech support and Altium doing the development is a complete disaster.  The price is attractive, but the result is unattractive at any price.  I wouldn't bother with Circuit Studio, even if it was free.
Sorry to hear that, but good to know. I'm using Altium Designer when something is a bit too big for eagle and I'm happy with it. It sure has it's bugs, especially with every .0 version. They usually get the most annoying ones fixed within a few minor releases, but I can imagine what circuit studio might feel like if it hasn't went through these iterations.
It's really a shame that Altium seems to have problems to produce stable releases without the massive beta testing their regular users do. The software could be a lot better if they would focus more on stability.
I was thinking to get Circuit Studio to be able to do commercial work (AD is an academic license) but that option just became very unlikely.
I wonder whether they will ever realize that these bugs are probably costing them a lot more users and reputation (and therefore money) than the additional development costs would take. But that's another story. Seems that there should be a chief common sense officer in every corporation ;). Might have prevented the Eagle disaster as well.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 11:37:37 am by cx05 »
 

Offline langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2305
  • Country: dk
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #380 on: February 05, 2017, 07:24:38 pm »
[...] I don't think I'm alone when I say I've been waiting a long time for EAGLE to mature into the product I think it could be.  If it gets closer to the Altium level while providing integration with the other Autodesk products, I think it'll be a winner.

For sure, if I was a brand new user without any Cadsoft baggage, I'd be all over it.  Of course, with my luck, I chose TurboCAD and Lightwave along with EAGLE, so I might have some adapting to do...   |O

I wonder whether buying Eagle is a good starting point for coming close to the Altium level. While I like Eagle for it's simplicity and customization options, I wonder whether the core of the software really can be improved to that level without doing essentially a rewrite. For example:
  • Planes are nonexistant and have to be imitated by polygons

other than possibly a larger file size why does it matter?

seems to me that planes are just a historic left-over from when layout were done with tape
and an inverse was easier than taping a whole sheet 

[/list]
 

Offline Jeroen3

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3619
  • Country: nl
  • Embedded Engineer
    • jeroen3.nl
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #381 on: February 05, 2017, 10:12:44 pm »
Altiums shelving is genuis though.
 

Offline cx05

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: de
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #382 on: February 05, 2017, 10:14:39 pm »
Quote
Planes are nonexistant and have to be imitated by polygons
other than possibly a larger file size why does it matter?
seems to me that planes are just a historic left-over from when layout were done with tape
and an inverse was easier than taping a whole sheet 
On it's own it might not be too important, but when you combine it with the second point on my list that polygons are created as line fills, it just doesn't scale very well, especially with better arc approximation (smaller fill widths). (And as a side note: Line fills are definitely a relict from the past)
I know you are probably right to say that CPU and memory are cheap today, but I still prefer a clever implementation over brute force. And my experience is that when you push software to its limits, these details make a difference.
 

Online KE5FX

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1334
  • Country: us
    • KE5FX.COM
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #383 on: February 06, 2017, 02:52:22 am »
(And as a side note: Line fills are definitely a relict from the past)

I don't really get this.  If you're going to generate Gerbers, you're going to generate line fills anyway.  Why not make the process explicit, as EAGLE does, and give the user control over the resolution?

Same issue at the board house.  Sure, you can generate parametric surfaces or Bezier splines or whatever, but CNC machines don't use those.  The graphics objects have to be converted in order to actually fabricate anything.  Why pretend otherwise?
 

Offline cx05

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: de
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #384 on: February 06, 2017, 09:22:04 am »
(And as a side note: Line fills are definitely a relict from the past)
I don't really get this.  If you're going to generate Gerbers, you're going to generate line fills anyway.  Why not make the process explicit, as EAGLE does, and give the user control over the resolution?

Same issue at the board house.  Sure, you can generate parametric surfaces or Bezier splines or whatever, but CNC machines don't use those.  The graphics objects have to be converted in order to actually fabricate anything.  Why pretend otherwise?
Well, if you take a look at the gerber file format specification https://www.ucamco.com/files/downloads/file/81/the_gerber_file_format_specification.pdf, you'll find on pages 76 and 117 that Gerber does indeed support Polygons (true polygons). And other software vendors export those to Gerber files. It's mainly eagle that still does line fills only.
The Gerber specification even states in the Preface
Quote
Some applications stubbornly continue to use painting (aka stroking) to create pads and copper
pours. While not formally invalid painted files require more manual work and increase the risk of
errors in fabrication. Painting is a relic of the days of vector photoplotters, devices as obsolete
as the electrical typewriter. The rationale for painting disappeared decades ago, its
disadvantages remain.  We urge all users and developers to banish painting from our industry.
I think that's clear enough. Please note that polygons are already available with 274X, released in 1998. As for Bezier splines: I agree that they are of limited use once you have to get the data into a CAM processor. But polylines and polygons should work just fine.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 09:36:35 am by cx05 »
 

Online KE5FX

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1334
  • Country: us
    • KE5FX.COM
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #385 on: February 06, 2017, 10:39:23 am »
(And as a side note: Line fills are definitely a relict from the past)
I don't really get this.  If you're going to generate Gerbers, you're going to generate line fills anyway.  Why not make the process explicit, as EAGLE does, and give the user control over the resolution?

Same issue at the board house.  Sure, you can generate parametric surfaces or Bezier splines or whatever, but CNC machines don't use those.  The graphics objects have to be converted in order to actually fabricate anything.  Why pretend otherwise?
Well, if you take a look at the gerber file format specification https://www.ucamco.com/files/downloads/file/81/the_gerber_file_format_specification.pdf, you'll find on pages 76 and 117 that Gerber does indeed support Polygons (true polygons). And other software vendors export those to Gerber files. It's mainly eagle that still does line fills only.
The Gerber specification even states in the Preface
Quote
Some applications stubbornly continue to use painting (aka stroking) to create pads and copper
pours. While not formally invalid painted files require more manual work and increase the risk of
errors in fabrication. Painting is a relic of the days of vector photoplotters, devices as obsolete
as the electrical typewriter. The rationale for painting disappeared decades ago, its
disadvantages remain.  We urge all users and developers to banish painting from our industry.
I think that's clear enough. Please note that polygons are already available with 274X, released in 1998. As for Bezier splines: I agree that they are of limited use once you have to get the data into a CAM processor. But polylines and polygons should work just fine.

Fair enough.  Sounds like I'm a bit behind the times, along with EAGLE. :)
 
The following users thanked this post: hlavac

Offline cx05

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: de
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #386 on: February 06, 2017, 11:20:47 am »
Fair enough.  Sounds like I'm a bit behind the times, along with EAGLE. :)
Don't worry, I was surprised as well when I first viewed Gerbers from other programs and saw what's possible with the format. As long as you are not working on a Gerber translator, there should be no obligation to know the format in depth ;)
 

Offline K6TR

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Country: us
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #387 on: February 07, 2017, 10:11:35 pm »
Circuit Studio is a month of my life that I will never get back.  It *kind of* works.  The support is virtually non-existent.  The split between Newark taking on tech support and Altium doing the development is a complete disaster.  The price is attractive, but the result is unattractive at any price.  I wouldn't bother with Circuit Studio, even if it was free.

To each their own.

I'm glad you have such blind loyalty to Eagle and Autodesk after all Version 8 of Eagle promises to be only the start of a massive make over for the package. Will you be able to adapt to that overnight or will it take longer ? As to product support or lack of support as it may be more accurately described. The grim reality is most if not all software developers have learned the trick of dumping Product Support on to Internet User Forums where they can get other users to do it for free. This phenomenon is particularly true when dealing with large numbers of small users. One-on-One service is very expensive for the manufacturer and really something that only can be provided from the revenue stream that comes from a product like Altium Designer. For smaller packages Internet Forum Support is the only economically feasible means of accomplishing it. It offers the advantage of putting everything in one place and relieves the staff of the burden of answering repetitive questions.

I am a satisfied Diptrace User. It was my first PCB CAD Program and between the ease of use of the package and the online support I received I was able to go from 0 to 60 in less than 2 Months working at my leisure. It was a little daunting at first as I didn't know if I could get my questions answered in a timely fashion. At times Diptrace's Proprietary Message Board looks hauntingly quiet but after a few posts I gained the confidence the User Forums are constantly being monitored by DipTrace Staff. Derek also does a good job keeping an eye on the Diptrace Forum here on the EEVblog. From what I have seen Altium, likewise, has personnel assigned to monitor the Altium Designer and Circuit Studio Forums here. So saying Altium's support for Circuit Studio is "virtually non-existent" is factually not true.

This whole episode prompted me to cover my bases and seek out a backup program should what happened to Eagle ever happen to Diptrace. I have downloaded KiCad and played around with it. I have come to the conclusion the user interface and ease of operation are lacking. Nonetheless KiCad will get you where you want to go in the absence of any other alternative. If a price war among PCB CAD Software providers were to break out resulting in CS's Price being cut in half I would certainly jump at the chance to pick up a copy at which time CS would become my back-up program. I would even go so far as paying for 2 to 3 Revision Updates to make sure I have a bug free version installed on my computer. Once I get to that stage I am finished purchasing Altium Products as long as things are going well with Diptrace.

It's clear that Autodesk wants to rumble with Altium in the Mega User/Manufacturer Market. The way Autodesk has treated its small users in this episode should leave no doubt where those Users stand on Autodesk's lists of priorities. As to the heavy weight fight it means little to me. Diptrace offers me what I want and what I need. I'll just stand back and watch the fight.  :popcorn:
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 10:26:19 pm by K6TR »
 

Offline jgarc063

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Country: us
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #388 on: February 07, 2017, 10:41:20 pm »
Circuit Studio is a month of my life that I will never get back.  It *kind of* works.  The support is virtually non-existent.  The split between Newark taking on tech support and Altium doing the development is a complete disaster.  The price is attractive, but the result is unattractive at any price.  I wouldn't bother with Circuit Studio, even if it was free.

To each their own.

I'm glad you have such blind loyalty to Eagle and Autodesk after all Version 8 of Eagle promises to be only the start of a massive make over for the package. Will you be able to adapt to that overnight or will it take longer ? As to product support or lack of support as it may be more accurately described.

Hi K6TR,

On what basis do you affirm lack of support? Take a look here:
http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/eagle-forum/bd-p/3500

I am the most active user on that young forum with the highest number of supplied solutions, you'll find a similar pattern in our old forums here: http://eaglecentral.ca . . I can also be reached by email support.eagle@autodesk.com. I can also be reached by phone, but I would rather not put that number on a public forum for fear crank calling.

I take my support job very seriously, because I know what's it's like to be looking for help and not be able to get it when you need it the most. Hence why I've also been responding on these forums whenever a post call for it.

It's OK to rip on a tool you don't care for, but please verify the facts before posting.

Best Regards,
Jorge Garcia
Autodesk Support

« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 06:04:09 pm by jgarc063 »
 
The following users thanked this post: jpanhalt, rachaelp

Offline macegr

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Country: us
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #389 on: February 07, 2017, 11:46:53 pm »
I also wouldn't rip on the support or the Eagle program itself. Both experiences have been totally fine for my purposes, I have zero complaints about Eagle support staff and have been very productive in using this program. There is plenty of online and direct engagement, both user-to-user and Cadsoft-to-user. My only complaint is the subscription model, which unfortunately is a dealbreaker.
 
The following users thanked this post: Karel

Online KE5FX

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1334
  • Country: us
    • KE5FX.COM
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #390 on: February 08, 2017, 12:34:44 am »
I also wouldn't rip on the support or the Eagle program itself. Both experiences have been totally fine for my purposes, I have zero complaints about Eagle support staff and have been very productive in using this program. There is plenty of online and direct engagement, both user-to-user and Cadsoft-to-user. My only complaint is the subscription model, which unfortunately is a dealbreaker.

This. 

Complaining about CadSoft's UI conventions has been a hallowed pastime among EAGLE users and detractors for decades, but at the end of the day the original developers have done a good job supporting the product, along with Jorge. 

Jorge, keep in mind that if EAGLE weren't the sole occupant of a large chunk of real estate on the price/value plot for EDA software, nobody would care enough to complain.  So don't let the grousing get you down. :)  EAGLE has been the best solution by far for a great many smaller shops, and that's why its users are so resentful about having choice and security taken away by Autodesk.  The price has gone up a bit, which is OK, but the product's long-term value has plunged.  Engineers don't like uncertainty, and you guys have delivered a heaping helping of it.
 
The following users thanked this post: MarkL, Karel

Offline K6TR

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Country: us
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #391 on: February 08, 2017, 01:43:04 am »
Hi K6TR,

On what basis do you affirm lack of support? Take a look here

Hi Jorge

Two Points

1) My remarks were to Spokane's charge that Altium's support of Circuit Studio is "virtually non-existent". I would have hoped my use of the quote would leave no question about where my remarks were directed. Obviously you chose to include Cadsoft, Autodesk and the Eagle Support Staff to be at the point end of my remarks. Those were not my intentions and should have been obvious.

2) Jorge, Autodesk chose to change its subscription model of it's own volition. It did so at whim and caprice which is their right as a privately held business. But don't expect the loyal Eagle Users who paid their money for a Perpetual License to take it with a smile when they are told without warning that henceforth there will be no more updates for perpetual licenses the power cord for the Cadsoft Server is being yanked out of the wall and if they want to continue with the product they have to purchase a subscription license. Dave pointed out in his video that many Eagle Users met the news of Autodesk's acquisition of Eagle with apprehension and misgivings. Autodesk's response was to feed them a line of reassurances which didn't hold up for 7 months before the customers' legs were cut out from underneath them.

To be sure Jorge Customer Service matters should be the least of Eagle's/Autodesk's concerns at this time. For all intents and purposes Autodesk's Eagle software product is dead with the existing customer base. And if Autodesk Management thought their actions would result in anything different then they are incompetent. They kicked their customers to the curb in pursuit of a bigger market and those Customers know it. And then we have Spokane come in here with his Eagle colored Pom-Poms telling those users the stinging of the hose lashes they feel on their back is all in their minds. I know the situation you are in jorge I worked in field service for 25 years and I know the feeling of what it is like to be the Designated Spear Catcher when management makes the decision to do an about face.

Whether Autodesk Management is aware of it or not Eagle is a dead product with its existing customer base as a result of THEIR decisions. And that is the facts. I made my comments about Diptrace mindful of that reality. I also made my comments as a Paying User of Diptrace not as an employee. I have no pecuniary interest in this matter. What I do have is good experiences with Diptrace and think that experience is noteworthy considering many Eagle Users are now looking for alternatives. The vast majority of those users will no doubt seek the cheapest option and head off to KiCad.

In summary Jorge I suggest you and macegr stop to reread a post before you launch into an attack half cocked.

Have a nice day
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 02:08:03 am by K6TR »
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #392 on: February 08, 2017, 03:03:18 am »
Circuit Studio is a month of my life that I will never get back.  It *kind of* works.  The support is virtually non-existent.  The split between Newark taking on tech support and Altium doing the development is a complete disaster.  The price is attractive, but the result is unattractive at any price.  I wouldn't bother with Circuit Studio, even if it was free.

To each their own.

I'm glad you have such blind loyalty to Eagle and Autodesk after all Version 8 of Eagle promises to be only the start of a massive make over for the package. Will you be able to adapt to that overnight or will it take longer ? As to product support or lack of support as it may be more accurately described. The grim reality is most if not all software developers have learned the trick of dumping Product Support on to Internet User Forums where they can get other users to do it for free. This phenomenon is particularly true when dealing with large numbers of small users. One-on-One service is very expensive for the manufacturer and really something that only can be provided from the revenue stream that comes from a product like Altium Designer. For smaller packages Internet Forum Support is the only economically feasible means of accomplishing it. It offers the advantage of putting everything in one place and relieves the staff of the burden of answering repetitive questions.

I am a satisfied Diptrace User. It was my first PCB CAD Program and between the ease of use of the package and the online support I received I was able to go from 0 to 60 in less than 2 Months working at my leisure. It was a little daunting at first as I didn't know if I could get my questions answered in a timely fashion. At times Diptrace's Proprietary Message Board looks hauntingly quiet but after a few posts I gained the confidence the User Forums are constantly being monitored by DipTrace Staff. Derek also does a good job keeping an eye on the Diptrace Forum here on the EEVblog. From what I have seen Altium, likewise, has personnel assigned to monitor the Altium Designer and Circuit Studio Forums here. So saying Altium's support for Circuit Studio is "virtually non-existent" is factually not true.

This whole episode prompted me to cover my bases and seek out a backup program should what happened to Eagle ever happen to Diptrace. I have downloaded KiCad and played around with it. I have come to the conclusion the user interface and ease of operation are lacking. Nonetheless KiCad will get you where you want to go in the absence of any other alternative. If a price war among PCB CAD Software providers were to break out resulting in CS's Price being cut in half I would certainly jump at the chance to pick up a copy at which time CS would become my back-up program. I would even go so far as paying for 2 to 3 Revision Updates to make sure I have a bug free version installed on my computer. Once I get to that stage I am finished purchasing Altium Products as long as things are going well with Diptrace.

It's clear that Autodesk wants to rumble with Altium in the Mega User/Manufacturer Market. The way Autodesk has treated its small users in this episode should leave no doubt where those Users stand on Autodesk's lists of priorities. As to the heavy weight fight it means little to me. Diptrace offers me what I want and what I need. I'll just stand back and watch the fight.  :popcorn:

Huh? You just read that I spent a month trying to escape Eagle.  Coming back to Eagle was not "blind loyalty."  It was a fundamental admission that Eagle is stable, and despite its peccadillos, is more productive at this point. I've also tried other packages, including Diptrace. I came back to Eagle.

And you don't need to lecture me about Circuit Studio's support and development issues. I've spent plenty of time trying to work through CS's many flaws with my squawk list eventually getting escalated to a VP at Altium with essentially him admitting that the issues I was seeing were a ways off from ever being addressed. There is a problem. They know it. Newark knows it as well.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 03:06:29 am by LabSpokane »
 

Offline cx05

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: de
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #393 on: February 08, 2017, 09:27:25 am »
And you don't need to lecture me about Circuit Studio's support and development issues. I've spent plenty of time trying to work through CS's many flaws with my squawk list eventually getting escalated to a VP at Altium with essentially him admitting that the issues I was seeing were a ways off from ever being addressed. There is a problem. They know it. Newark knows it as well.
I'm curious what these problems are specifically. Sounds like they are either so deep in the architecture of the program that the fix would take a prohibitive amount of resources, or that they are intended to not attract too many users from their high-end package. I'm really curious about this, since with Altium Designer I have the impression that the real deal breakers (something that breaks your ability to get a board out) get addressed. They take a bit longer for this than they should, and these problems shouldn't slip through internal testings procedures, but once they know about them they work hard to fix them.
 

Offline IanJ

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Country: scotland
  • Pro EE guy many years ago, now a hobby/home biz.
    • IanJohnston.com
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #394 on: February 08, 2017, 11:54:09 am »
And you don't need to lecture me about Circuit Studio's support and development issues. I've spent plenty of time trying to work through CS's many flaws with my squawk list eventually getting escalated to a VP at Altium with essentially him admitting that the issues I was seeing were a ways off from ever being addressed. There is a problem. They know it. Newark knows it as well.
I'm curious what these problems are specifically. Sounds like they are either so deep in the architecture of the program that the fix would take a prohibitive amount of resources, or that they are intended to not attract too many users from their high-end package. I'm really curious about this, since with Altium Designer I have the impression that the real deal breakers (something that breaks your ability to get a board out) get addressed. They take a bit longer for this than they should, and these problems shouldn't slip through internal testings procedures, but once they know about them they work hard to fix them.

Example: Use 'V' to drop a via onto a ground plane and the app crashes big time when you try to terminate the route........the official workaround is to use '*' instead which works fine. Altium told me it won't be fixed anytime soon as it's due to core processes.
There's a few issues like this but when you get to know the ones to avoid then for me anyways CS is the best. Have never regretted moving away from Eagle (Pro license).
Eagle, version 6.6 anyways, is much more stable......never had it crash......ever.

Ian.
Ian Johnston
www.ianjohnston.com
Manufacturer of the PDVS2 & PDVS2mini
 
The following users thanked this post: XFDDesign, cx05

Offline Jeroen3

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3619
  • Country: nl
  • Embedded Engineer
    • jeroen3.nl
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #395 on: February 08, 2017, 12:58:54 pm »
...
Eagle, version 6.6 anyways, is much more stable......never had it crash......ever.
Eagle crashed on me once. But it wasn't fair play, the network drive became unavailable.
 

Offline K6TR

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Country: us
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #396 on: February 08, 2017, 06:41:20 pm »
And you don't need to lecture me about Circuit Studio's support and development issues. I've spent plenty of time trying to work through CS's many flaws with my squawk list eventually getting escalated to a VP at Altium with essentially him admitting that the issues I was seeing were a ways off from ever being addressed. There is a problem. They know it. Newark knows it as well.
I'm curious what these problems are specifically. Sounds like they are either so deep in the architecture of the program that the fix would take a prohibitive amount of resources, or that they are intended to not attract too many users from their high-end package. I'm really curious about this, since with Altium Designer I have the impression that the real deal breakers (something that breaks your ability to get a board out) get addressed. They take a bit longer for this than they should, and these problems shouldn't slip through internal testings procedures, but once they know about them they work hard to fix them.

Example: Use 'V' to drop a via onto a ground plane and the app crashes big time when you try to terminate the route........the official workaround is to use '*' instead which works fine. Altium told me it won't be fixed anytime soon as it's due to core processes.
There's a few issues like this but when you get to know the ones to avoid then for me anyways CS is the best. Have never regretted moving away from Eagle (Pro license).
Eagle, version 6.6 anyways, is much more stable......never had it crash......ever.

Ian.

Ian have you seen the list of features that was cut out of Designer to make CS ?

https://www.element14.com/community/servlet/JiveServlet/previewBody/76216-102-1-315698/CS%20v%20AD%20Feature%20Comparison%20-%20Final.pdf

53 of 136 features are deleted. It would seem to me that taking a meat ax a sound program is a good way to introduce timing and other instability errors.
 

Offline macegr

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Country: us
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #397 on: February 08, 2017, 06:48:10 pm »
...
Eagle, version 6.6 anyways, is much more stable......never had it crash......ever.
Eagle crashed on me once. But it wasn't fair play, the network drive became unavailable.

5 never crashed for me either, but 7...dang. I actually do have one complaint about Eagle and it's the crashes on OSX on version 7. It will crash over and over while panning or zooming, the official workaround from Eagle support is to resize the window before working. Unfortunately this behavior persisted over a number of minor point revisions without getting fixed, and will not be fixed on the 7.x line.
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #398 on: February 08, 2017, 10:20:25 pm »
...
Eagle, version 6.6 anyways, is much more stable......never had it crash......ever.
Eagle crashed on me once. But it wasn't fair play, the network drive became unavailable.

5 never crashed for me either, but 7...dang. I actually do have one complaint about Eagle and it's the crashes on OSX on version 7. It will crash over and over while panning or zooming, the official workaround from Eagle support is to resize the window before working. Unfortunately this behavior persisted over a number of minor point revisions without getting fixed, and will not be fixed on the 7.x line.

I haven't experienced that with v7 on OSX. Maybe just good luck on my part. But I also haven't been designing PCBs after upgrading the OS to Sierra.
 

Offline rachaelp

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 156
  • Country: gb
Re: The Autodesk Eagle edition
« Reply #399 on: February 09, 2017, 08:24:32 am »
...
Eagle, version 6.6 anyways, is much more stable......never had it crash......ever.
Eagle crashed on me once. But it wasn't fair play, the network drive became unavailable.

5 never crashed for me either, but 7...dang. I actually do have one complaint about Eagle and it's the crashes on OSX on version 7. It will crash over and over while panning or zooming, the official workaround from Eagle support is to resize the window before working. Unfortunately this behavior persisted over a number of minor point revisions without getting fixed, and will not be fixed on the 7.x line.

I haven't experienced that with v7 on OSX. Maybe just good luck on my part. But I also haven't been designing PCBs after upgrading the OS to Sierra.

I use v7 on OSX too and it's been rock solid stable for a long time. I had some issues back in v7.1/v7.2 but nothing since. I think it may have been resolved when I updated OSX from 10.10 that originally came with my iMac which would of course update the nVidia driver version which I suspect is what resolved my crashes as they were when panning/zooming. It's been fine ever since and I am currently running it on Sierra without issue. I remember having a conversation with another user on the eaglecentral.ca forum who never resolved this issue but he wouldn't update his version of OSX (actually he ignored the suggestion every time it was raised, presumably he didn't like the idea). I suspect if he had then his problem may have been resolved.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 08:27:44 am by rachaelp »
I have a weakness for Test Equipment so can often be found having a TEA break (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/test-equipment-anonymous-(tea)-group-therapy-thread/)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf