Author Topic: Autodesk buys Eagle (Read 107025 times)

mikeselectricstuff · « **on:** June 27, 2016, 06:56:18 pm »

http://www.stockmarketwire.com/article/5367432/Premier-Farnell-sells-Cadsoft-business.html

rx8pilot · « **Reply #1 on:** June 27, 2016, 07:56:47 pm »

Wow. wow. wow. wow. The last 'major' upgrade was such a joke. I feel like its past the point of putting lipstick on a pig - it will need a very fundamental change to re-join modern PCB layout challenges.

Sent from my horrible mobile....

janoc · « **Reply #2 on:** June 27, 2016, 08:50:28 pm »

Well, if Autodesk bought them, then forget about anything that was somehow good on Eagle. It will likely become Windows only and an expensive slow piece of junk - as pretty much all software Autodesk has acquired over the years (Maya, 3D Studio, ...)

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #3 on:** June 27, 2016, 09:01:11 pm »

Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 27, 2016, 06:56:18 pm

Autodesk buys Eagle

Wow, that will cause many ripples.

When the Big CAD Corporates get involved, we can usually expect
* Spin rather than substance
* Bean counters having more say on what is done
* More time between big fixes
* lower end offering having more caveats and fish-hooks, as they are there to drive commercial business, remember.

This will also greatly worry Altium and Mentor, as Autodesk is no minnow, and has a lot of seats, with some overlap in users.

I'd expect this to boost KiCad's popularity.

There is code about to port Eagle Designs to KiCad - IIRC one version uses the Eagle script, so must have Eagle installed, the other runs as Python.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #4 on:** June 27, 2016, 09:12:15 pm »

Maya was never cheap.

They can't make Eagle worse either. It is barely passable and the passage of time is not making it any better. Not sure what they may do with OS options, but Windows is not the end of the world. I have come to the conclusion that having WinXP,, Win7, Win10, OSX, and Linux on my home and business network is the way to go. Every OS has its issues limitations and lack of support in certain areas. Windows, at the end of the day is the most versatile business choice. Linux is still a specialized nerd OS that you can't just throw at a department as the only option. OSX is expensive and Apple is too controlling. Most engineering and manufacturing software is not coded for OSX although they are great personal machines especially for creative work. If I had to choose just one - I would pinch my nose and choose Windows (but only because I would go out of business choosing the others). Autodesk knows they need to choose their battles and if the conversation reveals that only an insignificant amount of business will be lost if they only code for Windows - that is what they will do.

IanJ · « **Reply #5 on:** June 28, 2016, 10:49:54 am »

Hi all,

As an AutoCAD user, and an Eagle user I am actually looking forward to this......!
I'm stuck at Eagle 6.6 Pro anyways because the licensing upgrade path is expensive from where I am at. I've got nothing to lose!

I guess we'll see what happens now!

Ian.

Kjelt · « **Reply #6 on:** June 28, 2016, 11:26:43 am »

wow unexpected!
Is Premier Farnell in bad weather or something?

Eternauta · « **Reply #7 on:** June 28, 2016, 11:28:37 am »

Hi,

Farnell was bought some days ago from Daetwyler (howner of Distrelec, another component distributor). Now they sold Eagle, likely to make cache.
Autodesk should have funds to develop Eagle and remain on the ecad market.

Regards

tszaboo · « **Reply #8 on:** June 28, 2016, 11:34:51 am »

If anything this is good news. Eagle is unusable as it is. I hope they decide to ditch everything except the name, and re-write it from starch. BTW, no-one cares about linux. Autodesk software is at least decent.

chris_leyson · « **Reply #9 on:** June 28, 2016, 12:25:30 pm »

I think in general this is good news, Autodesk have some very good 3D modeling software, Autodesk Inventor for example. After having to toggle between Orcad PCB then a 3D cad package to check clearances then back to Orcad and so on, Orcad's 3D capabilities are non existent. Well I can generate a step file from a layout but I still have to use an external 3D cad package to get the step mapping for each component just right. If I wanted to layout two or three or more stacked PCBs or a flexi-rigid assembly made from multiple boards then Orcad PCB is not really the right tool for the job. It will be interesting to see how much 3D capability Autodesk put into the final product if any, if it ended up as 2D like Autocad then it will probably be disappointing.

poorchava · « **Reply #10 on:** June 28, 2016, 01:38:09 pm »

Eagle is crap. Autodesk have some nice options when it comes to free versions for non-commercial use. Provided non-commercial use you can get full version of Autocad 2016 for example. Or full version of Fusion360, which despite being cloud-based is usable (cliud EULA is surprisingle non-abusive). IMO this is good news

nctnico · « **Reply #11 on:** June 28, 2016, 01:56:08 pm »

Quote from: chris_leyson on June 28, 2016, 12:25:30 pm

I think in general this is good news, Autodesk have some very good 3D modeling software, Autodesk Inventor for example. After having to toggle between Orcad PCB then a 3D cad package to check clearances then back to Orcad and so on, Orcad's 3D capabilities are non existent.

Are you talking about Orcad Layout PCB or Allegro? Orcad Layout has no 3D capabilities indeed but Allegro should have.

free_electron · « **Reply #12 on:** June 28, 2016, 02:01:41 pm »

Quote from: NANDBlog on June 28, 2016, 11:34:51 am

re-write it from starch.

i think the starch version will easily outperform the regular programming language used ...

chris_leyson · « **Reply #13 on:** June 28, 2016, 02:24:11 pm »

Quote

Are you talking about Orcad Layout PCB or Allegro? Orcad Layout has no 3D capabilities indeed but Allegro should have

Hi nctinico, I'm using Orcad PCB Designer Professional, Cadence SPB 16.6, not the old Orcad 9 or 10. Wasn't aware the Cadance Allegro offered any extra 3D functionality.
Chris

Sbampato12 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 28, 2016, 02:27:48 pm »

I'm a user of Eagle, as user of Inventor (and sometimes AutoCAD). I really like Autodesk products, and I like Eagle (I'm not in industrial business) it served me well the last years.

I think I'm like this news. Let's see what will happens...

tszaboo · « **Reply #15 on:** June 28, 2016, 02:53:21 pm »

Quote from: free_electron on June 28, 2016, 02:01:41 pm

Quote from: NANDBlog on June 28, 2016, 11:34:51 am
re-write it from starch.
i think the starch version will easily outperform the regular programming language used ...

from scratch...

duh.

bombledmonk · « **Reply #16 on:** June 28, 2016, 03:54:22 pm »

Quote from: free_electron on June 28, 2016, 02:01:41 pm

Quote from: NANDBlog on June 28, 2016, 11:34:51 am
re-write it from starch.
i think the starch version will easily outperform the regular programming language used ...

Do you think it will be a stand alone program?

HighVoltage · « **Reply #17 on:** June 28, 2016, 04:20:05 pm »

I made my first PCB's in AutoCAD (Version 2.3 DOS) step by step by hand in the early 1980s, when there was no PCB software available.
May be this is a good thing, I am still using AutoCAD from time to time.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #18 on:** June 28, 2016, 05:29:19 pm »

I would hope they goto a subscription model at least as an option.
DRASTICALLY improve the process of building a new library part.
DRASTICALLY improve manual routing - push/shove, change trace width from point to point, and about 1000 other things
DRASTICALLY improve the geometry creation and control of PCB, holes, and other physical restrictions

Eagle is fine for hobby work, but it kills me in a professional environment where it sits side by side with high-end software.

SimonR · « **Reply #19 on:** June 28, 2016, 05:36:24 pm »

Quote from: HighVoltage on June 28, 2016, 04:20:05 pm

I made my first PCB's in AutoCAD (Version 2.3 DOS) step by step by hand in the early 1980s, when there was no PCB software available.
May be this is a good thing, I am still using AutoCAD from time to time.

You mean there was no cheap PCB software available. We used cadstar on a PC-AT in 1985, befor that you needed a workstation

LabSpokane · « **Reply #20 on:** June 28, 2016, 06:43:07 pm »

Quote from: janoc on June 27, 2016, 08:50:28 pm

Well, if Autodesk bought them, then forget about anything that was somehow good on Eagle. It will likely become Windows only and an expensive slow piece of junk - as pretty much all software Autodesk has acquired over the years (Maya, 3D Studio, ...)

AutoCad has been on the Mac for years. I have LT and Fusion 360 on there right now. I use Eagle and this is by far the best news I've heard about Eagle's future. If the backend of Eagle can be easily disentangled from the UI, things should improve greatly. There will, of course, be bumps in the road but still a much better situation.

LabSpokane · « **Reply #21 on:** June 28, 2016, 06:45:35 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on June 28, 2016, 05:29:19 pm

I would hope they goto a subscription model at least as an option.
DRASTICALLY improve the process of building a new library part.
DRASTICALLY improve manual routing - push/shove, change trace width from point to point, and about 1000 other things
DRASTICALLY improve the geometry creation and control of PCB, holes, and other physical restrictions

Eagle is fine for hobby work, but it kills me in a professional environment where it sits side by side with high-end software.

It will go to a subscription model. AFAIK, all new auto desk licenses are subscription. And that's a good thing because it stabilizes funds/budgeting for development.

mikeselectricstuff · « **Reply #22 on:** June 28, 2016, 06:53:03 pm »

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 06:45:35 pm

Quote from: rx8pilot on June 28, 2016, 05:29:19 pm
I would hope they goto a subscription model at least as an option.
DRASTICALLY improve the process of building a new library part.
DRASTICALLY improve manual routing - push/shove, change trace width from point to point, and about 1000 other things
DRASTICALLY improve the geometry creation and control of PCB, holes, and other physical restrictions

Eagle is fine for hobby work, but it kills me in a professional environment where it sits side by side with high-end software.

It will go to a subscription model. AFAIK, all new auto desk licenses are subscription. And that's a good thing because it stabilizes funds/budgeting for development.

But it's a potential disaster for long-term maintainability.

IanJ · « **Reply #23 on:** June 28, 2016, 07:13:02 pm »

Quote from: SimonR on June 28, 2016, 05:36:24 pm

Quote from: HighVoltage on June 28, 2016, 04:20:05 pm
I made my first PCB's in AutoCAD (Version 2.3 DOS) step by step by hand in the early 1980s, when there was no PCB software available.
May be this is a good thing, I am still using AutoCAD from time to time.

You mean there was no cheap PCB software available. We used cadstar on a PC-AT in 1985, befor that you needed a workstation

I used Wintek's sMARTwORK for DOS. I think it came out in '85. I think it was about 1000UKP.

Ian.

SimonR · « **Reply #24 on:** June 28, 2016, 07:34:39 pm »

Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 28, 2016, 06:53:03 pm

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 06:45:35 pm
Quote from: rx8pilot on June 28, 2016, 05:29:19 pm
I would hope they goto a subscription model at least as an option.
DRASTICALLY improve the process of building a new library part.
DRASTICALLY improve manual routing - push/shove, change trace width from point to point, and about 1000 other things
DRASTICALLY improve the geometry creation and control of PCB, holes, and other physical restrictions

Eagle is fine for hobby work, but it kills me in a professional environment where it sits side by side with high-end software.

It will go to a subscription model. AFAIK, all new auto desk licenses are subscription. And that's a good thing because it stabilizes funds/budgeting for development.
But it's a potential disaster for long-term maintainability.

I agree it's a potential disaster for long-term maintainability.
whether subscriptions are good or not is irrelevant. Its the potential of continuous updates that is potentially bad. Or even worse forced continuous updates. Have you tried converting a complex doc file to docx? word always gets it wrong in some way that needs manual correction. You have to have the option to run an old version for old designs, so you better hope any new subscription model allows that.

LabSpokane · « **Reply #25 on:** June 28, 2016, 07:38:18 pm »

Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 28, 2016, 06:53:03 pm

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 06:45:35 pm
Quote from: rx8pilot on June 28, 2016, 05:29:19 pm
I would hope they goto a subscription model at least as an option.
DRASTICALLY improve the process of building a new library part.
DRASTICALLY improve manual routing - push/shove, change trace width from point to point, and about 1000 other things
DRASTICALLY improve the geometry creation and control of PCB, holes, and other physical restrictions

Eagle is fine for hobby work, but it kills me in a professional environment where it sits side by side with high-end software.

It will go to a subscription model. AFAIK, all new auto desk licenses are subscription. And that's a good thing because it stabilizes funds/budgeting for development.
But it's a potential disaster for long-term maintainability.

Yes, but that has been a problem with CAD forever. It's 2016, and I'm still battling the same file compatibility/portability issues of 1993. It's better today, but this issue will never go away Autodesk or not.

LabSpokane · « **Reply #26 on:** June 28, 2016, 07:47:29 pm »

If Eagle files are simple enough to read directly and display the PCB as multiple websites such as OSHPARK are, expect someone to create a file updating service if there is a demand. I would expect OSHPARK to be very well positioned for this as every revision of Eagle seems to force changes in their interpreter.

nctnico · « **Reply #27 on:** June 28, 2016, 07:48:32 pm »

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 06:45:35 pm

It will go to a subscription model. AFAIK, all new auto desk licenses are subscription. And that's a good thing because it stabilizes funds/budgeting for development.

No, quite the opposite actually. A subscription model which implies time limited licenses means they can fire all the software developers and keep making money from the same shitty piece of software. A one-time license fee model is way better because it makes updates which add functionality necessary in order to keep customers paying. That works best for all parties involved.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #28 on:** June 28, 2016, 07:54:29 pm »

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 07:47:29 pm

If Eagle files are simple enough to read directly and display the PCB as multiple websites such as OSHPARK are, expect someone to create a file updating service if there is a demand. I would expect OSHPARK to be very well positioned for this as every revision of Eagle seems to force changes in their interpreter.

It's all XML I think. Rather simple for any parser to open and interpret. Very web friendly.

LabSpokane · « **Reply #29 on:** June 28, 2016, 08:00:10 pm »

Quote from: nctnico on June 28, 2016, 07:48:32 pm

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 06:45:35 pm
It will go to a subscription model. AFAIK, all new auto desk licenses are subscription. And that's a good thing because it stabilizes funds/budgeting for development.
No, quite the opposite actually. A subscription model which implies time limited licenses means they can fire all the software developers and keep making money from the same shitty piece of software. A one-time license fee model is way better because it makes updates which add functionality necessary in order to keep customers paying. That works best for all parties involved.

I am not saying Autodesk walks on water. They have made some major blunders over the years. That said, I've been using their stuff for 28 years now and not seen them do what you describe. Certainly some software goes obsolete, but I'm still getting AutoCad updates. And frankly, as much as a command-line curmudgeon I am, I like the newer UI experience.

Financially, a steady income stream is vastly better for keeping developers on the job. The feast/famine cycle of standalone upgrades is just hell on people by creating artificial boom/bust cycles.

So, I feel rightfully hopeful for Eagle. The sky is not falling.

nctnico · « **Reply #30 on:** June 28, 2016, 08:05:38 pm »

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 08:00:10 pm

So, I feel rightfully hopeful for Eagle.

From a practical point of view a lot (=making changes/extension) depends on how well Eagle is written and whether they can keep the core developers on board IF they are still working for Cadsoft.

LabSpokane · « **Reply #31 on:** June 28, 2016, 08:10:23 pm »

Quote from: nctnico on June 28, 2016, 08:05:38 pm

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 08:00:10 pm
So, I feel rightfully hopeful for Eagle.
From a practical point of view a lot (=making changes/extension) depends on how well Eagle is written and whether they can keep the core developers on board IF they are still working for Cadsoft.

I suspect you may well be correct. Eagle likely hasn't progressed because it is spaghetti code. Autodesk may have simply bought the user list and website and may be starting over using their own core libraries.

Howardlong · « **Reply #32 on:** June 28, 2016, 08:20:05 pm »

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 08:10:23 pm

Quote from: nctnico on June 28, 2016, 08:05:38 pm
Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 08:00:10 pm
So, I feel rightfully hopeful for Eagle.
From a practical point of view a lot (=making changes/extension) depends on how well Eagle is written and whether they can keep the core developers on board IF they are still working for Cadsoft.

I suspect you may well be correct. Eagle likely hasn't progressed because it is spaghetti code. Autodesk may have simply bought the user list and website and may be starting over using their own core libraries.

Didn't they leave to develop Windows 8?

HighVoltage · « **Reply #33 on:** June 28, 2016, 08:39:39 pm »

Quote from: SimonR on June 28, 2016, 05:36:24 pm

Quote from: HighVoltage on June 28, 2016, 04:20:05 pm
I made my first PCB's in AutoCAD (Version 2.3 DOS) step by step by hand in the early 1980s, when there was no PCB software available.
May be this is a good thing, I am still using AutoCAD from time to time.

You mean there was no cheap PCB software available. We used cadstar on a PC-AT in 1985, befor that you needed a workstation

CADSTAR was not available until the late 1980s, may be 88 or 89
Orcad came out before but was sooo expensive
AutoCAD was a real option, at least here in Germany

Kjelt · « **Reply #34 on:** June 28, 2016, 09:01:45 pm »

A lot of assumptions flying over the table and that from scientists.
For me a license model would be the end for eagle or any other software package that is. I don,t pay for
Som ething temporary, unless I would make money with it to earn it back, which i do not.

jpanhalt · « **Reply #35 on:** June 28, 2016, 09:58:21 pm »

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 08:10:23 pm

I suspect you may well be correct. Eagle likely hasn't progressed because it is spaghetti code. Autodesk may have simply bought the user list and website and may be starting over using their own core libraries.

Have you reviewed the source code? While you are at it, what's the difference between spaghetti code and complied C?

John

LabSpokane · « **Reply #36 on:** June 28, 2016, 10:29:13 pm »

Quote from: jpanhalt on June 28, 2016, 09:58:21 pm

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 08:10:23 pm
I suspect you may well be correct. Eagle likely hasn't progressed because it is spaghetti code. Autodesk may have simply bought the user list and website and may be starting over using their own core libraries.

Have you reviewed the source code? While you are at it, what's the difference between spaghetti code and complied C?

John

No. You wrote it, I'm assuming?

jpanhalt · « **Reply #37 on:** June 28, 2016, 10:40:15 pm »

You are the one who called it spaghetti code. That presupposes that you have some idea of the code's structure.

But then for a Pastafarian, it must be a complement. I apologize for misinterpreting your comment. My sniff detector went off scale

John

mikeselectricstuff · « **Reply #38 on:** June 28, 2016, 10:42:37 pm »

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 07:38:18 pm

Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 28, 2016, 06:53:03 pm
Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 06:45:35 pm
Quote from: rx8pilot on June 28, 2016, 05:29:19 pm
I would hope they goto a subscription model at least as an option.
DRASTICALLY improve the process of building a new library part.
DRASTICALLY improve manual routing - push/shove, change trace width from point to point, and about 1000 other things
DRASTICALLY improve the geometry creation and control of PCB, holes, and other physical restrictions

Eagle is fine for hobby work, but it kills me in a professional environment where it sits side by side with high-end software.

It will go to a subscription model. AFAIK, all new auto desk licenses are subscription. And that's a good thing because it stabilizes funds/budgeting for development.
But it's a potential disaster for long-term maintainability.
Yes, but that has been a problem with CAD forever. It's 2016, and I'm still battling the same file compatibility/portability issues of 1993. It's better today, but this issue will never go away Autodesk or not.

Subscription models are inherently more of a problem though. If you have old standalone software, you can still run it on an old machine or VM if you need to update an old design. If you've stopped subscribing ( e.g. moved to a different solution) and re-sub cost is too much ( e.g. they only offer annual subs) or the maker decides to drop it, you're 100% hosed unless you can hack it.
For products that are expected to have a long lifetime, any subscription package is a very risky choice.

jpanhalt · « **Reply #39 on:** June 28, 2016, 10:52:04 pm »

@mikeselectricstuff

I agree with your assessment of subscription software.

I currently have an educator/non-profit license, but after reviewing today's price structure, I find the Eagle Make Personal license very attractive for my uses. It is a little more, but offers more too. The question I have put to Eagle is whether an upgraded/new license today will include version 8.x.x when it becomes available.

John

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #40 on:** June 28, 2016, 10:58:07 pm »

Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 28, 2016, 10:42:37 pm

Subscription models are inherently more of a problem though. If you have old standalone software, you can still run it on an old machine or VM if you need to update an old design. If you've stopped subscribing ( e.g. moved to a different solution) and re-sub cost is too much ( e.g. they only offer annual subs) or the maker decides to drop it, you're 100% hosed unless you can hack it.
For products that are expected to have a long lifetime, any subscription package is a very risky choice.

Exactly. The BIG risk with subscription is the Mafia/Hostage-ware relationship that can too easily develop.

Corporate Bean counters decide they need to 'boost takeup' so they have an expiring license - no pay, no run.
They also want to turf-protect their other products, so they use binary/encrypted data bases.

Mentor are (currently?) following this model on their Digikey version of crippled-PADS, and it is getting serious push-back from users.
So much, that it seems Digikey has multiple EDA offerings now.

Proper version control also dictates non-expiring licenses, but again that is in direct conflict with the maximise cash flow edicts.

Some play tricks to lock-your-data, so you can only modify designs, not create new ones.
Alas, if their code decides you have crossed some invisible boundary, you are hosed.

This is why ASCII open-databases like KiCad (and a few others) is really the only way to accept any modern EDA design.

langwadt · « **Reply #41 on:** June 28, 2016, 11:01:19 pm »

Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 28, 2016, 10:42:37 pm

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 07:38:18 pm
Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 28, 2016, 06:53:03 pm
Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 06:45:35 pm
Quote from: rx8pilot on June 28, 2016, 05:29:19 pm
I would hope they goto a subscription model at least as an option.
DRASTICALLY improve the process of building a new library part.
DRASTICALLY improve manual routing - push/shove, change trace width from point to point, and about 1000 other things
DRASTICALLY improve the geometry creation and control of PCB, holes, and other physical restrictions

Eagle is fine for hobby work, but it kills me in a professional environment where it sits side by side with high-end software.

It will go to a subscription model. AFAIK, all new auto desk licenses are subscription. And that's a good thing because it stabilizes funds/budgeting for development.
But it's a potential disaster for long-term maintainability.
Yes, but that has been a problem with CAD forever. It's 2016, and I'm still battling the same file compatibility/portability issues of 1993. It's better today, but this issue will never go away Autodesk or not.
Subscription models are inherently more of a problem though. If you have old standalone software, you can still run it on an old machine or VM if you need to update an old design. If you've stopped subscribing ( e.g. moved to a different solution) and re-sub cost is too much ( e.g. they only offer annual subs) or the maker decides to drop it, you're 100% hosed unless you can hack it.
For products that are expected to have a long lifetime, any subscription package is a very risky choice.

They may have changed it but the subscription model for the Xilinx design tools used to be
that when you stopped paying the tool still worked but you were not supposed to use it for new designs

mikeselectricstuff · « **Reply #42 on:** June 28, 2016, 11:09:32 pm »

Quote from: langwadt on June 28, 2016, 11:01:19 pm

They may have changed it but the subscription model for the Xilinx design tools used to be
that when you stopped paying the tool still worked but you were not supposed to use it for new designs

That's OK as long as they have no way to stop it working - FPGA software tends to come with some sort of time-limited license, which becomes a problem once they decide to stop supporting it.

There was a thread here from someone wanting to maintain an old Lattice design, where Lattice claimed they had no way of generating licenses for the old software

uncle_bob · « **Reply #43 on:** June 29, 2016, 12:01:00 am »

Quote from: IanJ on June 28, 2016, 07:13:02 pm

Quote from: SimonR on June 28, 2016, 05:36:24 pm
Quote from: HighVoltage on June 28, 2016, 04:20:05 pm
I made my first PCB's in AutoCAD (Version 2.3 DOS) step by step by hand in the early 1980s, when there was no PCB software available.
May be this is a good thing, I am still using AutoCAD from time to time.

You mean there was no cheap PCB software available. We used cadstar on a PC-AT in 1985, befor that you needed a workstation

I used Wintek's sMARTwORK for DOS. I think it came out in '85. I think it was about 1000UKP.

Ian.

Hi

I worked for Wintek when they started their PCB software lineup. That was in 1974 .... Yes, there are some stories, all better told over a beer.

Bob

nctnico · « **Reply #44 on:** June 29, 2016, 12:54:38 am »

Quote from: wilfred on June 28, 2016, 11:54:47 pm

Quote from: jpanhalt on June 28, 2016, 09:58:21 pm
Have you reviewed the source code? While you are at it, what's the difference between spaghetti code and complied C?
Spaghetti code has to be read and understood by a human.

Not only that but taking over a software project which isn't properly documented and/or uses 'clever' coding techniques is a major task not to be taken lightly. In many cases small changes can have negative side effects. Which takes me to another problem area: a complete test plan to check for bugs introduced into known good parts. Management isn't always aware of these kind of problems lurking around and some can become impressed by utterly useless Doxygen reports. All in all a new version of Eagle on short notice are likely to depend on the original development & test team staying on board.

stj · « **Reply #45 on:** June 29, 2016, 01:42:09 am »

Autodesk will probably turn it into windows(10) only cloud-based spyware with *very* limited trial/free use.

i think i will be spending this weekend learning how to use KiCad - before i actually need to!!

technolomaniac · « **Reply #46 on:** June 29, 2016, 11:59:03 am »

Quote from: rx8pilot on June 28, 2016, 05:29:19 pm

I would hope they goto a subscription model at least as an option.
DRASTICALLY improve the process of building a new library part.
DRASTICALLY improve manual routing - push/shove, change trace width from point to point, and about 1000 other things
DRASTICALLY improve the geometry creation and control of PCB, holes, and other physical restrictions

Eagle is fine for hobby work, but it kills me in a professional environment where it sits side by side with high-end software.

Hi Stj -- As the guy now at the helm of the electronics tools at Autodesk, I want to stress we've got *all* of these items on 'the list'. Of course it'll take us a bit of time to get our developer-bearings, but no one on the Autodesk or the Cadsoft side, working on this, is new to ecad tools. What I'm most excited about is that this is a chance for the Eagle development team to really expand and address a number of the things users have requested the most. So expect some really interesting things to come!

technolomaniac · « **Reply #47 on:** June 29, 2016, 12:09:31 pm »

Quote from: janoc on June 27, 2016, 08:50:28 pm

Well, if Autodesk bought them, then forget about anything that was somehow good on Eagle. It will likely become Windows only and an expensive slow piece of junk - as pretty much all software Autodesk has acquired over the years (Maya, 3D Studio, ...)

@Janoc ...Nice try but as the guy running this game for both Autodesk and Cadsoft, this couldn't be further from the truth. Eagle a) wont be windows only (it's developed on linux), b) wont be slow (still faster than virtually anything out there), c) wont be junk and as importantly - d) wont be expensive (pricing model isn't changing and it will in fact, be free to students & schools now as a 6 layer license, to ensure they can do wireless design, impedance controlled routes, memory routing, etc...the stuff that's now essential for building good electronics). Feature list to come.

And with regard to both Maya and 3DS, both tools have only gained adoption since Autodesk's acquisition and are now free to students and startups. Hate to feed the troll but it'd be good to give it time rather than heap insults. The development team that this is folding in to is made up some folks with a lot more experience building ecad tools than your comments might imply.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #48 on:** June 29, 2016, 12:21:29 pm »

Quote from: nctnico on June 28, 2016, 08:05:38 pm

Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 08:00:10 pm
So, I feel rightfully hopeful for Eagle.
From a practical point of view a lot (=making changes/extension) depends on how well Eagle is written and whether they can keep the core developers on board IF they are still working for Cadsoft.

hi nctnico! I'm a part of Autodesk and the guy who this rolls into. Just a temperature check: the developers from Cadsoft and Autodesk are both stoked about this and the Cadsoft team is super excited to have more resources that all come from the ecad / eda universe to help only grow the tool. We're in Munich today - heads down - building the product roadmap and we'll share more when the time's right.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #49 on:** June 29, 2016, 12:33:38 pm »

Quote from: Kjelt on June 28, 2016, 09:01:45 pm

A lot of assumptions flying over the table and that from scientists.
For me a license model would be the end for eagle or any other software package that is. I don,t pay for
Som ething temporary, unless I would make money with it to earn it back, which i do not.

hi kjelt - speaking for autodesk / cadsoft, the free license will continue as free. the paid license will remain perpetual. the 2-layer educational licenses will go away and be replaced instead with a better, 6-layer license free EDU license to students / schools so they can build PCBs with such ~modern

features, like impedance controlled routing, antennas + feed lines, wifi/ble, memory busses, etc.

Monkeh · « **Reply #50 on:** June 29, 2016, 01:26:20 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on June 29, 2016, 12:09:31 pm

b) wont be slow (still faster than virtually anything out there)

Rendering performance with multiple layers (especially polygon pours) is poor, and there's a huge delay opening any library related tools after adding or removing large numbers of libraries (poor XML parsing performance? It's not I/O related, SSDs make no difference), as often happens when it forgets which you had selected, a thrice-daily occurance IME. Hopefully those are in your crosshairs. Relative to 6.6 mind you, the licensing model handily prevents me upgrading.

Don't mind the vitriol and ignorance displayed in this thread, there are plenty of reasonably happy Eagle users around.

Kjelt · « **Reply #51 on:** June 29, 2016, 01:47:47 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on June 29, 2016, 12:33:38 pm

hi kjelt - speaking for autodesk / cadsoft, the free license will continue as free. the paid license will remain perpetual. the 2-layer educational licenses will go away and be replaced instead with a better, 6-layer license free EDU license to students / schools so they can build PCBs with such ~modern features, like impedance controlled routing, antennas + feed lines, wifi/ble, memory busses, etc.

Great to hear that your team is really going to put some effort in bringing Eagle up in the ranks of pcb cad software

As a hobbieist I have bought the non commercial license a few years back.
I will wait anxiously for the new software to arrive, but take your time, better a good finished product than half work, but I am confident that is the plan.
Then perhaps I can upgrade or even buy again a new non-commercial license if required, free is not necessary but it would be nice if it stays in the hobbieist price range as previously

free_electron · « **Reply #52 on:** June 29, 2016, 02:20:34 pm »

Quote from: uncle_bob on June 29, 2016, 12:01:00 am

Quote from: IanJ on June 28, 2016, 07:13:02 pm
Quote from: SimonR on June 28, 2016, 05:36:24 pm
Quote from: HighVoltage on June 28, 2016, 04:20:05 pm
I made my first PCB's in AutoCAD (Version 2.3 DOS) step by step by hand in the early 1980s, when there was no PCB software available.
May be this is a good thing, I am still using AutoCAD from time to time.

You mean there was no cheap PCB software available. We used cadstar on a PC-AT in 1985, befor that you needed a workstation

I used Wintek's sMARTwORK for DOS. I think it came out in '85. I think it was about 1000UKP.

Ian.

Hi

I worked for Wintek when they started their PCB software lineup. That was in 1974 .... Yes, there are some stories, all better told over a beer.

Bob

all hail to smartWORK and HiWIRE !

F1 place pad F2 remove pad F3 place trace f4 remove trace f5 fatten / narrow trace
dip e 600 40 : draw DIP , pointing east , 600 mil pitch , 40 pins ..

i used that in 1988 ... still remember most commands...

JPortici · « **Reply #53 on:** June 29, 2016, 02:33:14 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on June 27, 2016, 09:12:15 pm

They can't make Eagle worse either.

they always can.

subscription based eagle. how would you like that? base licence is "freemium" licence which means that you always have to be connected to the internet

JPortici · « **Reply #54 on:** June 29, 2016, 02:39:57 pm »

Quote from: HighVoltage on June 28, 2016, 04:20:05 pm

I made my first PCB's in AutoCAD (Version 2.3 DOS) step by step by hand in the early 1980s, when there was no PCB software available.
May be this is a good thing, I am still using AutoCAD from time to time.

did the same in high school... but 7 years ago

we were asked to design an output relay board for PLC. we didn't have any EDA tool but there was no need anyway, the board was so simple.

tszaboo · « **Reply #55 on:** June 29, 2016, 03:18:12 pm »

Quote from: JPortici on June 29, 2016, 02:33:14 pm

Quote from: rx8pilot on June 27, 2016, 09:12:15 pm
They can't make Eagle worse either.

they always can.

subscription based eagle. how would you like that? base licence is "freemium" licence which means that you always have to be connected to the internet

You can always use the current version to design a PCB. Or a rock. Probably the rock is more user friendly.

Monkeh · « **Reply #56 on:** June 29, 2016, 03:34:38 pm »

Quote from: NANDBlog on June 29, 2016, 03:18:12 pm

Quote from: JPortici on June 29, 2016, 02:33:14 pm
Quote from: rx8pilot on June 27, 2016, 09:12:15 pm
They can't make Eagle worse either.

they always can.

subscription based eagle. how would you like that? base licence is "freemium" licence which means that you always have to be connected to the internet
You can always use the current version to design a PCB. Or a rock. Probably the rock is more user friendly.

Could be worse, could be Circuit OnlyHalfOfItWorks Maker.

JPortici · « **Reply #57 on:** June 29, 2016, 04:41:55 pm »

Quote from: NANDBlog on June 29, 2016, 03:18:12 pm

Quote from: JPortici on June 29, 2016, 02:33:14 pm
Quote from: rx8pilot on June 27, 2016, 09:12:15 pm
They can't make Eagle worse either.

they always can.

subscription based eagle. how would you like that? base licence is "freemium" licence which means that you always have to be connected to the internet
You can always use the current version to design a PCB. Or a rock. Probably the rock is more user friendly.

Implying i use eagle at all. I gave up on it years ago

funny story, since 3.0 diptrace supports ascii based files. not as simple as a XML but whatever, that's still great

daqq · « **Reply #58 on:** June 29, 2016, 04:53:18 pm »

I hope they don’t make it into some cloud based abomination…

LabSpokane · « **Reply #59 on:** June 29, 2016, 06:48:07 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on June 29, 2016, 12:21:29 pm

Quote from: nctnico on June 28, 2016, 08:05:38 pm
Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 08:00:10 pm
So, I feel rightfully hopeful for Eagle.
From a practical point of view a lot (=making changes/extension) depends on how well Eagle is written and whether they can keep the core developers on board IF they are still working for Cadsoft.

hi nctnico! I'm a part of Autodesk and the guy who this rolls into. Just a temperature check: the developers from Cadsoft and Autodesk are both stoked about this and the Cadsoft team is super excited to have more resources that all come from the ecad / eda universe to help only grow the tool. We're in Munich today - heads down - building the product roadmap and we'll share more when the time's right.

Thank you. I'm really happy that you've decided to retain the Cadsoft team and work with them. That speaks volumes as far as being a classy organization. I also would like to commend you for communicating directly with users, however vitriolic some of them may be. Have a good time in Munich!

uncle_bob · « **Reply #60 on:** June 29, 2016, 09:41:44 pm »

Quote from: free_electron on June 29, 2016, 02:20:34 pm

Quote from: uncle_bob on June 29, 2016, 12:01:00 am
Quote from: IanJ on June 28, 2016, 07:13:02 pm
Quote from: SimonR on June 28, 2016, 05:36:24 pm
Quote from: HighVoltage on June 28, 2016, 04:20:05 pm
I made my first PCB's in AutoCAD (Version 2.3 DOS) step by step by hand in the early 1980s, when there was no PCB software available.
May be this is a good thing, I am still using AutoCAD from time to time.

You mean there was no cheap PCB software available. We used cadstar on a PC-AT in 1985, befor that you needed a workstation

I used Wintek's sMARTwORK for DOS. I think it came out in '85. I think it was about 1000UKP.

Ian.

Hi

I worked for Wintek when they started their PCB software lineup. That was in 1974 .... Yes, there are some stories, all better told over a beer.

Bob
all hail to smartWORK and HiWIRE !

F1 place pad F2 remove pad F3 place trace f4 remove trace f5 fatten / narrow trace
dip e 600 40 : draw DIP , pointing east , 600 mil pitch , 40 pins ..

i used that in 1988 ... still remember most commands...

Hi

I was long gone by the time they turned it into anything that you could run without a pretty massive amount (volume wise) of hardware. It is a bit amazing how keyboard shortcuts stick with you. I can still remember a number of the ones I used on CAD in the 80's ...

Bob

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #61 on:** June 29, 2016, 09:43:59 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on June 29, 2016, 12:33:38 pm

the paid license will remain perpetual. the 2-layer educational licenses will go away and be replaced instead with a better, 6-layer license free EDU license to students / schools so they can build PCBs with such ~modern features, like impedance controlled routing, antennas + feed lines, wifi/ble, memory busses, etc.

Sounds like good product management.
What about import translators from other EDA packages ?

Also, can you clarify 'perpetual' ?.
I take it that means no dates in the License file, just a 'less than or equal to' Product Version which allows any compatible older version to also be run.

skipjackrc4 · « **Reply #62 on:** June 30, 2016, 12:05:55 am »

I personally think this is fantastic news. Eagle is, currently, almost unusable for any moderately complex design. I've liked every piece of AutoDesk software that I've ever used, so I'm pretty excited to see how they change things.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #63 on:** June 30, 2016, 12:11:47 am »

Altium has been after me for $10k license - maybe I should be patient. I don't design a big volume of boards, but when I do - I am in a huge hurry and they get more complex every time.

nctnico · « **Reply #64 on:** June 30, 2016, 12:14:30 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on June 29, 2016, 12:21:29 pm

Quote from: nctnico on June 28, 2016, 08:05:38 pm
Quote from: LabSpokane on June 28, 2016, 08:00:10 pm
So, I feel rightfully hopeful for Eagle.
From a practical point of view a lot (=making changes/extension) depends on how well Eagle is written and whether they can keep the core developers on board IF they are still working for Cadsoft.
hi nctnico! I'm a part of Autodesk and the guy who this rolls into. Just a temperature check: the developers from Cadsoft and Autodesk are both stoked about this and the Cadsoft team is super excited to have more resources that all come from the ecad / eda universe to help only grow the tool. We're in Munich today - heads down - building the product roadmap and we'll share more when the time's right.

Well... heed my warning

I've been down the road of taking over a software package from others before.

On the upside: It is good for you to be on this forum to have direct interaction with both hobby and heavy users from various CAD systems. It might be advisable to show in a signature that you are employed by Autodesk and are managing (?) Eagle development. It will make that your statements are read in the right context.

I think a lot of people are looking forward to what is about to come since Eage is not a small player in the low cost CAD solutions.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #65 on:** June 30, 2016, 02:40:31 am »

Quote from: rx8pilot on June 30, 2016, 12:11:47 am

Altium has been after me for $10k license - maybe I should be patient. I don't design a big volume of boards, but when I do - I am in a huge hurry and they get more complex every time.

Ouch, that's 10,000 good reasons to be patient...
If you use Eagle now, and do not want to wait for the new product mix, I'd suggest trying KiCad.
Looks good from what I've tested thus far. GiHub based libraries, and a shipload of parts & footprints.
Open databases and good scripting support. There are a couple of Eagle->KiCad converters.

Karel · « **Reply #66 on:** June 30, 2016, 06:35:06 am »

Quote from: skipjackrc4 on June 30, 2016, 12:05:55 am

Eagle is, currently, almost unusable for any moderately complex design.

Please define "moderately complex". We design 6-layer boards with USB2-HS, ethernet, BGA, etc. using Eagle.

electrolust · « **Reply #67 on:** June 30, 2016, 09:28:47 am »

Quote from: PCB.Wiz on June 27, 2016, 09:01:11 pm

This will also greatly worry Altium and Mentor, as Autodesk is no minnow, and has a lot of seats, with some overlap in users.

I don't think the asset purchase itself is worrisome -- Eagle is crap and I am surprised that it would be worth buying. Easier to start from scratch if you have those kind of resources.

What should be worrisome though is the shot across the bow that Autodesk is entering the e-cad market. Tight integration between e-cad and m-cad is a huge opportunity and the market is begging for it. Altium and Mentor have no answer for this.

But even that said, this isn't a play for Altium and Mentor customers. Eagle isn't in the same league as Altium. This is a play against CircuitWorks (SolidWorks module).

Wilksey · « **Reply #68 on:** June 30, 2016, 10:06:53 am »

Eagle is only perceived "unusable" or "crap" to those who don't care to take the time to learn how to use it or those who don't need / want to use it as they have access to a higher end tool.

For the most part it does it's job, and it does it well, it's never crashed on me before, unlike Altium...

Whilst I now use KiCAD, I still have an older licensed EAGLE version for occasional designs, it can produce quite complex designs, look at some of Olimex's boards, they are trying KiCAD also, more for the pure open source nature than EAGLE not doing what they want as the free version wouldn't allow their 4+ layer boards to be modified.

electrolust · « **Reply #69 on:** June 30, 2016, 10:22:01 am »

Quote from: Wilksey on June 30, 2016, 10:06:53 am

Eagle is only perceived "unusable" or "crap" to those who don't care to take the time to learn how to use it or those who don't need / want to use it as they have access to a higher end tool.

I'm sure many who use it daily also consider it crap.

The UI is prehistoric.

The wildcards in the library are cool (technology and package variants) but the tight coupling to footprints is horribly awkward. The library management itself is just awful.

Scriptability is cool but having to do so much via scripts is not. BOM mgmt (via scripts) is a chore. A huge problem with scripts is having to know so many things by rote instead of discovering it through the UI.

You can't even flip the PCB over to view from the other side!! Are you kidding me?

Aeternam · « **Reply #70 on:** June 30, 2016, 10:38:40 am »

Let's not let this thread degenerate into another Eagle bashing thread.

"The net proceeds of the disposal will have the effect of reducing Premier Farnell’s reported net debt position as at 31 January 2016 by approximately 8%"

If one had an idea where one could find Farnell's reported debt position one could infer the sale price. Any ideas?

jpanhalt · « **Reply #71 on:** June 30, 2016, 11:06:43 am »

2015-2016 Annual Report is here: http://www.premierfarnell.com/sites/default/files/reports/PF-ARA-2016.pdf

You may find the section beginning on page 24 of the report (not pdf page number) interesting.

Quote

At 31 January 2016, net debt to adjusted EBITDA was
2.6x and headroom on bank borrowings was £216.5m,
under facilities in place until September 2019.

Of course, we don't know what all was included in the "net debt" reported in your source.

John

Bassman59 · « **Reply #72 on:** June 30, 2016, 05:01:08 pm »

Quote from: electrolust on June 30, 2016, 09:28:47 am

I don't think the asset purchase itself is worrisome -- Eagle is crap and I am surprised that it would be worth buying. Easier to start from scratch if you have those kind of resources.

Starting from scratch would mean that AutoDesk would introduce Yet Another ECAD Package and try to build mind- and marketshare from scratch as well.

EAGLE has an installed base of thousands of users, most of whom want to see the program improved, and, I think, are willing to pay if those improvements turn up in the next release.

nctnico · « **Reply #73 on:** June 30, 2016, 05:58:45 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on June 30, 2016, 12:11:47 am

Altium has been after me for $10k license - maybe I should be patient. I don't design a big volume of boards, but when I do - I am in a huge hurry and they get more complex every time.

IMHO a higher end package also saves a lot of time when it comes to the logistics part. This is often overlooked by the lower end offerings. The Orcad package I'm using produces a ready-to-go bill of materials (including manufacturers parts numbers, order codes, etc, etc) with one click. AFAIK this is impossible with Eagle and Kicad.

Karel · « **Reply #74 on:** June 30, 2016, 07:13:00 pm »

Quote from: nctnico on June 30, 2016, 05:58:45 pm

The Orcad package I'm using produces a ready-to-go bill of materials (including manufacturers parts numbers, order codes, etc, etc) with one click. AFAIK this is impossible with Eagle and Kicad.

I don't know about Kicad, but to produce ready-to-go bill of materials (including manufacturers parts numbers, order codes, etc, etc) with Eagle is a breeze.

KE5FX · « **Reply #75 on:** June 30, 2016, 07:17:53 pm »

Quote from: nctnico on June 30, 2016, 05:58:45 pm

Quote from: rx8pilot on June 30, 2016, 12:11:47 am
Altium has been after me for $10k license - maybe I should be patient. I don't design a big volume of boards, but when I do - I am in a huge hurry and they get more complex every time.
IMHO a higher end package also saves a lot of time when it comes to the logistics part. This is often overlooked by the lower end offerings. The Orcad package I'm using produces a ready-to-go bill of materials (including manufacturers parts numbers, order codes, etc, etc) with one click. AFAIK this is impossible with Eagle and Kicad.

It's easy enough to write a BOM generator that reads EAGLE .sch files, as an example of what can be done with the aforementioned XML format. But now I have an inventory database problem. I've been getting by with a hand-edited XML file with entries like

Code: [Select]

<part device="OPAMP_CFB_X3" value="LMH6733" package="TSSOP-16" type="SMT" pins="16" description="Opamp, CFB, 3 channel, BW=1 GHz">
  <manufacturer name="TI" PN="LMH6733MQX/NOPB" />
  <vendor name="DigiKey" PN="296-37393-6-ND"     USD="4.4682" qty="100" />
  <vendor name="Mouser"  PN="926-LMH6733MQ/NOPB" USD="4.74"   qty="100" />
  <stock date="9-Mar-2016" count="70" bin="vp"/>
</part>

... but that's going to get pretty cumbersome over the next few years. I'm taking a leap of faith that I'll eventually find an easy way to pull this file into a real database program with a real UI. If that doesn't happen, I will eventually end up growing an entire ERP system by accretion. The curse of the compulsive programmer...

rx8pilot · « **Reply #76 on:** June 30, 2016, 08:06:07 pm »

I have written a few ULP's and Python scripts to help with BOMs and provide direct export to my P&P machine. At the end of the day, I get the data but it is so remarkably cumbersome and expensively slow to do this. The Eagle fans always say, 'but you can do that with a ULP - it is so powerful'. For those in a real business where time is currency - I don't want to write my own operational software. Not only does it take a bunch of time, it generally sucks in the end because I am not a real software developer and these patches of scripts are similar to putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

Eagle was a fantastic opportunity for me to learn PCB layout without any financial risk. I did not even know if my business was viable when I started with Eagle. Buying Altium right out of the gate would have been irresponsible. Now that I am fully committed and designing and manufacturing electronics is my sole source of income - I am over Eagle. I am actually scared of new designs and revisions. On the mechanical side (where I have decades more experience to be fair), I use SolidWorks that almost begs me to design parts and assemblies. From the very first day with SolidWorks (1998), it is easy and intuitive. It just makes sense and I tend to focus the vast amount of my energy on design, not the software. There is no command line crap to memorize either.

Eagle, on the other hand, is the inadvertent star of the show. When I need to put a new part in the design, I try my best to avoid it because making new parts is such a pain in the ass. That is before I have even drawn a single trace. If I designed boards all day every day, I would be better at it, but I only spend part of my time designing PCB's. If I was designing all day with Eagle, I would have switched a long time ago I guess.

I am hopeful that Autodesk can polish the system in a useful way. When the pop-ups for the 'new and exciting' version 7 came up, I was curious. They wanted a some money of course in the neighborhood of $500 if I recall correctly. When I watched the webinar roll-out, I almost died laughing - USELESS updates. I can't think of one helpful feature of the new version that would make any contribution to a better or faster PCB layout.

All of a sudden - $10k for Altium looks like a bargain compared to $1250 for Eagle (guessing about current price).

Karel · « **Reply #77 on:** June 30, 2016, 08:21:53 pm »

Quote from: KE5FX on June 30, 2016, 07:17:53 pm

Quote from: nctnico on June 30, 2016, 05:58:45 pm
Quote from: rx8pilot on June 30, 2016, 12:11:47 am
Altium has been after me for $10k license - maybe I should be patient. I don't design a big volume of boards, but when I do - I am in a huge hurry and they get more complex every time.
IMHO a higher end package also saves a lot of time when it comes to the logistics part. This is often overlooked by the lower end offerings. The Orcad package I'm using produces a ready-to-go bill of materials (including manufacturers parts numbers, order codes, etc, etc) with one click. AFAIK this is impossible with Eagle and Kicad.

It's easy enough to write a BOM generator that reads EAGLE .sch files, as an example of what can be done with the aforementioned XML format. But now I have an inventory database problem. I've been getting by with a hand-edited XML file with entries like

Code: [Select]
<part device="OPAMP_CFB_X3" value="LMH6733" package="TSSOP-16" type="SMT" pins="16" description="Opamp, CFB, 3 channel, BW=1 GHz"> <manufacturer name="TI" PN="LMH6733MQX/NOPB" /> <vendor name="DigiKey" PN="296-37393-6-ND" USD="4.4682" qty="100" /> <vendor name="Mouser" PN="926-LMH6733MQ/NOPB" USD="4.74" qty="100" /> <stock date="9-Mar-2016" count="70" bin="vp"/> </part>
... but that's going to get pretty cumbersome over the next few years. I'm taking a leap of faith that I'll eventually find an easy way to pull this file into a real database program with a real UI. If that doesn't happen, I will eventually end up growing an entire ERP system by accretion. The curse of the compulsive programmer...

Eagle supports attributes for devices. This way you can store all kind of information.
In the *.sch or *.brd files it wil look like this:

Code: [Select]

<attribute name="C-TYPE" value="E"/>
<attribute name="DIGIKEY" value="NC7SZ125M5XDKR-ND"/>
<attribute name="FARNELL" value="2453005RL "/>
<attribute name="MANUFACTURER" value="Fairchild Semiconductor"/>
<attribute name="MAN_PN" value="NC7SZ125M5X"/>
<attribute name="MOUNTING" value="SMD"/>
<attribute name="MOUSER" value="512-NC7SZ125M5X"/>
<attribute name="PACKAGE" value="SOT23-5"/>
<attribute name="PRICE" value="0.284"/>
<attribute name="RS-COMPONENTS" value="670-9807P"/>

When you export the BOM in Eagle, there will be a colon for every attribute, e.g. "Farnell" with in that colon the ordercodes of
all parts available at Farnell.
It can store it as txt, html or csv. This way you can easily import it in Calc (or excel).

Wilksey · « **Reply #78 on:** June 30, 2016, 08:26:11 pm »

Quote from: electrolust on June 30, 2016, 10:22:01 am

Quote from: Wilksey on June 30, 2016, 10:06:53 am
Eagle is only perceived "unusable" or "crap" to those who don't care to take the time to learn how to use it or those who don't need / want to use it as they have access to a higher end tool.

I'm sure many who use it daily also consider it crap.

The UI is prehistoric.

The wildcards in the library are cool (technology and package variants) but the tight coupling to footprints is horribly awkward. The library management itself is just awful.

Scriptability is cool but having to do so much via scripts is not. BOM mgmt (via scripts) is a chore. A huge problem with scripts is having to know so many things by rote instead of discovering it through the UI.

You can't even flip the PCB over to view from the other side!! Are you kidding me?

Only if they are "forced" to use it, there are far more that like it than those who don't.
The UI works just fine!

The footprint and library association is just a quirk to get used to.
The script-ability is what makes it so powerful, it's quite a treat in fact.

Who cares if you can flip the PCB or not, I certainly don't need this feature, it might be useful but I wouldn't call it a deal breaker!

KE5FX · « **Reply #79 on:** June 30, 2016, 08:28:17 pm »

Quote from: Karel on June 30, 2016, 08:21:53 pm

Eagle supports attributes for devices. This way you can store all kind of information.
In the *.sch or *.brd files it wil look like this:
Code: [Select]
<attribute name="C-TYPE" value="E"/> <attribute name="DIGIKEY" value="NC7SZ125M5XDKR-ND"/> <attribute name="FARNELL" value="2453005RL "/> <attribute name="MANUFACTURER" value="Fairchild Semiconductor"/> <attribute name="MAN_PN" value="NC7SZ125M5X"/> <attribute name="MOUNTING" value="SMD"/> <attribute name="MOUSER" value="512-NC7SZ125M5X"/> <attribute name="PACKAGE" value="SOT23-5"/> <attribute name="PRICE" value="0.284"/> <attribute name="RS-COMPONENTS" value="670-9807P"/>
When you export the BOM in Eagle, there will be a colon for every attribute, e.g. "Farnell" with in that colon the ordercodes of
all parts available at Farnell.
It can store it as txt, html or csv. This way you can easily import it in Calc (or excell).

Yep, but that's not the best approach in my situation. A BOM generator is useless without a parts database. An unstructured key-value store isn't a real database, and in any event, a parts database doesn't belong in a particular CAD program's schematic, board, or library file. EAGLE isn't a database manager (not that my text editor is

.)

The various BOM generation options for EAGLE also aren't very flexible. That includes third-party contributions, some of which are fairly decent -- Xess's comes to mind -- but still hardwired to someone else's way of managing inventory.

All of which isn't to criticize EAGLE, or to argue that Autodesk should add a database module to it, but to point out how it's actually a pretty great EDA tool for people with specific needs but limited budgets.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #80 on:** June 30, 2016, 08:56:01 pm »

Quote from: electrolust on June 30, 2016, 09:28:47 am

I don't think the asset purchase itself is worrisome -- Eagle is crap and I am surprised that it would be worth buying. Easier to start from scratch if you have those kind of resources.

Hardly, Eagle has a wide installed base, a wide database of real designs, and a good script community.

Quote from: electrolust on June 30, 2016, 09:28:47 am

What should be worrisome though is the shot across the bow that Autodesk is entering the e-cad market. Tight integration between e-cad and m-cad is a huge opportunity and the market is begging for it. Altium and Mentor have no answer for this.

Yes, Altium and Mentor will be very worried by this.
Mentor are very late into 3D and do so with 3rd party cobbled 'solution'.

Quote from: electrolust on June 30, 2016, 09:28:47 am

But even that said, this isn't a play for Altium and Mentor customers. Eagle isn't in the same league as Altium. This is a play against CircuitWorks (SolidWorks module).

Yes and no.

Eagle may not go after the top-end Altium and Mentor customers, but a large number of Altium and Mentor seats do not go above 6 layers.
Even the planned new free Eagle can capture those (other limits not mentioned yet?)
There is substantial overlap in accessible user base, and easy for AutoDesk to nibble away more...
That is why Altium and Mentor will be very worried by this.

Average end user Board complexity, I would even venture, is reducing these days, as things like WiFi and Bluetooth and PiZero (etc) allow designers to swallow large chunks of tight layout into something you just buy.

There are actually not many PCB seats in the world, designing Cell Phones

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #81 on:** June 30, 2016, 09:07:54 pm »

Quote from: Wilksey on June 30, 2016, 08:26:11 pm

Only if they are "forced" to use it, there are far more that like it than those who don't.
The UI works just fine!

To someone like AutoDesk, UI changes will be quite easy.

Quote from: Wilksey on June 30, 2016, 08:26:11 pm

The footprint and library association is just a quirk to get used to.

Yes, but pretty much true of all EDA tool flows.

Quote from: Wilksey on June 30, 2016, 08:26:11 pm

The script-ability is what makes it so powerful, it's quite a treat in fact.

It is that 'engine room' stuff that gives the solid base. UI interfaces can always improve over time.

Likewise, KiCad has Python script access, in the PCB, which I'm impressed with.
(Python still coming in SCH, currently that has a simpler script system - currently, I see 4 BOM scripts as samples in SCH side)

In contrast, Mentor threw scripts overboard, in one of their lower-cost 'experiments'.

nctnico · « **Reply #82 on:** June 30, 2016, 09:14:20 pm »

Quote from: Karel on June 30, 2016, 08:21:53 pm

Quote from: KE5FX on June 30, 2016, 07:17:53 pm
Quote from: nctnico on June 30, 2016, 05:58:45 pm
Quote from: rx8pilot on June 30, 2016, 12:11:47 am
Altium has been after me for $10k license - maybe I should be patient. I don't design a big volume of boards, but when I do - I am in a huge hurry and they get more complex every time.
IMHO a higher end package also saves a lot of time when it comes to the logistics part. This is often overlooked by the lower end offerings. The Orcad package I'm using produces a ready-to-go bill of materials (including manufacturers parts numbers, order codes, etc, etc) with one click. AFAIK this is impossible with Eagle and Kicad.

It's easy enough to write a BOM generator that reads EAGLE .sch files, as an example of what can be done with the aforementioned XML format. But now I have an inventory database problem. I've been getting by with a hand-edited XML file with entries like

Code: [Select]
<part device="OPAMP_CFB_X3" value="LMH6733" package="TSSOP-16" type="SMT" pins="16" description="Opamp, CFB, 3 channel, BW=1 GHz"> <manufacturer name="TI" PN="LMH6733MQX/NOPB" /> <vendor name="DigiKey" PN="296-37393-6-ND" USD="4.4682" qty="100" /> <vendor name="Mouser" PN="926-LMH6733MQ/NOPB" USD="4.74" qty="100" /> <stock date="9-Mar-2016" count="70" bin="vp"/> </part>
... but that's going to get pretty cumbersome over the next few years. I'm taking a leap of faith that I'll eventually find an easy way to pull this file into a real database program with a real UI. If that doesn't happen, I will eventually end up growing an entire ERP system by accretion. The curse of the compulsive programmer...

Eagle supports attributes for devices. This way you can store all kind of information.
In the *.sch or *.brd files it wil look like this:
Code: [Select]
<attribute name="C-TYPE" value="E"/> <attribute name="DIGIKEY" value="NC7SZ125M5XDKR-ND"/> <attribute name="FARNELL" value="2453005RL "/> <attribute name="MANUFACTURER" value="Fairchild Semiconductor"/> <attribute name="MAN_PN" value="NC7SZ125M5X"/> <attribute name="MOUNTING" value="SMD"/> <attribute name="MOUSER" value="512-NC7SZ125M5X"/> <attribute name="PACKAGE" value="SOT23-5"/> <attribute name="PRICE" value="0.284"/> <attribute name="RS-COMPONENTS" value="670-9807P"/>

But you have to enter that information for each part in the schematic... right? And how to update many parts at once or change to a different part in a schematic? And that is where the logistics problem is. With Orcad CIS I have a seperate Access database (but it could be any other database) where each part has a part number, symbol, footprint, order code, etc, etc. Orcad allows me to pick parts from the database and place them in the schematic. This links the part number to the part in the schematic so for each part the BOM generator can fetch the most up to date information from the database. There is also a part manager in Orcad. This allows to link parts in the schematic to different parts in the database. Think about upgrading MLCC capacitors to a higher voltage rating or changing a bunch of 0603 resistors to 1206. And the same part manager tool can be used to check consistancy (values, footprints, etc) between the parts in the schematic and the database. The best thing is: it all works out of the box and no need to write extra software or scripts yourself.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #83 on:** June 30, 2016, 09:19:37 pm »

Quote from: Karel on June 30, 2016, 07:13:00 pm

I don't know about Kicad, but to produce ready-to-go bill of materials (including manufacturers parts numbers, order codes, etc, etc) with Eagle is a breeze.

KiCad has a BOM button, and I see 4 BOM scripts included as examples.
I've not tried editing those yet, but I did edit a Netlist generator script to fix some version issues.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #84 on:** June 30, 2016, 09:31:35 pm »

Quote from: KE5FX on June 30, 2016, 08:28:17 pm

The various BOM generation options for EAGLE also aren't very flexible. That includes third-party contributions, some of which are fairly decent -- Xess's comes to mind -- but still hardwired to someone else's way of managing inventory.

All of which isn't to criticize EAGLE, or to argue that Autodesk should add a database module to it, but to point out how it's actually a pretty great EDA tool for people with specific needs but limited budgets.

The benefit of ASCII databases like Eagle and KiCad, is it is quite easy to scan/insert attribute lines, which means Autodesk could add a database module to Eagle, with little risk & comparatively low effort.

A trend today, seems to be to align with Part Distributors, and auto-generate this information.
RS has a good starting point example, that generates BOM and also footprint and SCH (tho SCH is a primitive box, it does work) in ASCII

AutoDesk has the clout to work with Distributors on this.

Closed-database efforts are destined to fail.

Karel · « **Reply #85 on:** June 30, 2016, 09:35:27 pm »

Quote from: nctnico on June 30, 2016, 09:14:20 pm

But you have to enter that information for each part in the schematic... right?

You do that once you create the part. If, later on, some properties of the part changes, for example, a distributor or an ordercode,
you only need to change that property once in the library. Then, for every schematic/project you select "update from libraries"
and that's it. No need to change that property or attribute of a part for every schematic/board again.

ehughes · « **Reply #86 on:** July 03, 2016, 03:56:23 pm »

Interesting times. Circuit Studio just got a price cut to $995. CircuitMaker is now running under Linux via wine so CircuitStudio should work as well.

http://circuitmaker.com/blog/Blogs/3-steps-for-installing-circuitmaker-on-linux

Autodesk is really going to have to step up or EAGLE will die on the vine at its current price.

MarkL · « **Reply #87 on:** July 03, 2016, 04:54:11 pm »

Quote from: ehughes on July 03, 2016, 03:56:23 pm

Interesting times. Circuit Studio just got a price cut to $995. CircuitMaker is now running under Linux via wine so CircuitStudio should work as well.

http://circuitmaker.com/blog/Blogs/3-steps-for-installing-circuitmaker-on-linux

Autodesk is really going to have to step up or EAGLE will die on the vine at its current price.

Wine is a poor substitute for native support, in my experience. And unless the wine method is officially supported, it isn't viable for any kind of professional use.

As bad as many people think Eagle is, they still have multi- native OS going for them.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #88 on:** July 03, 2016, 05:15:44 pm »

Yesterday, I needed to modify an existing design. Simple tasks like board outline and swapping a MOSFET for a physically larger one. The pain was real. The outline change took what felt like an eternity even after I knew the exact geometry from SolidWorks. The geometry creation and modification is uselessly cumbersome (even very minor stuff). I ended up outputting a DXF from SolidWorks which has to be converted to a script by a third party utility. What seemed like a thousand mouse clicks and fiddly figuring - I had updated the PCB outline. The change in SolidWorks took seconds. The change in Eagle took around 2 hours which included pushing all the original design in X-Y, creating a new PACKAGE that is the new outline, and verifying that it lined up with the features of the old outline. I am sure that a die hard enthusiast could show me all kinds of command line shortcuts and ULP's that they wrote for this and it takes them far less time. Great. After a 2 year run in Eagle, I am not a beginner but I admit that because it is so frustrating, I don't want to dedicate huge amounts of time learning what I consider work around solutions.

The next task was creating the new MOSFET that was not in my library. I was looking for a tall bridge to jump from! At 3AM I gave up after many hours. Now I am back at in on Sunday, wasting more time on what should be small, easy, and fast changes to an existing design. I don't think that Altium walks on water, but I saw some demos of these types of changes and it looked VASTLY easier. 2D geometry creation and dimensional references are a fundamental need. You should be able to take the numbers directly off a data sheet an plug them in in less than a minute. Very simple, yet Eagle fails big time in this area.

BMF · « **Reply #89 on:** July 03, 2016, 05:27:23 pm »

This is very encouraging for EDA users. Autodesk has the skills to integrate MCAD features and design analysis to a reasonably priced package. Their Fusion 360 is amazing for the price. I just hope Autodesk doesn't lock down the file formats. Hopefully the resulting product will push other companies to either cut prices or offer something worth the money.

LabSpokane · « **Reply #90 on:** July 03, 2016, 05:31:15 pm »

Quote from: ehughes on July 03, 2016, 03:56:23 pm

Interesting times. Circuit Studio just got a price cut to $995. CircuitMaker is now running under Linux via wine so CircuitStudio should work as well.

Where? Newark still lists it at $2990 USD.

H.O · « **Reply #91 on:** July 03, 2016, 06:25:39 pm »

The thread pertaining to THAT topic says the price change is from July 6.

KE5FX · « **Reply #92 on:** July 03, 2016, 09:28:35 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 03, 2016, 05:15:44 pm

You should be able to take the numbers directly off a data sheet an plug them in in less than a minute. Very simple, yet Eagle fails big time in this area.

Frankly I blame the draughtsmen who create those data sheet drawings for this. Every time I need to create a new package, I always seem to have to reach for a calculator to derive the most fundamental dimensions like pad sizes and centerlines. The dimensions I need to plug into EAGLE often seem to be the only ones that aren't given explicitly.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #93 on:** July 03, 2016, 09:33:05 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 03, 2016, 05:15:44 pm

.. The outline change took what felt like an eternity even after I knew the exact geometry from SolidWorks. The geometry creation and modification is uselessly cumbersome (even very minor stuff). I ended up outputting a DXF from SolidWorks which has to be converted to a script by a third party utility. What seemed like a thousand mouse clicks and fiddly figuring - I had updated the PCB outline. The change in SolidWorks took seconds.

Sounds like you should look at KiCad.
It can import Eagle designs, and has direct DXF import into both PCB and Footprint areas, I believe using code they derive from 2D CAD LibreCAD.
I've not tested SolidWorks DXF import, but other CAD DXFs were ok.

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 03, 2016, 05:15:44 pm

...After a 2 year run in Eagle, I am not a beginner but I admit that because it is so frustrating, I don't want to dedicate huge amounts of time learning what I consider work around solutions.

The next task was creating the new MOSFET that was not in my library. I was looking for a tall bridge to jump from! At 3AM I gave up after many hours. Now I am back at in on Sunday, wasting more time on what should be small, easy, and fast changes to an existing design.... You should be able to take the numbers directly off a data sheet an plug them in in less than a minute. Very simple, yet Eagle fails big time in this area.

If you are expert in SolidWorks, then DXF could be a good way to make complex new footprints.
Outlines are exact, and you can place circles at all terminals, and a vertex at any important reference like placement origin.

Most PCB packages come a distant second to real CAD pgms, when it comes to line editing.

KiCad can query any vertex or pad, and you can copy/edit numbers directly off a data sheet and also reset the grid origin to any user entered value (for small arrays of terminals).

Not yet in KiCad, (but something I noticed in LibreCAD & have suggested they add to KiCad) is a smarter grid/entity snap.
With this, at higher zooms, it hops on grid points, but if an entity vertex (line end,circle centre etc) is nearby, it will hop to that first.
That would make Add-Terminal & DXF-Imported-Snap a breeze, coupled with their nifty adaptive mouse-wheel Zoom.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #94 on:** July 03, 2016, 09:36:17 pm »

Quote from: KE5FX on July 03, 2016, 09:28:35 pm

Frankly I blame the draughtsmen who create those data sheet drawings for this. Every time I need to create a new package, I always seem to have to reach for a calculator to derive the most fundamental dimensions like pad sizes and centerlines. The dimensions I need to plug into EAGLE often seem to be the only ones that aren't given explicitly.

..Then there are those drawings that miss an important dimension entirely !!

rx8pilot · « **Reply #95 on:** July 03, 2016, 10:24:01 pm »

I definitely don't want to do the DXF export/import routine. All I want is a simple 2D geometry creation with dimensional relationships. Data sheets can call out the dimensions in a myriad of ways and the CAD program should allow the definition of this. You almost always are making symmetrical parts around a center point too - so that should be a priority. Autodesk is no stranger to 2D geometry with dimensions and relationships to other geometry. It is really great to just draw a box, pick and edge of that box and tell it how long that dimension is. Pick any two points or lines and tell it how far apart those things are. Pick any center and tell it how far from an edge it should be.

I did this super fast demo that shows an example of how SolidWorks goes about 2D geometry. Not only do you tell it dimensions, you can also tell it about relationships - vertical, horizontal, parallel, coincident, perpendicular, etc, etc.

Example was a PowerPAK type MOSFET even though I say SO-8.

https://youtu.be/5sdRQHFU0rQ

uncle_bob · « **Reply #96 on:** July 03, 2016, 10:28:49 pm »

Hi

Each time you create a "pad" in the copper layer, you also (obviously) create an opening in the solder mask and an opening in the solder screen. You also obstruct any silkscreen that may be wandering around in the vicinity. None of that is rocket science. It's all a set of rules. I find it amazing just how many programs make the "rest of the layers" harder than it should be.

Bob

rx8pilot · « **Reply #97 on:** July 03, 2016, 10:35:03 pm »

Being able to grab edges and points and define a distance would be a massive improvement. I feel like I am in 1987 all over again. Everything in Eagle is defined from the center of the object (pad) and referenced only to the grid zero.

langwadt · « **Reply #98 on:** July 03, 2016, 10:44:23 pm »

Quote from: PCB.Wiz on July 03, 2016, 09:33:05 pm

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 03, 2016, 05:15:44 pm
.. The outline change took what felt like an eternity even after I knew the exact geometry from SolidWorks. The geometry creation and modification is uselessly cumbersome (even very minor stuff). I ended up outputting a DXF from SolidWorks which has to be converted to a script by a third party utility. What seemed like a thousand mouse clicks and fiddly figuring - I had updated the PCB outline. The change in SolidWorks took seconds.
Sounds like you should look at KiCad.
It can import Eagle designs, and has direct DXF import into both PCB and Footprint areas, I believe using code they derive from 2D CAD LibreCAD.
I've not tested SolidWorks DXF import, but other CAD DXFs were ok.

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 03, 2016, 05:15:44 pm
...After a 2 year run in Eagle, I am not a beginner but I admit that because it is so frustrating, I don't want to dedicate huge amounts of time learning what I consider work around solutions.

The next task was creating the new MOSFET that was not in my library. I was looking for a tall bridge to jump from! At 3AM I gave up after many hours. Now I am back at in on Sunday, wasting more time on what should be small, easy, and fast changes to an existing design.... You should be able to take the numbers directly off a data sheet an plug them in in less than a minute. Very simple, yet Eagle fails big time in this area.
If you are expert in SolidWorks, then DXF could be a good way to make complex new footprints.
Outlines are exact, and you can place circles at all terminals, and a vertex at any important reference like placement origin.

Most PCB packages come a distant second to real CAD pgms, when it comes to line editing.

KiCad can query any vertex or pad, and you can copy/edit numbers directly off a data sheet and also reset the grid origin to any user entered value (for small arrays of terminals).

Not yet in KiCad, (but something I noticed in LibreCAD & have suggested they add to KiCad) is a smarter grid/entity snap.
With this, at higher zooms, it hops on grid points, but if an entity vertex (line end,circle centre etc) is nearby, it will hop to that first.
That would make Add-Terminal & DXF-Imported-Snap a breeze, coupled with their nifty adaptive mouse-wheel Zoom.

this looks quite neat: https://youtu.be/VvjcI67Qpw4

KE5FX · « **Reply #99 on:** July 03, 2016, 10:50:00 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 03, 2016, 10:24:01 pm

I did this super fast demo that shows an example of how SolidWorks goes about 2D geometry. Not only do you tell it dimensions, you can also tell it about relationships - vertical, horizontal, parallel, coincident, perpendicular, etc, etc.

That's definitely a powerful tool, no question about it, but I wouldn't call it super fast. You still had to do an absurd amount of clicking and dragging to enter an utterly trivial amount of information: X,Y centers for five pads with two unique W,H dimensions. If the drawing had simply stated that information directly, entering it into EAGLE or any other package would take 10 seconds.

uncle_bob · « **Reply #100 on:** July 03, 2016, 11:02:20 pm »

Quote from: KE5FX on July 03, 2016, 10:50:00 pm

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 03, 2016, 10:24:01 pm
I did this super fast demo that shows an example of how SolidWorks goes about 2D geometry. Not only do you tell it dimensions, you can also tell it about relationships - vertical, horizontal, parallel, coincident, perpendicular, etc, etc.

That's definitely a powerful tool, no question about it, but I wouldn't call it super fast. You still had to do an absurd amount of clicking and dragging to enter an utterly trivial amount of information: X,Y centers for five pads with two unique W,H dimensions. If the drawing had simply stated that information directly, entering it into EAGLE or any other package would take 10 seconds.

Hi

Every time I see a story about "universally adaptable all problem solving autonomous robots take over XXX next year" ... I think about how long we have been struggling to get a seemingly stupid problem like this solved. There is a page in the data sheet that gives the information. It is in PDF format. Click .. PDF open ... click ... page selected ... click ... import ... click ... select page with pin numbers ... click .. import ... click .... select page with "schematic" ... click ... import. That's a total fantasy. It's been a fantasy for at least 4 decades, despite it being a "millions of dollars a year" sort of problem.

Bob

rx8pilot · « **Reply #101 on:** July 03, 2016, 11:14:23 pm »

Quote from: KE5FX on July 03, 2016, 10:50:00 pm

That's definitely a powerful tool, no question about it, but I wouldn't call it super fast. You still had to do an absurd amount of clicking and dragging to enter an utterly trivial amount of information: X,Y centers for five pads with two unique W,H dimensions. If the drawing had simply stated that information directly, entering it into EAGLE or any other package would take 10 seconds.

It is not at all optimized for component pad layout, it is a general purpose tool for creating vastly more complicated geometry that will be used in the generation of 3D. There are some tools that could have sped that up, but really the point was simply to show that you can pick a center,point, or line and tell it how far from another center, point, or line. In Eagle, you can only directly know where the center of the pad is and have to do the math manually to figure out where the edges are. When trying to build it around a center point to have a proper centroid for P&P, it is a lot of manual calculator activity. I have been drafting on computers for decades now, and Eagle is never 10 seconds for anything since the datasheets never call out the dimensions in the way Eagle needs to see them. It should not require the use of a calculator to make a footprint.

Quote from: uncle_bob on July 03, 2016, 11:02:20 pm

Every time I see a story about "universally adaptable all problem solving autonomous robots take over XXX next year" ... I think about how long we have been struggling to get a seemingly stupid problem like this solved. There is a page in the data sheet that gives the information. It is in PDF format. Click .. PDF open ... click ... page selected ... click ... import ... click ... select page with pin numbers ... click .. import ... click .... select page with "schematic" ... click ... import. That's a total fantasy. It's been a fantasy for at least 4 decades, despite it being a "millions of dollars a year" sort of problem.

Bob

It is bizarre how crude it is. Some very simple format could allow all manufacturers to make available the data needed to import directly into any system out there with no translation needed at all. Strangely, the way it is done by millions is to download a PDF and manually figure it out. In 3D, it is very common to have IGES, STEP, and SolidWorks files for every nut, bolt, fastener, spring, etc that I ever use direct from the manufacturer - saving huge amounts of effort that would be required to model them.

nctnico · « **Reply #102 on:** July 04, 2016, 12:01:05 am »

Quote from: uncle_bob on July 03, 2016, 11:02:20 pm

Every time I see a story about "universally adaptable all problem solving autonomous robots take over XXX next year" ... I think about how long we have been struggling to get a seemingly stupid problem like this solved. There is a page in the data sheet that gives the information. It is in PDF format. Click .. PDF open ... click ... page selected ... click ... import ... click ... select page with pin numbers ... click .. import ... click .... select page with "schematic" ... click ... import. That's a total fantasy. It's been a fantasy for at least 4 decades, despite it being a "millions of dollars a year" sort of problem.

This is getting offtopic: One the biggest problem I see is that many drawings (especially for connectors and other mechanical-ish parts) are drawn by mechanical engineers and not electronic engineers. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to derive the pad locations from a drawing especially when the drawing uses 2 points of origin and no clear relation between those. But even the more sane drawings never use the centre of a component as a point of origin but that goes into the debate whether pin 1, the centre of the part or a mechanical mounting point should be the centre of origin. IMHO for some components I like the centre of the part but for components with a mechanical mounting point which needs to line up with a casing I rather have the mounting point.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #103 on:** July 04, 2016, 12:56:35 am »

Quote from: langwadt on July 03, 2016, 10:44:23 pm

this looks quite neat:

Wow, yes, quite nifty, not seen that before.

I find a thread about it too
https://forum.kicad.info/t/this-is-what-the-footprint-editor-should-look-like/1499/18

Just had a quick play in Chrome, of the standalone download (Chrome only) a little rough, but the base idea is very clever and sound.
You can re-size pad(s) by ctrl-select to turn red, then the Size entry applies.
(but you cannot edge-select and change PAD Size that way)

Looks like you can delete any oops on dimension-lock by select-delete.

Nice little tool, for where everything is edge-defined.

EEVblog · « **Reply #104 on:** July 04, 2016, 06:00:25 am »

Eagle to the defacto standard PCB package in the OSHW industry because it had a usable free version, and was popularised by many early OSHW advocates.
Autodesk would be well advised to release a statement affirming their commitment to the free version.

djacobow · « **Reply #105 on:** July 04, 2016, 06:42:13 am »

Quote from: nctnico on July 04, 2016, 12:01:05 am

This is getting offtopic: One the biggest problem I see is that many drawings (especially for connectors and other mechanical-ish parts) are drawn by mechanical engineers and not electronic engineers. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to derive the pad locations from a drawing especially when the drawing uses 2 points of origin and no clear relation between those. But even the more sane drawings never use the centre of a component as a point of origin but that goes into the debate whether pin 1, the centre of the part or a mechanical mounting point should be the centre of origin. IMHO for some components I like the centre of the part but for components with a mechanical mounting point which needs to line up with a casing I rather have the mounting point.

Yes, OT, but this, 1000x. I think it would be cool if manufacturers could put right into the datasheet a QR code or obviously machine-intended table of numbers that any cad tool could ingest to generate a pad layout. Yes, I understand that there are good reasons for wanting slightly different layouts for the same part, depending on the PCB and/or manufacturing process, but this would be a start and would represent the "recommended" layout we always see in the datasheets. It doesn't need to be put right into the data sheet of course, but that's not a bad place for it at all.

I mean, who designs anything without the data sheets for all the important parts in the design? How cool would it be to create a folder with all those .pdfs in it and your CAD tool would automagically have all the associated footprints ready for you?

langwadt · « **Reply #106 on:** July 04, 2016, 08:14:48 am »

Quote from: djacobow on July 04, 2016, 06:42:13 am

Quote from: nctnico on July 04, 2016, 12:01:05 am
This is getting offtopic: One the biggest problem I see is that many drawings (especially for connectors and other mechanical-ish parts) are drawn by mechanical engineers and not electronic engineers. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to derive the pad locations from a drawing especially when the drawing uses 2 points of origin and no clear relation between those. But even the more sane drawings never use the centre of a component as a point of origin but that goes into the debate whether pin 1, the centre of the part or a mechanical mounting point should be the centre of origin. IMHO for some components I like the centre of the part but for components with a mechanical mounting point which needs to line up with a casing I rather have the mounting point.

Yes, OT, but this, 1000x. I think it would be cool if manufacturers could put right into the datasheet a QR code or obviously machine-intended table of numbers that any cad tool could ingest to generate a pad layout.

I've seen several manufacturer now pushing Ultra Librarian, it can generate symbol and footprint for a number of CAD tools from a single file per part

http://www.analog.com/en/design-center/packaging-quality-symbols-footprints/symbols-and-footprints.html
https://webench.ti.com/cad/
http://www.microchip.com/development-tools/resources/cad-cae-symbols

I had a quick try generating for Eagle and it was a bit sketchy, some were ok other were down right wrong with swapped pins

EEVblog · « **Reply #107 on:** July 06, 2016, 12:15:44 am »

Interview with Autodesk:
https://blog.adafruit.com/2016/07/05/exclusive-interview-with-autodesk-about-the-cadsoft-eagle-purchase-autodesk-cadsofttech-technolomaniac

LOL at Matt's non-answer to this question:

Quote

Autodesk and a lot of other companies tend to focus on ‘subscription based’ and ‘cloud based’ software. Cadsoft EAGLE is firmly neither. Will you transition Cadsoft EAGLE to subscription or cloud based? What benefits to engineers would you see to either if you will?

At this time, we’re still planning to continue to develop the EAGLE technology, while making it more tightly integrated with other Autodesk products to enable a better workflow from design to manufacturing. In the short term, I’m particularly interested in taking a closer look at EAGLE’s core, such as hierarchy, modularity / reuse, routing, revision management and libraries. And of course, better mechanical integration!

Matt should have just been honest and said it's going cloud and subscription based.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #108 on:** July 06, 2016, 12:27:25 am »

I have been thinking about what @mikeselectricstuff was writing. Maybe subscription is not as good for my business as having a perpetual license. I have access to all my old SolidWorks and MasterCAM data that is totally in my control and I don't need to pay or update unless I decide to. For now SolidWorks 2013 is just fine since all am doing is maintaining existing mechanical designs. I don't have to pay anything more or worry about an unwanted change in the system.

Adobe offers stand-alone and subscriptions and that allows me to have access to the full Adobe suite that I otherwise could not afford right now. It's an interesting concept to think about. I am mainly curious if Autodesk will deliver a major spanking to the software and how long that may take.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #109 on:** July 06, 2016, 02:53:25 am »

Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2016, 12:15:44 am

Interview with Autodesk:
https://blog.adafruit.com/2016/07/05/exclusive-interview-with-autodesk-about-the-cadsoft-eagle-purchase-autodesk-cadsofttech-technolomaniac

Hmm, there seem to already be slight creepage on the limitations of the new 'free' version.

Quote

So yes, we will continue to make the freeware version of EAGLE available. We’ll also be zeroing out the educational license and making the 6-layer version available free to students and faculty for non-commercial work. We’ve done this in part to bring this into line with all Autodesk products (Fusion and Inventor for example are all free to students and startups making less that $100K / year) but also because the 6-layer license finally makes it possible for students to begin designing wireless (impedance controlled feed lines for example tend to be pegged against a plane layer) and likewise use more sophisticated memory busses (like DDR) which also require impedance controls.

Seems to first say "students and faculty for non-commercial work" then says "startups making less that $100K / year", but that's for Fusion and Inventor.
Students have always had quite open CAD tool access.

If you are not a student, faculty or employed by a startup, are you now in the license wilderness ?

Earlier comments on here, suggested the free version at 6 layers, was simply that.

Publishing designs using Eagle, just got a lot more complicated, as you have no way of knowing in advance if your user base falls into those pigeonholes ?

LabSpokane · « **Reply #110 on:** July 06, 2016, 03:06:17 am »

It's the end of the world.

nctnico · « **Reply #111 on:** July 06, 2016, 09:49:45 am »

Quote from: EEVblog on July 04, 2016, 06:00:25 am

Eagle to the defacto standard PCB package in the OSHW industry because it had a usable free version, and was popularised by many early OSHW advocates.

How many days will Eagle stay the defacto standard? The clunky user interface is not something Autodesk is going to fix. From all angles Kicad looks like a much better deal if you want to design truly open hardware (especially with CERN pushing it). For professional use you can get good deals from Altium and Cadence.

EEVblog · « **Reply #112 on:** July 06, 2016, 10:22:26 am »

Quote from: nctnico on July 06, 2016, 09:49:45 am

How many days will Eagle stay the defacto standard?

As long as major players like Adafruit, Sparkfun, Arduino et.al keep using it.

Quote

The clunky user interface is not something Autodesk is going to fix. From all angles Kicad looks like a much better deal if you want to design truly open hardware (especially with CERN pushing it).

It doesn't matter. People will use what they see other people using, and/or what they start out with. e.g. if you start out with an Arduino and design a shield etc, probably a 90% chance you'll use Eagle because everyone else is.
So it will be a long slow switch to Kicad.
Altium could have killed Eagle in fairly short order if they hadn't goofed up the positioning of Circuit Maker and played their cards right.

kaz911 · « **Reply #113 on:** July 06, 2016, 11:03:29 am »

I dropped AutoDesk completely after they sent their lawyers after me for BUYING a student license (not using it - not installing it - but just BUYING a student license on eBay - which never actually got installed)

They tried to force me to BUY a FULL license. But my lawyer put them in their place - but at a cost. eBay actually handed over contact details of the PURCHASERS to AutoDesk's laywers. I don't know what they did to the seller. Apart from that I OWN(ed) a Fusion 360 full license - which I have now terminated.

So FU AutoDesk

vzoole · « **Reply #114 on:** July 06, 2016, 11:09:48 am »

CERN pushing KiCad but they are using Altium and Eagle mostly

.
Farnell pushing CircuitStudio but all the CS stand was empty in Embedded World while Altium stand was fully crowded. (And now I understand why Farnell didn't promoted Eagle.)

So I think Eagle will lives long because the 75% of designes made by Eagle and Altium (in Europe).

technolomaniac · « **Reply #115 on:** July 06, 2016, 03:08:23 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on June 30, 2016, 12:11:47 am

Altium has been after me for $10k license - maybe I should be patient. I don't design a big volume of boards, but when I do - I am in a huge hurry and they get more complex every time.

Of course I'm a bit biased (being the guy building out the new feature set on EAGLE within Autodesk) but I would suggest waiting just a bit until you see the forthcoming new feature list. It will be worth the wait. Promise.

(Then make whatever decision you like...I'd just hate to see you overcharged for something you need only 10% of, at best.)

technolomaniac · « **Reply #116 on:** July 06, 2016, 03:12:09 pm »

Quote from: nctnico on June 30, 2016, 05:58:45 pm

Quote from: rx8pilot on June 30, 2016, 12:11:47 am
Altium has been after me for $10k license - maybe I should be patient. I don't design a big volume of boards, but when I do - I am in a huge hurry and they get more complex every time.
IMHO a higher end package also saves a lot of time when it comes to the logistics part. This is often overlooked by the lower end offerings. The Orcad package I'm using produces a ready-to-go bill of materials (including manufacturers parts numbers, order codes, etc, etc) with one click. AFAIK this is impossible with Eagle and Kicad.

This is in EAGLE's future for sure and was something that having been tied to a distributor made difficult. Relatively quickly we will be adding much broader reaching BOM capabilities with a reach into downstream processes as well.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #117 on:** July 06, 2016, 03:21:02 pm »

Quote from: KE5FX on June 30, 2016, 08:28:17 pm

Quote from: Karel on June 30, 2016, 08:21:53 pm
Eagle supports attributes for devices. This way you can store all kind of information.
In the *.sch or *.brd files it wil look like this:
Code: [Select]
<attribute name="C-TYPE" value="E"/> <attribute name="DIGIKEY" value="NC7SZ125M5XDKR-ND"/> <attribute name="FARNELL" value="2453005RL "/> <attribute name="MANUFACTURER" value="Fairchild Semiconductor"/> <attribute name="MAN_PN" value="NC7SZ125M5X"/> <attribute name="MOUNTING" value="SMD"/> <attribute name="MOUSER" value="512-NC7SZ125M5X"/> <attribute name="PACKAGE" value="SOT23-5"/> <attribute name="PRICE" value="0.284"/> <attribute name="RS-COMPONENTS" value="670-9807P"/>
When you export the BOM in Eagle, there will be a colon for every attribute, e.g. "Farnell" with in that colon the ordercodes of
all parts available at Farnell.
It can store it as txt, html or csv. This way you can easily import it in Calc (or excell).

Yep, but that's not the best approach in my situation. A BOM generator is useless without a parts database. An unstructured key-value store isn't a real database, and in any event, a parts database doesn't belong in a particular CAD program's schematic, board, or library file. EAGLE isn't a database manager (not that my text editor is .)

The various BOM generation options for EAGLE also aren't very flexible. That includes third-party contributions, some of which are fairly decent -- Xess's comes to mind -- but still hardwired to someone else's way of managing inventory.

All of which isn't to criticize EAGLE, or to argue that Autodesk should add a database module to it, but to point out how it's actually a pretty great EDA tool for people with specific needs but limited budgets.

Duly noted.

(I'm a part of the dev group for Autodesk / EAGLE) Having some means to store Key:Value data in a more substantial structure is something we've got plans to do. What I would avoid at all costs is anything that wraps up user data in an unknown or unfriendly data model. Something like a "Vault" just sounds ominous. We'd prefer to favor open source, shareable content and by definition this will mean that we have to support a database model / data structure in which the user has unrestricted access to all of their content. No use attempting to swim upstream.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #118 on:** July 06, 2016, 03:28:08 pm »

Quote from: MarkL on July 03, 2016, 04:54:11 pm

Quote from: ehughes on July 03, 2016, 03:56:23 pm
Interesting times. Circuit Studio just got a price cut to $995. CircuitMaker is now running under Linux via wine so CircuitStudio should work as well.

http://circuitmaker.com/blog/Blogs/3-steps-for-installing-circuitmaker-on-linux

Autodesk is really going to have to step up or EAGLE will die on the vine at its current price.
Wine is a poor substitute for native support, in my experience. And unless the wine method is officially supported, it isn't viable for any kind of professional use.

As bad as many people think Eagle is, they still have multi- native OS going for them.

EAGLE is completely developed under Linux with native development for Windows and Mac as well. This means we are not emulating anything to get it working in these environments. As we move forward, we'll only strengthen the multi-platform support because as you point out, this is a unique ability of EAGLE. Sprinkle in some new features like better routing, better DRC, polygon handling, etc. and you have the makings of something super special! At least that's what we're betting on. Stay tuned!

technolomaniac · « **Reply #119 on:** July 06, 2016, 03:30:34 pm »

Quote from: KE5FX on July 03, 2016, 09:28:35 pm

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 03, 2016, 05:15:44 pm
You should be able to take the numbers directly off a data sheet an plug them in in less than a minute. Very simple, yet Eagle fails big time in this area.

Frankly I blame the draughtsmen who create those data sheet drawings for this. Every time I need to create a new package, I always seem to have to reach for a calculator to derive the most fundamental dimensions like pad sizes and centerlines. The dimensions I need to plug into EAGLE often seem to be the only ones that aren't given explicitly.

Duly noted. Seems it would make more sense to just treat this with a calculator of some sorts. Like what the IPC are doing. We'll add this to the feature list and have a crack at this down the road. (Speaking as an EAGLE developer)

technolomaniac · « **Reply #120 on:** July 06, 2016, 03:42:29 pm »

Quote from: KE5FX on July 03, 2016, 10:50:00 pm

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 03, 2016, 10:24:01 pm
I did this super fast demo that shows an example of how SolidWorks goes about 2D geometry. Not only do you tell it dimensions, you can also tell it about relationships - vertical, horizontal, parallel, coincident, perpendicular, etc, etc.

That's definitely a powerful tool, no question about it, but I wouldn't call it super fast. You still had to do an absurd amount of clicking and dragging to enter an utterly trivial amount of information: X,Y centers for five pads with two unique W,H dimensions. If the drawing had simply stated that information directly, entering it into EAGLE or any other package would take 10 seconds.

I agree and as the guy from Autodesk / EAGLE on the board, the thing I'd say is we should look to approach this from multiple directions. 1) We need to handle input data better. Ok, fair enough. The standards for this including IPC, JEDEC, etc - along with what the mfg's have been producing - however, mean there's just SO little consistency in how this data shared. This I think is the elephant in the room. This wreaks havoc on anyone building parts. Grids and reference points and such are all good, but let's call the input data what it is...messy! (some mfg's being MUCH better than others of course)

Bottom line, we need to flex a bit from the tools side to meet the incoming data in the middle or we are attempting to swim upstream against 40 years of information that's all over the map.

2) I think for data that can be mapped into a standard, we need to look at how we ensure users can create good, professionally- / consistently- solderable parts. This includes looking closely at what IPC have been doing and starting to view this more as a calculator-type problem, like the guys at PCB Libraries have been. They have awesome tools for building parts and I guess there's just heaps we can learn from the approach IPC and PCBL has taken. We of course also have some wicked tools for mechanical. So the intersection of this data is really one area where we as a company can hit some home runs (or kick some goals or score some tries or whatever other metaphor you prefer

technolomaniac · « **Reply #121 on:** July 06, 2016, 03:45:08 pm »

Quote from: nctnico on July 06, 2016, 09:49:45 am

Quote from: EEVblog on July 04, 2016, 06:00:25 am
Eagle to the defacto standard PCB package in the OSHW industry because it had a usable free version, and was popularised by many early OSHW advocates.
How many days will Eagle stay the defacto standard? The clunky user interface is not something Autodesk is going to fix. From all angles Kicad looks like a much better deal if you want to design truly open hardware (especially with CERN pushing it). For professional use you can get good deals from Altium and Cadence.

As the guy at Autodesk / EAGLE, do us a favor and let us decide what we will / won't do. "The clunky user interface is not something Autodesk is going to fix." is just fiction. So stop spreading an agenda please and let's stay constructive. Best to tell us what you'd like to see and we'll slate it into the development pipeline.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #122 on:** July 06, 2016, 03:52:26 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 03, 2016, 10:35:03 pm

Being able to grab edges and points and define a distance would be a massive improvement. I feel like I am in 1987 all over again. Everything in Eagle is defined from the center of the object (pad) and referenced only to the grid zero.

Awesome suggestion, though I'd love to riff with you on the specific features that would make this legendary. Before taking on EAGLE development at Autodesk I had used the EAGLE software for years and I have a few of these also that I think would be big productivity gains. Feel free to hit me up here or on hackaday.io as @technolomaniac or twitter at the same.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #123 on:** July 06, 2016, 04:01:51 pm »

Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2016, 12:15:44 am

Interview with Autodesk:
https://blog.adafruit.com/2016/07/05/exclusive-interview-with-autodesk-about-the-cadsoft-eagle-purchase-autodesk-cadsofttech-technolomaniac

LOL at Matt's non-answer to this question:
Quote
Autodesk and a lot of other companies tend to focus on ‘subscription based’ and ‘cloud based’ software. Cadsoft EAGLE is firmly neither. Will you transition Cadsoft EAGLE to subscription or cloud based? What benefits to engineers would you see to either if you will?

At this time, we’re still planning to continue to develop the EAGLE technology, while making it more tightly integrated with other Autodesk products to enable a better workflow from design to manufacturing. In the short term, I’m particularly interested in taking a closer look at EAGLE’s core, such as hierarchy, modularity / reuse, routing, revision management and libraries. And of course, better mechanical integration!

Matt should have just been honest and said it's going cloud and subscription based.

@Dave, it's not going subscription. So there.

At this stage, that isn't anywhere on my roadmap. Thought about it. Decided against it. Can I say that we will never in the life of any product do that? No, of course not. That would be at best unfair, at worst dishonest. But I have so many things that are more pressing. The point of my response - which I agree was unclear was - routing, real-time DRC, some improvements to polygon handling, better revision management and versioning, better BOM tools, better interface to manufacturing, some library improvements, interface to 3D, etc are all good things to worry about today as they drive value for the users. Those are the priority. We'll shelve the other stuff until get to a place where that makes sense. That was the point of that comment. I've got other stuff on my radar. And I think that the shortlist today is pretty much a who's-who of what folks have been asking for for some time. Only now we have a combined development team that can really drive some of this home. Thanks for calling me out...I sounded like a politician and it was totally fair.

jpanhalt · « **Reply #124 on:** July 06, 2016, 04:26:31 pm »

@technolomaniac

I have been an Eagle user since 3.x, got an academic/educational license at 4.03. I certainly appreciate and agree with you that Autodesk will do what it sees fit to do, and doesn't need to be told.

FWIW, I disagree that the current interface is "clunky." In fact, I rather enjoy having control rather than having some piece of software telling me what it wants to do, which gets back to my second sentence above. I also enjoy standard shift sports cars. Please don't fix it to be like SolidWorks.

The real point of this post is to ask that another class of customer be considered -- maybe something like a loyalty discount for long-time users or retired users. The last time I looked, Eagle had a package for about $169 that offered 6 layers, a reasonable size board, and was only for non-commercial use. Since the education package is gone, I hope you can keep a similarly priced (i.e, <$200), very functional package available.

Regards, John

f5r5e5d · « **Reply #125 on:** July 06, 2016, 04:50:06 pm »

I just hope they don't throw the Fusion 360 dev team at it

apparently they think "agile development" means you can skip old style Mech E CAD hard/deterministic curve generation, tangent, dimensioning feature requirements and go with flashy "organic" "sculpting features only "documented" in video clips

and while I may be a few sigma out there on allergy to video as a learning tool people have been complaining for nearly the entire public history of the project about the lack of in tool help and actual logically structured decent quality written documentation anywhere on the site - transcripts of the video presenters yaking isn't that

rx8pilot · « **Reply #126 on:** July 06, 2016, 06:04:56 pm »

Quote from: jpanhalt on July 06, 2016, 04:26:31 pm

FWIW, I disagree that the current interface is "clunky."

I would put Eagle in the top spot of clunky after more than 2 decades of working with high-end graphics, VFX, manufacturing, and process control software. Any modern software that requires a manual calculator, a command line, and user built scripts for it daily use case is broken IMHO. The various software that I like (not for electronics design), has the core functions reduced to a minimum of thought, mouse-clicks, and key entry. They also have the ultimate control available for when you need it, but it is only for corner cases in general. Creating new components in EDA software is a normal thing that happens all the time - it should be a huge priority to make that as easy as possible. Like every other Eagle user, I have learned and created various work-arounds to get my job done, but unlike many - I have not forgotten that they are workarounds that cost me time. Almost every time I need to do something simple, I get referred to a ULP that some user wrote. Changing font sizes, moving things around, whatever - it's always a ULP that sort-a-kinda-works but mostly it's a patch for an absent feature. Many of the ULP's that make big changes end up being hundreds of equivalent keystrokes making 'undo' a major pain if needed. Yesterday, I needed to change the outline of my board and it took a very long time since each line and radius had to be manually entered. Arcs are defined only by end points and degrees - so when I need a sharp corner to have a radius added, it's a slow and manual job. In any 2D CAD software like Autocad, you simply pick a radius tool, tell it what radius you want and click on any sharp corner and the radius is added.

When I need to holes to be a certain distance apart in Eagle - I cannot do that directly. I have to figure out the position of each hole relative to the origin and do the math to figure out the distance.
When I need to move a whole design to accommodate an outline change - I have to select all (no problem) and then use the CLI to type: MOVE (>0 0) (1.25 0) which gets the job done, but is much more clunky than a context sensitive dialog box asking for an X-Y value for the move.
When routing off grid, I hold the ALT key to get finer movements but there is no (apparent) way to lock in 45deg or 90deg traces. I end up with a lot of slightly crooked traces.

Quote from: jpanhalt on July 06, 2016, 04:26:31 pm

I also enjoy standard shift sports cars. Please don't fix it to be like SolidWorks.

To be fair - I don't want Eagle to be like SolidWorks either, I want it to be sharply focused on the task of electronics design in the same way SolidWorks is focused on 3D mechanical design. There are some cool 2D tricks in SolidWorks, AutoCAD, etc that would be nice to have as a component of the final Eagle solution - but EDA software should obviously consider the task not copy another unrelated solution. I am not an Eagle genius by any means because I don't use it daily but I am also a periodic user of all my software packages and don't struggle nearly as much with any other title. I have watched a lot of Eagle videos and written tutorials by what seemed to be expert users and it takes them a long time too, so maybe daily use would only speed me up a little.

LabSpokane · « **Reply #127 on:** July 06, 2016, 06:37:39 pm »

Techno..,

Fix the UI. Please.

Thank you.

KE5FX · « **Reply #128 on:** July 06, 2016, 07:30:29 pm »

Techno..,

Don't mess with the UI. Please.

Thank you.

H.O · « **Reply #129 on:** July 06, 2016, 07:35:30 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 06, 2016, 06:04:56 pm

When I need to holes to be a certain distance apart in Eagle - I cannot do that directly. I have to figure out the position of each hole relative to the origin and do the math to figure out the distance.

You'll probably consider it to be a workaround but if you use the Mark command you can place whatever features you want relative to the position of the mark. Place the mark at your "reference hole" (or your G54 zero if you like :-) ) and the coordinates displayed is relative to that. You CAN then of course also use the much hated command line to enter the feature to place, the size and the position directly hole 0.003 (R 0.1 0.25) something like that.

Another workaround is of course to place the first hole at the origin and then change the grid to whatever spacing you want.

Karel · « **Reply #130 on:** July 06, 2016, 07:46:59 pm »

@technolomaniac, what ever you are going to do, please don't break compatibility with existing ULP's and scripts.
Don't introduce new features without accompanying "console" commands.
Don't throw out the existing realtime forward/backward annotation.

For me, the user interface is the least of the problems. What would make me happy is:
- a correct functioning IDF export based on geometries drawn in layers 50, 57 and 58 (bdCAD, tCAD and bCAD).
- cam processor ODB++ export.
- cam processor Gerber X2 export.
- improved impedance controlled routing.
- push & shove
- a library/schematic diff function a la: http://teuniz.net/eagle/eaglelibcheck/

rx8pilot · « **Reply #131 on:** July 06, 2016, 07:49:50 pm »

Techno....

If your team chooses not to radically deal with UI improvements - please let me know now so I can get a professional tool. (hope that is not too sharp, but it is total shit from my professional perspective). If the new version still requires constant CLI and scripting to get basic tasks done - I am out in a flash. You don't (and shouldn't) have to take those things away, but add the features to the software natively that people are using ULP's to work around. I love have the ULP option to make custom output for my particular P&P and have no expectation that would be included as a standard feature. Moving groups, panelization, part creation, re-size all text, re-size a trace, are just a few examples of critically absent native features. The ULP system has pushed the development to the end-user and I don't have the time for that.

The question is if the future of Eagle is to be a tool for enthusiasts, hobbyists, makers or is it a professional tool that is also friendly to enthusiasts, hobbyists, and makers? I need speed which comes from delicately developed features from the beginning of the process to the very end. The less I deal with the software, the more I can focus on my design. The more I focus on my design, the better it is. If I get a better design to the market faster - the cost of Altium is all of a sudden a bargain.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #132 on:** July 06, 2016, 08:01:29 pm »

Quote from: H.O on July 06, 2016, 07:35:30 pm

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 06, 2016, 06:04:56 pm
When I need to holes to be a certain distance apart in Eagle - I cannot do that directly. I have to figure out the position of each hole relative to the origin and do the math to figure out the distance.
You'll probably consider it to be a workaround but if you use the Mark command you can place whatever features you want relative to the position of the mark. Place the mark at your "reference hole" (or your G54 zero if you like :-) ) and the coordinates displayed is relative to that. You CAN then of course also use the much hated command line to enter the feature to place, the size and the position directly hole 0.003 (R 0.1 0.25) something like that.

Another workaround is of course to place the first hole at the origin and then change the grid to whatever spacing you want.

Those are good options, but yes I would consider them extra effort for a simple task. I don't hate command line at all - it has it's place. I learned my computer skills starting in the early 80's when command line was it. The reason I don't like it for these applications is because it is another memory item that I have to keep fresh. After coding in C, Python, of BASH languages all day - I don't want to remember what the command or syntax of the command is just to move, size, position something. GUI's allow the user to focus on the task and not the interface and are particularly good for users that occasionally use the software. If I used Eagle everyday, I would certainly have a lot more proficiency in the commands - but I don't. I just want a dialog box to pop up and give me my options in context of the selection. If I want a line to be longer, I just want to type in a length - not calculate a start point and end point. If I want two lines to connect off-grid - I expect the software to at least offer to snap two ends of a line together.

To be clear - the command line is indeed powerful and I would not want it to go away. The ULP scripting engine allows outside the box features. What I don't care for is when these things are required for tasks that should be integrated in the core of the system as mouse clickable tools.

LabSpokane · « **Reply #133 on:** July 06, 2016, 08:27:21 pm »

Quote

The question is if the future of Eagle is to be a tool for enthusiasts, hobbyists, makers or is it a professional tool that is also friendly to enthusiasts, hobbyists, and makers? I need speed which comes from delicately developed features from the beginning of the process to the very end. The less I deal with the software, the more I can focus on my design. The more I focus on my design, the better it is. If I get a better design to the market faster - the cost of Altium is all of a sudden a bargain.

This. ^

Makers and hobbyists do not pay for software. They have decided that free is the only acceptable price. (The will only pay for ICs on breadboard-able PCBs.) Make the tool accessible to "makers" if you feel a social need, but catering to makers is a complete waste of resources. The market that will pay consists of Jill/Jack-of-all-trades professionals whose sole job is not PCB design. I believe that market is hugely underestimated. There are no shortage of professionals and businesses trapped - making do with third party hardware and paying through the nose for the privilege - believing that the designs tools are either too primitive or too expensive and time consuming to jump in and succeed.

People that build cell phones and high zoot spectrum analyzers (etc.) will continue to rightfully remain on the high end platforms.

The untapped market is in the middle.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #134 on:** July 06, 2016, 09:23:44 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 06, 2016, 06:04:56 pm

... Yesterday, I needed to change the outline of my board and it took a very long time since each line and radius had to be manually entered. Arcs are defined only by end points and degrees - so when I need a sharp corner to have a radius added, it's a slow and manual job. In any 2D CAD software like Autocad, you simply pick a radius tool, tell it what radius you want and click on any sharp corner and the radius is added.

That's a common issue across most PCB packages, and it seems Autodesk could easily do a 2-D clipboard, where you Select an entity, or group, then paste into a proper 2D editor and then replace original.
Other packages have DXF import/export into PCB area and Footprint editors, but it tends to be coarse-grained.

It's likely to be much easier for Autodesk to include a base-Real-CAD tool, than mess about trying to re-code any editing engine.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #135 on:** July 06, 2016, 10:04:17 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 06, 2016, 03:42:29 pm

I agree and as the guy from Autodesk / EAGLE on the board, the thing I'd say is we should look to approach this from multiple directions. 1) We need to handle input data better. Ok, fair enough. The standards for this including IPC, JEDEC, etc - along with what the mfg's have been producing - however, mean there's just SO little consistency in how this data shared. This I think is the elephant in the room. This wreaks havoc on anyone building parts. Grids and reference points and such are all good, but let's call the input data what it is...messy! (some mfg's being MUCH better than others of course)

Bottom line, we need to flex a bit from the tools side to meet the incoming data in the middle or we are attempting to swim upstream against 40 years of information that's all over the map.

There are lowest-common-denominator files that can do some useful web-harvesting - those are Gerber and DXF.
These are almost universal, so should be Import/export supported, but those are not easily scriptable or edited.

A much better system for scripting information, is to publish a form of S-expression file
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-expression#Parsing

Important to notice this key comment:
S-Expressions are often compared to XML, a key difference being that S-Expressions are far simpler in syntax, therefore being much easier to parse.

chris_leyson · « **Reply #136 on:** July 06, 2016, 10:20:33 pm »

True, but don't forget about step and igis, pcb design so much more about simple 2D these days.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #137 on:** July 06, 2016, 10:29:47 pm »

Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2016, 10:22:26 am

...So it will be a long slow switch to Kicad.

Err, you do know KiCad can now simply import an Eagle design (and can import Altium too, via P-CAD) ? - See image.
Search Web.Find EagleFile.Import.

This makes the switch to KiCad very rapid indeed, and it is already underway for many web-published designs.

KiCad has an impressive library resource, and I predict others will soon be adding 'Import KiCad Library' buttons.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #138 on:** July 06, 2016, 10:54:20 pm »

Quote from: chris_leyson on July 06, 2016, 10:20:33 pm

True, but don't forget about step and igis, pcb design so much more about simple 2D these days.

Of course, but my point was more to not ignore the widespread but less lofty common-denominator imports.

For example, below is a DXF file of a relay, that someone like Autodesk should be able to import, and with a few smart mouse clicks, create a footprint.
Select outline -> Silkscreen
Select circles -> Add Terminals, use circle X.Y.D as Seed. Prompt for drill size. If multiple concentric circles seed Drill & mask too..
Delete construction lines. Save footprint, use DXF name as a seed.

https://www.omron.com/ecb/products/DXF/G6DN.DXF

Export footprint as DXF, using simple layer name rules and circle rules like above, should also be possible.

chris_leyson · « **Reply #139 on:** July 06, 2016, 11:11:44 pm »

Sorry man had my 3D head on, but you're right, use a common file format for 2D footprints, DXF and GErber, it makes a lot sense. Thanks

technolomaniac · « **Reply #140 on:** July 07, 2016, 04:59:25 am »

Quote from: jpanhalt on July 06, 2016, 04:26:31 pm

@technolomaniac

I have been an Eagle user since 3.x, got an academic/educational license at 4.03. I certainly appreciate and agree with you that Autodesk will do what it sees fit to do, and doesn't need to be told.

FWIW, I disagree that the current interface is "clunky." In fact, I rather enjoy having control rather than having some piece of software telling me what it wants to do, which gets back to my second sentence above. I also enjoy standard shift sports cars. Please don't fix it to be like SolidWorks.

The real point of this post is to ask that another class of customer be considered -- maybe something like a loyalty discount for long-time users or retired users. The last time I looked, Eagle had a package for about $169 that offered 6 layers, a reasonable size board, and was only for non-commercial use. Since the education package is gone, I hope you can keep a similarly priced (i.e, <$200), very functional package available.

Regards, John

Hi John --

Thanks for the suggestions. We'll definitely keep the cost low and continue the $169 Make license. This is essential to EAGLE's success and we want to avoid anything that might make it harder for folks to use the product. This community is largely responsible for the glut of content, tutorials, and other resources available and we want to be sure we enable everyone to continue to make & share resources that make designing electronics easier. This includes both keeping the product cost low but also making sure we don't force people to adopt a complex data management system when they have already decided on a model for sharing and communicating data. (Point being, we want to reduce the friction and work with the community rather than try and build our own wonky ecosystem that forces others to join it if they want to play along.)

Regarding the UI, what we will absolutely avoid is making it heavy like so many other packages with their dozens of workspace panels and menus and toolbars, etc. (I mean honestly, if your Preferences dialog has hyperlinks that launch another series of dialogs, it might be time for a refactoring

Hope that helps set some expectations. Please feel free to contact me directly anytime with questions, concerns, ideas, etc. I'm at @technolomaniac on Hackaday.io & Twitter and you can email me directly at matt@cadsoft.com or matt.b-e-r-g-g-r-e-n@autodesk.com. (no dashes).

technolomaniac · « **Reply #141 on:** July 07, 2016, 05:03:36 am »

Quote from: Karel on July 06, 2016, 07:46:59 pm

@technolomaniac, what ever you are going to do, please don't break compatibility with existing ULP's and scripts.
Don't introduce new features without accompanying "console" commands.
Don't throw out the existing realtime forward/backward annotation.

For me, the user interface is the least of the problems. What would make me happy is:
- a correct functioning IDF export based on geometries drawn in layers 50, 57 and 58 (bdCAD, tCAD and bCAD).
- cam processor ODB++ export.
- cam processor Gerber X2 export.
- improved impedance controlled routing.
- push & shove
- a library/schematic diff function a la: http://teuniz.net/eagle/eaglelibcheck/

Oh man, this is awesome. So we have a all of these on the list, even the last one. Routing is actually SUPER high on my list but depends on real-time DRC in PCB coming into the fold. So we have some sequencing to get right but it's all very clear what needs to happen. The other mfg output is all in the pipe. As is the interface to mechanical. Let me ask though...

do you want IDF or would you prefer a "real" mechanical interface? something that supported bringing a design into e.g. Fusion or Inventor (or whatever else you might be using)? Id suspect most folks would say "just give me an interface to a mechanical tool" as the IDF format is pretty sparse. especially if we can preserve copper features and layer construction, etc.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #142 on:** July 07, 2016, 05:05:04 am »

Quote from: PCB.Wiz on July 06, 2016, 10:54:20 pm

Quote from: chris_leyson on July 06, 2016, 10:20:33 pm
True, but don't forget about step and igis, pcb design so much more about simple 2D these days.
Of course, but my point was more to not ignore the widespread but less lofty common-denominator imports.

For example, below is a DXF file of a relay, that someone like Autodesk should be able to import, and with a few smart mouse clicks, create a footprint.
Select outline -> Silkscreen
Select circles -> Add Terminals, use circle X.Y.D as Seed. Prompt for drill size. If multiple concentric circles seed Drill & mask too..
Delete construction lines. Save footprint, use DXF name as a seed.

https://www.omron.com/ecb/products/DXF/G6DN.DXF

Export footprint as DXF, using simple layer name rules and circle rules like above, should also be possible.

Indeed, this is helpful. Let us have a crack at this and see what we can come up with. There's a lot we can do in this space to make footprint generation easier.

Best regards, Matt (Autodesk / Cadsoft)

technolomaniac · « **Reply #143 on:** July 07, 2016, 05:06:34 am »

Quote from: chris_leyson on July 06, 2016, 10:20:33 pm

True, but don't forget about step and igis, pcb design so much more about simple 2D these days.

We're pushing hard on mechanical interfaces / content. So expect some interesting things to happen here soon -ish! Best regards, Matt (Autodesk / Cadsoft)

EEVblog · « **Reply #144 on:** July 07, 2016, 05:10:10 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 06, 2016, 04:01:51 pm

@Dave, it's not going subscription. So there. At this stage, that isn't anywhere on my roadmap. Thought about it. Decided against it. Can I say that we will never in the life of any product do that? No, of course not. That would be at best unfair, at worst dishonest. But I have so many things that are more pressing. The point of my response - which I agree was unclear was - routing, real-time DRC, some improvements to polygon handling, better revision management and versioning, better BOM tools, better interface to manufacturing, some library improvements, interface to 3D, etc are all good things to worry about today as they drive value for the users. Those are the priority. We'll shelve the other stuff until get to a place where that makes sense. That was the point of that comment. I've got other stuff on my radar. And I think that the shortlist today is pretty much a who's-who of what folks have been asking for for some time. Only now we have a combined development team that can really drive some of this home. Thanks for calling me out...I sounded like a politician and it was totally fair.

Thanks for the clarification!

EEVblog · « **Reply #145 on:** July 07, 2016, 05:17:31 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 06, 2016, 04:01:51 pm

But I have so many things that are more pressing. The point of my response - which I agree was unclear was - routing, real-time DRC, some improvements to polygon handling, better revision management and versioning, better BOM tools, better interface to manufacturing, some library improvements, interface to 3D, etc are all good things to worry about today as they drive value for the users. Those are the priority.

Baring in mind I'm not an Eagle user...
Out of that list of items the only thing I would say to drop is better revision control. I'd put that waaay down the list. It might be important for the mid to high level packages like Altium and their professional customers, but let's face it, Eagle isn't exactly competing in that mid to high level space. It's for the makers, the one man bands, and the small few people companies making relatively simple products.
They either don't use version control, or they can implement it themselves.

EEVblog · « **Reply #146 on:** July 07, 2016, 05:18:55 am »

Matt, what do you think about the new $995 Altium Circuit Studio move?
Do you think more than coincidence in timing with the Eagle buyout?

LabSpokane · « **Reply #147 on:** July 07, 2016, 05:30:46 am »

Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2016, 05:17:31 am

Out of that list of items the only thing I would say to drop is better revision control. I'd put that waaay down the list.

Yup. Forget about the rev control for now.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #148 on:** July 07, 2016, 06:58:53 am »

Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2016, 05:17:31 am

...Out of that list of items the only thing I would say to drop is better revision control. I'd put that waaay down the list.

The key element is to not break revision control that users may already have.
Provided Eagle sticks with an ASCII file, and maybe even adds the easier to parse S-expression file I linked above, users revision control they have now should work.

Karel · « **Reply #149 on:** July 07, 2016, 07:37:44 am »

We use git for revision control (and backup) and it works perfect with Eagle's XML based files.
We have absolutely no need for any integrated revision control.

Karel · « **Reply #150 on:** July 07, 2016, 07:53:54 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 05:03:36 am

Quote from: Karel on July 06, 2016, 07:46:59 pm
@technolomaniac, what ever you are going to do, please don't break compatibility with existing ULP's and scripts.
Don't introduce new features without accompanying "console" commands.
Don't throw out the existing realtime forward/backward annotation.

For me, the user interface is the least of the problems. What would make me happy is:
- a correct functioning IDF export based on geometries drawn in layers 50, 57 and 58 (bdCAD, tCAD and bCAD).
- cam processor ODB++ export.
- cam processor Gerber X2 export.
- improved impedance controlled routing.
- push & shove
- a library/schematic diff function a la: http://teuniz.net/eagle/eaglelibcheck/

Oh man, this is awesome. So we have a all of these on the list, even the last one. Routing is actually SUPER high on my list but depends on real-time DRC in PCB coming into the fold. So we have some sequencing to get right but it's all very clear what needs to happen. The other mfg output is all in the pipe. As is the interface to mechanical. Let me ask though...

do you want IDF or would you prefer a "real" mechanical interface? something that supported bringing a design into e.g. Fusion or Inventor (or whatever else you might be using)? Id suspect most folks would say "just give me an interface to a mechanical tool" as the IDF format is pretty sparse. especially if we can preserve copper features and layer construction, etc.

Personally I prefer IDF but probably other formats will do as well. What is important to us, is that we don't need to deal with 3D-models in Eagle.
What we do is drawing a contour in layer 57 (tCAD) in the footprint. The linewidth is used to indicate the height of the contour above the board (linewidth is height / 1000).
This is a simple but powerfull solution to create simple 3D-box models via the IDF export of Eagle.

There are some interesting discussions about the IDF export in this thread: https://www.element14.com/community/thread/43949/l/idf-export-broken?displayFullThread=true

technolomaniac · « **Reply #151 on:** July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm »

Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2016, 05:18:55 am

Matt, what do you think about the new $995 Altium Circuit Studio move?
Do you think more than coincidence in timing with the Eagle buyout?

So anything I say is really conjecture (and keeping in mind that the ECAD tools market is small small small, so I have friends there and I don't mean them any ill-will) but I think the issue is a combination of slow-to-zero adoption of Circuitstudio and Altium's looming fear that they've left a flank open by doubling-down on the enterprise market, forgetting there's a great big world out there that doesn't have $10K for a piece of SW and $2500 / year for maintenance (!).

Remember these guys have been charging steadily more for the base product and maintenance is far more expensive than it was in the past. So where once they were the "people's tool" (thru the 90' and 00's) they are now yet another enterprise software vendor, and that leaves open a huge part of the market which doesn't want to be put into that box.

Seems to me that Circuitstudio's drop in price is a reaction (the timing is just too perfect) to the fear that if someone with such a large user base as EAGLE, includes great routing and great polygon management and great wiring and hierarchy, etc. then they just might erode the $12.5K position of a product + maintenance. These features are not *that* hard to implement. They just take resources and now - with Autodesk's support - Cadsoft has no shortage of resources to make these things a reality.

What's curious is that they also have Circuitmaker. So here's what I see and I think people are smart enough to see this: they are shepherding people down a path to where eventually spend $10K with them. I felt this when I experienced how my files were managed in Circuitmaker. The notion of locking up people's libraries and design data into their format and their systems is just really outdated and it's a shame really. I recall when Altium was brave enough to add OrCAD export and folks feared everyone would flee to another tool. Fact is, they didn't. Information wants to be free and accessible and we are going to put all of our energy into making sure that we don't lose at *that* game. And let's be clear - I don't need another ecosystem in my life. (let's see if they react to these comments and next week we get an announcement that all of the CM files are suddenly open and available...now that would be a great test of what they react to -- the users, or the fear that someone else might be willing to take risks that erode their position?)

BloodyCactus · « **Reply #152 on:** July 07, 2016, 03:27:33 pm »

i can deal with eagles ui...

but when i have to go watch a 30 minute youtube video every time i need to make a part, something needs to change!

I can make parts in diptrace in seconds, in eagle, i need a tutorial each time!

If not for ease of part making in DipTrace, I never would have left eagle, since I dont trust eagle libraries and all the crap libs on the internet, I make all my own parts, eagle made that so much of an ugly chore.

uncle_bob · « **Reply #153 on:** July 07, 2016, 06:06:32 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm

..... The notion of locking up people's libraries and design data into their format and their systems is just really outdated and it's a shame really. I recall when Altium was brave enough to add OrCAD export and folks feared everyone would flee to another tool. ......

Hi

The gotcha is that library lock *is* the way it works for every PCB program I have ever seen. Go over to the layout guy(s) and simply imply you might do *anything* with their pet libraries and watch the reaction. I have worked multiple places where each person doing layout had *their* libraries and refused to touch the ones done by anybody else. You might say I simply have a bunch of paranoid co-workers over the years. If you sat down with them ... not so much. The issues were very PCB specific.

Bob

rx8pilot · « **Reply #154 on:** July 07, 2016, 06:43:14 pm »

Quote from: uncle_bob on July 07, 2016, 06:06:32 pm

The gotcha is that library lock *is* the way it works for every PCB program I have ever seen. Go over to the layout guy(s) and simply imply you might do *anything* with their pet libraries and watch the reaction. I have worked multiple places where each person doing layout had *their* libraries and refused to touch the ones done by anybody else. You might say I simply have a bunch of paranoid co-workers over the years. If you sat down with them ... not so much. The issues were very PCB specific.

This has truth. It is a big investment for an individual to get a library to a good comfort level for themselves. To get a whole team to work out a shared library is FAR more effort for management to coordinate up front. The end result are design 'islands' that slow things down in the long run. My first push into electronics was to pull in new people to start the department (my focus was in mechanical only at the time). The person managing this allowed the islands to form since their was no coordination up front. This path of least resistance seemed fast and lean at first and then we came to a screeching halt when production level coordination of the team was needed. In the end it was a total failure and I am not going to make that mistake again. Every piece of software in my little world really needs to support a team as I grow. Part of the effort is on me as a manager/leader but the various software products involved have to support the challenge of team libraries. Getting over the natural paranoia that an individual has with a library is no trivial task which is why I am thinking about it before I hire anyone.

nctnico · « **Reply #155 on:** July 07, 2016, 07:33:33 pm »

Quote from: uncle_bob on July 07, 2016, 06:06:32 pm

The gotcha is that library lock *is* the way it works for every PCB program I have ever seen. Go over to the layout guy(s) and simply imply you might do *anything* with their pet libraries and watch the reaction. I have worked multiple places where each person doing layout had *their* libraries and refused to touch the ones done by anybody else. You might say I simply have a bunch of paranoid co-workers over the years.

The biggest problem with libraries made by others is that some are really lazy and get the holes wrong or the outline wrong. I once made a board using a library from a co-worker in which the outline was too small. Ofcourse I placed the part tightly together which then didn't fit. His response: yeah you should leave some extra space. Long story short: you need to put someone in charge of the quality of the parts in the library and make sure they are production ready (all pads, holes, silk screen, outline, paste mask, solder mask, etc correct). But sometimes it is enough to get some competitive spirit going on and make creating good fitting and nice looking parts a game.

uncle_bob · « **Reply #156 on:** July 07, 2016, 08:02:25 pm »

Hi

The gotcha with all of this is an industry wide paranoia about libraries. Semiconductor outfits will spend an amazing amount of money trying to get me to use their latest and greatest part. They all shy away from providing anything more than a pdf of the part to get it into the library. We do *exactly* the same thing for the parts we sell. The why always comes back to the fact that there *is* design work that goes into the library. Without that work being done, it will likely be wrong to some degree for this or that assembly process. I get all that.

I also make the observation that going from an "almost right" item to a "is correct" version is a *much* faster process than creating one from scratch. The barrier to getting the part on the board comes way down. I do not write all my own C libraries. I complain about this and that. Sometimes I patch things. For the most part, I use them as they are, with various flags set as appropriate. That approach is completely missing from the library process for parts. We are still pretty much stuck back in the 1960's and everybody does it from scratch themselves.

No this is not Eagle specific, but Eagle *is* a victim of this as much (if not more) than any other package out there. When I go to the "standards" in Eagle, I have to dig out books that have a *lot* of dust on them. There are an enormous number of packages that simply never made it into the Eagle empire as standards. Yes, I can Google around and find this or that from somebody with who knows what skills. What I need is a fairly consistent (package is the right size, pin numbers are correct) quality inventory of parts.

I don't think any one vendor is going to fix this all on their own. The money proposition lies with the people making the parts. Getting them involved in some sort of standard process is the only way I can see to break the log jam. If Eagle is aiming to be a disruptive force, this might be something they could encourage.

Bob

LabSpokane · « **Reply #157 on:** July 07, 2016, 08:11:10 pm »

The "my library is better than yours" issue has many analogous behaviors in other industries. The process of creating, modifying, and cataloging parts/footprints certainly must improve. I don't think Autodesk is going to be able to solve the human behavior issue. That's a management problem.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #158 on:** July 07, 2016, 08:22:52 pm »

Bob - you are right and it is not Eagles fault at all. The bigger problem is the industry wide approach to part libraries.

Where Eagle has an issue is that it is such a PITA to make parts from scratch. If the part creation/editing process was even reasonably easy, it would not be so bad. But in reality - it is pathetic. Horrible. Time wasting.

I certainly would stand by an effort to have a starting point of a part available as an industry standard. I may choose to edit or modify to better fit my particular processes - but at least I have the basic part ready.

Quote from: LabSpokane on July 07, 2016, 08:11:10 pm

The "my library is better than yours" issue has many analogous behaviors in other industries. The process of creating, modifying, and cataloging parts/footprints certainly must improve. I don't think Autodesk is going to be able to solve the human behavior issue. That's a management problem.

Yes, I admitted that to myself earlier for sure. What Autodesk could do is consider software tools that facilitate sharing libraries. Maybe an bitmap overlay that allows you to see a transparent PDF or image file of the part over the pad layout to visually confirm what is happening. ( I do that all the time in SolidWorks ). The drawing or image gets scaled to match the dimensions on the sheet in X/Y. Maybe having a locked down library and users can make tweaks and save them as alternates to be considered. Never really thought about it, but I feel like for management to have a fighting chance - the software needs to play along and keep the pain at a minimum.

uncle_bob · « **Reply #159 on:** July 07, 2016, 08:42:08 pm »

Quote from: LabSpokane on July 07, 2016, 08:11:10 pm

The "my library is better than yours" issue has many analogous behaviors in other industries. The process of creating, modifying, and cataloging parts/footprints certainly must improve. I don't think Autodesk is going to be able to solve the human behavior issue. That's a management problem.

Hi

It's the same human nature that works in other areas as well. We got over it in a lot of them (the C library example). The counter is ease of use. It's also human nature to be lazy. If you make the alternative easy enough .... it will take over. Nothing ever happens for free or without sweat. Management didn't force us to use <stdio.h> instead of "/bob/ascii/parseit_and_do_stuff/try_again/try23792.h". They neither know or care that printf comes from Bob or from a library. They do know that the project works and got done on time. Forcing Bob to use stdio.h ... not so easy. Tricking Bob into it because Bob would rather be at the beach ... much easier.

Bob ... at the beach.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #160 on:** July 07, 2016, 08:46:20 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm

What's curious is that they also have Circuitmaker. So here's what I see and I think people are smart enough to see this: they are shepherding people down a path to where eventually spend $10K with them. I felt this when I experienced how my files were managed in Circuitmaker. The notion of locking up people's libraries and design data into their format and their systems is just really outdated and it's a shame really.

Of course, but this is not just shepherding, a large chunk of the Binary closure, is rather more self interested turf protection.

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm

.. (let's see if they react to these comments and next week we get an announcement that all of the CM files are suddenly open and available...now that would be a great test of what they react to -- the users, or the fear that someone else might be willing to take risks that erode their position?)

That will never happen, because of the turf protection thinking. Altium (& Mentor ) have a vested interest in ensuring the simpler tools cannot nibble into their much more expensive stake-outs. If the level of closure actually harms end users and exposes them to more risk, that is not really viewed as a 'down side' at all, more as a 'sales opportunity'. Expiring license offerings will quickly go the way of the Dinosaur.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #161 on:** July 07, 2016, 08:51:07 pm »

Quote from: Karel on July 07, 2016, 07:53:54 am

Personally I prefer IDF but probably other formats will do as well. What is important to us, is that we don't need to deal with 3D-models in Eagle.
What we do is drawing a contour in layer 57 (tCAD) in the footprint. The linewidth is used to indicate the height of the contour above the board (linewidth is height / 1000).

That's a very clever idea - is that a widespread convention ? Google suggests that is somewhat Eagle only ?

uncle_bob · « **Reply #162 on:** July 07, 2016, 09:03:29 pm »

Quote from: PCB.Wiz on July 07, 2016, 08:46:20 pm

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm
What's curious is that they also have Circuitmaker. So here's what I see and I think people are smart enough to see this: they are shepherding people down a path to where eventually spend $10K with them. I felt this when I experienced how my files were managed in Circuitmaker. The notion of locking up people's libraries and design data into their format and their systems is just really outdated and it's a shame really.
Of course, but this is not just shepherding, a large chunk of the Binary closure, is rather more self interested turf protection.

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm
.. (let's see if they react to these comments and next week we get an announcement that all of the CM files are suddenly open and available...now that would be a great test of what they react to -- the users, or the fear that someone else might be willing to take risks that erode their position?)
That will never happen, because of the turf protection thinking. Altium (& Mentor ) have a vested interest in ensuring the simpler tools cannot nibble into their much more expensive stake-outs. If the level of closure actually harms end users and exposes them to more risk, that is not really viewed as a 'down side' at all, more as a 'sales opportunity'. Expiring license offerings will quickly go the way of the Dinosaur.

Hi

These sort of things never happen until all of a sudden ... they do. Get a critical mass of parts onto some sort of open standard and it happens. The critical point is that the mass probably needs to be in a format that is not exclusively controlled by a competitor. If Bob Inc can change the standard on a whim, nobody in their right mind would use it. It would be like writing software to run on a closed source operating system .... errrr .... yes, it can happen if 98% of the market is controlled by one guy. That's not the case here so it's got to be a bit more open.

Bob

technolomaniac · « **Reply #163 on:** July 07, 2016, 09:46:35 pm »

Quote from: uncle_bob on July 07, 2016, 06:06:32 pm

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm
..... The notion of locking up people's libraries and design data into their format and their systems is just really outdated and it's a shame really. I recall when Altium was brave enough to add OrCAD export and folks feared everyone would flee to another tool. ......

Hi

The gotcha is that library lock *is* the way it works for every PCB program I have ever seen. Go over to the layout guy(s) and simply imply you might do *anything* with their pet libraries and watch the reaction. I have worked multiple places where each person doing layout had *their* libraries and refused to touch the ones done by anybody else. You might say I simply have a bunch of paranoid co-workers over the years. If you sat down with them ... not so much. The issues were very PCB specific.

Bob

Hi Bob -- I totally agree that people are (and should be) careful about managing changes to libraries...Especially when something's gone to production!!! So I'm with your PCB team on this one! But what boggles the mind about Circuitmaker (and this was really the point of that comment) is that the libraries are published to a public library system in which your components are then a part of the larger parts 'ecosystem' and in a format that isn't easy to get at. I am all for sharing libraries but:

a) let me decide if/when I'm ready for this... and
b) let's use a format in which I can easily read the data and even export them to another tool

...Otherwise, the "ecosystem" that the classic EDA tools guys are creating is all about "their" ecosystem, and not about truly building a community. That's the strategy for locking-in users that we're trying desperately to avoid (and which in my opinion is one of the major reasons we're all still building the same parts as everyone else).

What made EAGLE so attractive [to Autodesk] was the spirit of open source HW and the community around it. I just happen to be one part of that community and when we were looking to make a move in electronics - having come from Supplyframe / Hackaday - I was super excited to see EAGLE as a prospective target. It's built on a great foundation and it already has a completely open file format (something we intend to keep moving forward).

For sure, we're a big company and could make a run at some other ecad tools but the goal from the outset was to tap into what's different these days than say, 10 years ago or more. So expect we'll push to make things even more open and not try to lock folks in in a way that means they lose their right to their content.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #164 on:** July 07, 2016, 09:52:49 pm »

Quote from: PCB.Wiz on July 07, 2016, 08:46:20 pm

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm
What's curious is that they also have Circuitmaker. So here's what I see and I think people are smart enough to see this: they are shepherding people down a path to where eventually spend $10K with them. I felt this when I experienced how my files were managed in Circuitmaker. The notion of locking up people's libraries and design data into their format and their systems is just really outdated and it's a shame really.
Of course, but this is not just shepherding, a large chunk of the Binary closure, is rather more self interested turf protection.

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm
.. (let's see if they react to these comments and next week we get an announcement that all of the CM files are suddenly open and available...now that would be a great test of what they react to -- the users, or the fear that someone else might be willing to take risks that erode their position?)
That will never happen, because of the turf protection thinking. Altium (& Mentor ) have a vested interest in ensuring the simpler tools cannot nibble into their much more expensive stake-outs. If the level of closure actually harms end users and exposes them to more risk, that is not really viewed as a 'down side' at all, more as a 'sales opportunity'. Expiring license offerings will quickly go the way of the Dinosaur.

All too true. Unfortunately. So the aim here is to do the opposite of "that". Because we don't feel folks gain anything by it. If nothing else, it's an easy point of differentiation.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #165 on:** July 07, 2016, 09:56:13 pm »

Quote from: PCB.Wiz on July 07, 2016, 08:51:07 pm

Quote from: Karel on July 07, 2016, 07:53:54 am
Personally I prefer IDF but probably other formats will do as well. What is important to us, is that we don't need to deal with 3D-models in Eagle.
What we do is drawing a contour in layer 57 (tCAD) in the footprint. The linewidth is used to indicate the height of the contour above the board (linewidth is height / 1000).
That's a very clever idea - is that a widespread convention ? Google suggests that is somewhat Eagle only ?

+1. That is pretty awesome.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #166 on:** July 07, 2016, 10:35:48 pm »

Quote from: uncle_bob on July 07, 2016, 08:02:25 pm

Semiconductor outfits will spend an amazing amount of money trying to get me to use their latest and greatest part. They all shy away from providing anything more than a pdf of the part to get it into the library. We do *exactly* the same thing for the parts we sell. The why always comes back to the fact that there *is* design work that goes into the library. Without that work being done, it will likely be wrong to some degree for this or that assembly process. I get all that.

I also make the observation that going from an "almost right" item to a "is correct" version is a *much* faster process than creating one from scratch. The barrier to getting the part on the board comes way down. I do not write all my own C libraries. I complain about this and that. Sometimes I patch things. For the most part, I use them as they are, with various flags set as appropriate. That approach is completely missing from the library process for parts. We are still pretty much stuck back in the 1960's and everybody does it from scratch themselves.

Autodesk is in an ideal position to help here.

Many mention human inertia - well, the same applies to those working in the Parts Suppliers too

- so the vendors need a simple, free, open tool to create footprint examples - complete with 'as is' disclaimers.
This means those furthest upstream on this problem, can start creating widely portable footprint data.

The output of this should be in scriptable/readable format, provided both in file url, and even as text in the PDF.

I'd suggest here DXF and a s-format variant of DXF - exactly the same information, but in a less spaghetti form, and CrLf agnostic.
This should export as a choice of
* simplistic DXF, - lines with circles and arcs converted to lines. yes, Ugh, but this is close to 100% 'DXF portable'
* moderate DXF - but have polylines and circles and arcs, and entity end points on all PAD centre points.
quite modest conversion smarts/rules will be needed to create a footprint, eg using circle diameter as pad diameter, inner as drill etc.
* Block DXF - as above, but with terminals defined as Blocks, and inserted - this should be able to do 100% PCB footprint definition.

A good DXF summary I found here (better than Autodesks more verbose help)
http://www.klayout.de/dxf_format.html

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 07, 2016, 08:22:52 pm

... that allows you to see a transparent PDF or image file of the part over the pad layout to visually confirm what is happening. ( I do that all the time in SolidWorks ). The drawing or image gets scaled to match the dimensions on the sheet in X/Y.

Noooo.... anything that says "The drawing or image gets scaled" opens a whole can of worms.
Best to export in a proper CAD format, that has explicit units, be those mils, or mm or even inch.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #167 on:** July 07, 2016, 10:43:19 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 09:46:35 pm

What made EAGLE so attractive [to Autodesk] was the spirit of open source HW and the community around it. I just happen to be one part of that community and when we were looking to make a move in electronics - having come from Supplyframe / Hackaday - I was super excited to see EAGLE as a prospective target. It's built on a great foundation and it already has a completely open file format (something we intend to keep moving forward).

For sure, we're a big company and could make a run at some other ecad tools but the goal from the outset was to tap into what's different these days than say, 10 years ago or more. So expect we'll push to make things even more open and not try to lock folks in in a way that means they lose their right to their content.

Sounds great.

One thing that Eagle could do, to both prove those credentials, and get early access to a nice Shove router, is to add a Import from KiCad button, (and test the KiCad Eagle importer that is already in place, under File.Import).
Maybe add a command line launch & button that says 'Open in KiCad'

To the few boards I've tried, the KiCad Eagle importer already looks pretty good, (as does their Altium importer), but if you want to round-trip this into a Router, that needs another level of detail checking.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #168 on:** July 07, 2016, 10:52:11 pm »

Quote from: PCB.Wiz on July 07, 2016, 10:35:48 pm

Noooo.... anything that says "The drawing or image gets scaled" opens a whole can of worms.
Best to export in a proper CAD format, that has explicit units, be those mils, or mm or even inch.

I understand, but it could be a very long time before it's common to get data in a dimensioned CAD format. Maybe because I come from a mechanical design world, it seems too easy and normal? It's at least a baby step IMHO while we wait 20 more years for an industry standard device definition format.

Right now, I print out the pads on a laser printer and physically place the part on the paper to see if I am good to go. Hilarious.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #169 on:** July 07, 2016, 10:56:18 pm »

Quote from: uncle_bob on July 07, 2016, 09:03:29 pm

These sort of things never happen until all of a sudden ... they do. Get a critical mass of parts onto some sort of open standard and it happens. The critical point is that the mass probably needs to be in a format that is not exclusively controlled by a competitor. If Bob Inc can change the standard on a whim, nobody in their right mind would use it. It would be like writing software to run on a closed source operating system .... errrr .... yes, it can happen if 98% of the market is controlled by one guy. That's not the case here so it's got to be a bit more open.

Fully agree, which is why I suggest an open DXF (or S-expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-expression#Parsing DXF variant) as most tools already can import DXF.
All you do is define some rules for better footprint extraction from DXF.
Some of that can be built into the Footprint editors, and some can be embedded in the DXF structure itself.
See my post above about levels of DXF.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #170 on:** July 07, 2016, 11:01:01 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 07, 2016, 10:52:11 pm

Right now, I print out the pads on a laser printer and physically place the part on the paper to see if I am good to go. Hilarious.

Hehe, well, yes, I'll admit do doing something similar myself, before release of the board.

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 07, 2016, 10:52:11 pm

I understand, but it could be a very long time before it's common to get data in a dimensioned CAD format.Maybe because I come from a mechanical design world, it seems too easy and normal? It's at least a baby step

There are already DXF files on the web, from many vendors. DXF import is common/widespread.
I've used those, and they work well, (see my link above to a Relay-DXF) but a modest increase in IQ is all that is needed.
(and you keep the lowest common denominator DXF too)

Nothing is discarded, and things get incrementally smarter and easier

uncle_bob · « **Reply #171 on:** July 07, 2016, 11:13:00 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 09:46:35 pm

Quote from: uncle_bob on July 07, 2016, 06:06:32 pm
Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm
..... The notion of locking up people's libraries and design data into their format and their systems is just really outdated and it's a shame really. I recall when Altium was brave enough to add OrCAD export and folks feared everyone would flee to another tool. ......

Hi

The gotcha is that library lock *is* the way it works for every PCB program I have ever seen. Go over to the layout guy(s) and simply imply you might do *anything* with their pet libraries and watch the reaction. I have worked multiple places where each person doing layout had *their* libraries and refused to touch the ones done by anybody else. You might say I simply have a bunch of paranoid co-workers over the years. If you sat down with them ... not so much. The issues were very PCB specific.

Bob

Hi Bob -- I totally agree that people are (and should be) careful about managing changes to libraries...Especially when something's gone to production!!! So I'm with your PCB team on this one! But what boggles the mind about Circuitmaker (and this was really the point of that comment) is that the libraries are published to a public library system in which your components are then a part of the larger parts 'ecosystem' and in a format that isn't easy to get at. I am all for sharing libraries but:

a) let me decide if/when I'm ready for this... and
b) let's use a format in which I can easily read the data and even export them to another tool

...Otherwise, the "ecosystem" that the classic EDA tools guys are creating is all about "their" ecosystem, and not about truly building a community. That's the strategy for locking-in users that we're trying desperately to avoid (and which in my opinion is one of the major reasons we're all still building the same parts as everyone else).

What made EAGLE so attractive [to Autodesk] was the spirit of open source HW and the community around it. I just happen to be one part of that community and when we were looking to make a move in electronics - having come from Supplyframe / Hackaday - I was super excited to see EAGLE as a prospective target. It's built on a great foundation and it already has a completely open file format (something we intend to keep moving forward).

For sure, we're a big company and could make a run at some other ecad tools but the goal from the outset was to tap into what's different these days than say, 10 years ago or more. So expect we'll push to make things even more open and not try to lock folks in in a way that means they lose their right to their content.

Hi

The idea I'm pushing would be something that is open source, but with a sponsor. Get a few other outfits on board. Publish an open source spec. Set up a license that makes sense. Have some sort of "adult supervision" that keeps things from going off track. A lot of the software companies are headed this way. Even Microsoft seems to have gotten into the spirit. More or less, a bigger market helps everybody. The task is daunting. A general library with a few hundred thousand parts (the way they are counted) is nonsense. If you are going to call every unique part number an entry ....the library is in the hundreds of millions of entries. The only way to get that all in is to get the marketing guys at the component outfits onboard. $500 gets a family of parts into a standard format. They will spend that on a single trip to some guy named Bob ... Yes, you need a format that couples pin names, schematic symbols, CAD and all the rest. There is some work. It's not all *that* crazy to do.

Bob

EEVblog · « **Reply #172 on:** July 07, 2016, 11:21:08 pm »

Quote from: Karel on July 07, 2016, 07:37:44 am

We use git for revision control (and backup) and it works perfect with Eagle's XML based files.
We have absolutely no need for any integrated revision control.

Yes, if you have a text based file format then integrating version control in the software makes little sense. It's just trying to feature-match Altium.
With Matt being a long time ex-Altium guy I think he needs to be careful here to not take the same do-everything mindset into Eagle. It doesn't need that, it needs to simply be a better and more usable basic PCB tool.

EEVblog · « **Reply #173 on:** July 07, 2016, 11:28:41 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 09:46:35 pm

Quote from: uncle_bob on July 07, 2016, 06:06:32 pm
Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm
..... The notion of locking up people's libraries and design data into their format and their systems is just really outdated and it's a shame really. I recall when Altium was brave enough to add OrCAD export and folks feared everyone would flee to another tool. ......

Hi

The gotcha is that library lock *is* the way it works for every PCB program I have ever seen. Go over to the layout guy(s) and simply imply you might do *anything* with their pet libraries and watch the reaction. I have worked multiple places where each person doing layout had *their* libraries and refused to touch the ones done by anybody else. You might say I simply have a bunch of paranoid co-workers over the years. If you sat down with them ... not so much. The issues were very PCB specific.

Bob

Hi Bob -- I totally agree that people are (and should be) careful about managing changes to libraries...Especially when something's gone to production!!! So I'm with your PCB team on this one! But what boggles the mind about Circuitmaker (and this was really the point of that comment) is that the libraries are published to a public library system in which your components are then a part of the larger parts 'ecosystem' and in a format that isn't easy to get at. I am all for sharing libraries but:

Yes.
Forcing publicly libraries is fundamentally and demonstrably a stupid idea.
Public libraries are great for seraching and getting parts, essential in fact.
But then once you have the parts and used them, you want to lock them away locally so no one can ever touch them except under expert adult supervision.

EEVblog · « **Reply #174 on:** July 07, 2016, 11:32:00 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm

Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2016, 05:18:55 am
Matt, what do you think about the new $995 Altium Circuit Studio move?
Do you think more than coincidence in timing with the Eagle buyout?

So anything I say is really conjecture (and keeping in mind that the ECAD tools market is small small small, so I have friends there and I don't mean them any ill-will) but I think the issue is a combination of slow-to-zero adoption of Circuitstudio and Altium's looming fear that they've left a flank open by doubling-down on the enterprise market, forgetting there's a great big world out there that doesn't have $10K for a piece of SW and $2500 / year for maintenance (!).

Remember these guys have been charging steadily more for the base product and maintenance is far more expensive than it was in the past. So where once they were the "people's tool" (thru the 90' and 00's) they are now yet another enterprise software vendor, and that leaves open a huge part of the market which doesn't want to be put into that box.

Seems to me that Circuitstudio's drop in price is a reaction (the timing is just too perfect) to the fear that if someone with such a large user base as EAGLE, includes great routing and great polygon management and great wiring and hierarchy, etc. then they just might erode the $12.5K position of a product + maintenance. These features are not *that* hard to implement. They just take resources and now - with Autodesk's support - Cadsoft has no shortage of resources to make these things a reality.

What's curious is that they also have Circuitmaker. So here's what I see and I think people are smart enough to see this: they are shepherding people down a path to where eventually spend $10K with them. I felt this when I experienced how my files were managed in Circuitmaker. The notion of locking up people's libraries and design data into their format and their systems is just really outdated and it's a shame really. I recall when Altium was brave enough to add OrCAD export and folks feared everyone would flee to another tool. Fact is, they didn't. Information wants to be free and accessible and we are going to put all of our energy into making sure that we don't lose at *that* game. And let's be clear - I don't need another ecosystem in my life. (let's see if they react to these comments and next week we get an announcement that all of the CM files are suddenly open and available...now that would be a great test of what they react to -- the users, or the fear that someone else might be willing to take risks that erode their position?)

Yep, bang on, my thoughts exactly.
Perhaps I should do another video...

Karel · « **Reply #175 on:** July 08, 2016, 06:36:13 am »

Quote from: PCB.Wiz on July 07, 2016, 08:51:07 pm

Quote from: Karel on July 07, 2016, 07:53:54 am
Personally I prefer IDF but probably other formats will do as well. What is important to us, is that we don't need to deal with 3D-models in Eagle.
What we do is drawing a contour in layer 57 (tCAD) in the footprint. The linewidth is used to indicate the height of the contour above the board (linewidth is height / 1000).
That's a very clever idea - is that a widespread convention ? Google suggests that is somewhat Eagle only ?

Read this: ftp://ftp.cadsoft.de/eagle/userfiles/ulp/generate_3d_data_eng.pdf

and this: https://www.element14.com/community/thread/43949/l/idf-export-broken?displayFullThread=true

mikeselectricstuff · « **Reply #176 on:** July 08, 2016, 07:02:13 am »

Definitely agree that an industry-standard format for part footprints is long overdue - isn't this the sort of thing that JEDEC should be doing?

Ease of part creation is one of the most important features of a PCB editor as there will ALWAYS be new parts that you need to create yourself.

I'm not sure DXF is a sensible answer, as it is a pretty poor standard, with many version and compatibility issues.

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #177 on:** July 08, 2016, 08:35:59 am »

Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on July 08, 2016, 07:02:13 am

Definitely agree that an industry-standard format for part footprints is long overdue - isn't this the sort of thing that JEDEC should be doing?

Ease of part creation is one of the most important features of a PCB editor as there will ALWAYS be new parts that you need to create yourself.

I'm not sure DXF is a sensible answer, as it is a pretty poor standard, with many version and compatibility issues.

DXF is already established, and it is not so much a poor standard, as no rules around using it for more intelligent PCB footprint extraction.
It works fine already, for outlines, and PAD centres and diameters.

Which is why I suggested tiers of DXF - the simplest DXF, are the most portable, and have similar IQ as a HPGL or Gerber file.

Next step is to have polylines, Arcs, width and layers meaning something.

Again, simple rules with examples help here - and a lite-2D package with Footprint helpers could help vendors create rule-meeting DXFs.

Then the top level uses blocks, and that can insert full drill/mask stacks at pin locations, with enough inbuilt rules a compatible PCB tool can load directly as footprint.

To get this from Vendors, I think Autodesk needs to supply a footprint-2D package, where they can view the stackup in quasi 3D.

I have seen complete PCB's exported as DXF, so you can embed enough information to manage complex structures.

LabSpokane · « **Reply #178 on:** July 08, 2016, 10:45:09 am »

Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on July 08, 2016, 07:02:13 am

Definitely agree that an industry-standard format for part footprints is long overdue - isn't this the sort of thing that JEDEC should be doing?

The fact that there isn't a standard for footprints by now amazes me. Clearly, part footprints must occasionally vary for process reasons. It would be nice to have a library where the standard footprint would be the base to which footprint variants could linked. The user could view the variants versus the base using the visual comparison that rx8 suggested earlier.

EEVblog · « **Reply #179 on:** July 08, 2016, 10:59:48 am »

Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on July 08, 2016, 07:02:13 am

Definitely agree that an industry-standard format for part footprints is long overdue - isn't this the sort of thing that JEDEC should be doing?

uncle_bob · « **Reply #180 on:** July 08, 2016, 12:17:51 pm »

Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2016, 11:28:41 pm

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 09:46:35 pm
Quote from: uncle_bob on July 07, 2016, 06:06:32 pm
Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 02:54:45 pm
..... The notion of locking up people's libraries and design data into their format and their systems is just really outdated and it's a shame really. I recall when Altium was brave enough to add OrCAD export and folks feared everyone would flee to another tool. ......

Hi

The gotcha is that library lock *is* the way it works for every PCB program I have ever seen. Go over to the layout guy(s) and simply imply you might do *anything* with their pet libraries and watch the reaction. I have worked multiple places where each person doing layout had *their* libraries and refused to touch the ones done by anybody else. You might say I simply have a bunch of paranoid co-workers over the years. If you sat down with them ... not so much. The issues were very PCB specific.

Bob

Hi Bob -- I totally agree that people are (and should be) careful about managing changes to libraries...Especially when something's gone to production!!! So I'm with your PCB team on this one! But what boggles the mind about Circuitmaker (and this was really the point of that comment) is that the libraries are published to a public library system in which your components are then a part of the larger parts 'ecosystem' and in a format that isn't easy to get at. I am all for sharing libraries but:

Yes.
Forcing publicly libraries is fundamentally and demonstrably a stupid idea.
Public libraries are great for seraching and getting parts, essential in fact.
But then once you have the parts and used them, you want to lock them away locally so no one can ever touch them except under expert adult supervision.

Hi

I would not *force* a public library in any situation. That's not how it's done in any other area (except Windows Update). In any rational setting, you have the ability to use standard libraries *or* overwrite them. You also have the ability to archive the whole project and/or it's libraries. There are working models for all this stuff. They do indeed have their issues. They are decades ahead of what we have now in terms of productivity *and* quality. Rewriting library entries over again 8,000 (or 16,000) times at 8,000 locations has its risks....I have never worked anyplace that got the make an entry stuff right *every* time.

Bob

nctnico · « **Reply #181 on:** July 09, 2016, 10:16:03 am »

Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2016, 11:21:08 pm

Yes, if you have a text based file format then integrating version control in the software makes little sense. It's just trying to feature-match Altium.
With Matt being a long time ex-Altium guy I think he needs to be careful here to not take the same do-everything mindset into Eagle. It doesn't need that, it needs to simply be a better and more usable basic PCB tool.

IMHO by the time Eagle can do the same as Altium it will cost the same as Altium, just be as clunky to use (I have used Altium for a few projects and I found the UI horrible) and Eagle probably got rewritten from scratch.

uncle_bob · « **Reply #182 on:** July 09, 2016, 12:47:13 pm »

Quote from: nctnico on July 09, 2016, 10:16:03 am

Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2016, 11:21:08 pm
Yes, if you have a text based file format then integrating version control in the software makes little sense. It's just trying to feature-match Altium.
With Matt being a long time ex-Altium guy I think he needs to be careful here to not take the same do-everything mindset into Eagle. It doesn't need that, it needs to simply be a better and more usable basic PCB tool.
IMHO by the time Eagle can do the same as Altium it will cost the same as Altium, just be as clunky to use (I have used Altium for a few projects and I found the UI horrible) and Eagle probably got rewritten from scratch.

Hi

I have used a number of programs over the years. At work these days we are part of the Mentor Graphics empire (for a lot of bad reasons). None of these programs are perfect. They *all* could use a good through scrub of their UI and "legacy features". Doing that takes a very single minded approach to the task. A startup can have that kind of focus. A big company often looses the ability to do so. An acquisition is one of those *rare* occasions that a large company might have the ability to come up with the needed focus. We can only hope ....

Bob

station240 · « **Reply #183 on:** July 09, 2016, 02:33:53 pm »

@technolomaniac

Can you do something with the size limitations on the various licences, they are a bit silly when compared to what the PCB houses offer.
eg the free version is limited to 10x8cm, PCB house is 5x5 multiples, eg 10x10cm

Can we please have the ability to copy/clone entire parts inside/between libraries ?
The current system is annoying when the only difference between the part in the Library you have, and the part you need is the part number, or the labels on the pins (or a better pad outline).
I had to revert to manually editing the existing library down to that one part, and messing around.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #184 on:** July 10, 2016, 11:53:57 pm »

Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2016, 11:21:08 pm

Quote from: Karel on July 07, 2016, 07:37:44 am
We use git for revision control (and backup) and it works perfect with Eagle's XML based files.
We have absolutely no need for any integrated revision control.

Yes, if you have a text based file format then integrating version control in the software makes little sense. It's just trying to feature-match Altium.
With Matt being a long time ex-Altium guy I think he needs to be careful here to not take the same do-everything mindset into Eagle. It doesn't need that, it needs to simply be a better and more usable basic PCB tool.

I agree. Having lived it, the risk is always getting caught in the trap of ticking boxes because someone brings a spreadsheet of nice-to-have's to a sales call, or instead building an 'enterprise tool' with every bell and whistle you can imagine, all in hopes of landing a few whale-sized customers. Though it sounds alluring (certainly if you ask your sales team) this ignores what's of more value to the wider audience of *engineers*...simple, easy to use, and not compromising where it counts. Elegant simplicity.

I wont underestimate the undertaking but I think it's achievable or I wouldn't do it. Thankfully I actually *use* this stuff. And we're not afraid to ask the community when it's a choice of option A or option B and both are good options.

LabSpokane · « **Reply #185 on:** July 11, 2016, 12:01:22 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 10, 2016, 11:53:57 pm

Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2016, 11:21:08 pm
Quote from: Karel on July 07, 2016, 07:37:44 am
We use git for revision control (and backup) and it works perfect with Eagle's XML based files.
We have absolutely no need for any integrated revision control.

Yes, if you have a text based file format then integrating version control in the software makes little sense. It's just trying to feature-match Altium.
With Matt being a long time ex-Altium guy I think he needs to be careful here to not take the same do-everything mindset into Eagle. It doesn't need that, it needs to simply be a better and more usable basic PCB tool.

I agree. Having lived it, the risk is always getting caught in the trap of ticking boxes because someone brings a spreadsheet of nice-to-have's to a sales call, or instead building an 'enterprise tool' with every bell and whistle you can imagine, all in hopes of landing a few whale-sized customers. Though it sounds alluring (certainly if you ask your sales team) this ignores what's of more value to the wider audience of *engineers*...simple, easy to use, and not compromising where it counts. Elegant simplicity. I wont underestimate the undertaking but I think it's achievable or I wouldn't do it. Thankfully I actually *use* this stuff. And we're not afraid to ask the community when it's a choice of option A or option B and both are good options.

I'll 2nd Dave's request to not try and be all things to all people. The Yugo and Mercedes ends of the market are covered well. We need a Ford.

And if you brought some AutoCad-y ability to specify coordinates, offsets, etc, that would be incredibly good. The snap-grid-only drawing of eCad is horribly inefficient IMO. Altuim - at least CircuitStudio - seems to have gotten that horribly wrong.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #186 on:** July 11, 2016, 12:21:35 am »

Quote from: PCB.Wiz on July 07, 2016, 10:43:19 pm

Quote from: technolomaniac on July 07, 2016, 09:46:35 pm
What made EAGLE so attractive [to Autodesk] was the spirit of open source HW and the community around it. I just happen to be one part of that community and when we were looking to make a move in electronics - having come from Supplyframe / Hackaday - I was super excited to see EAGLE as a prospective target. It's built on a great foundation and it already has a completely open file format (something we intend to keep moving forward).

For sure, we're a big company and could make a run at some other ecad tools but the goal from the outset was to tap into what's different these days than say, 10 years ago or more. So expect we'll push to make things even more open and not try to lock folks in in a way that means they lose their right to their content.
Sounds great.

One thing that Eagle could do, to both prove those credentials, and get early access to a nice Shove router, is to add a Import from KiCad button, (and test the KiCad Eagle importer that is already in place, under File.Import).
Maybe add a command line launch & button that says 'Open in KiCad'

To the few boards I've tried, the KiCad Eagle importer already looks pretty good, (as does their Altium importer), but if you want to round-trip this into a Router, that needs another level of detail checking.

Definitely import and wider file conversion in general is in the cards (routing is also very high on 'the list' but will depend on real-time DRC so there is a sequencing thing that has to happen...it's happening now). Our feeling is it's essential for any good tool to leverage content from multiple formats. After all, if TI publishes a switcher design in an OrCAD format, I want to be able to use it. If nothing else, let me import it and scrape the libraries for use in my own designs. This is the shortest path to victory with any design (ie build on what's already there). So making the file import for KiCAD only helps us.

Likewise other formats. For example, I'd love to chase down libraries in multiple formats as well. We'll get there for sure, just time. Even if you have to edit the parts, it's much easier to start with a component that converts 90% of the way there than it is to enter pin names for a Spartan 6 or an iMX or an M4 manually, one at a time. This is what truly sucks about closed-source file formats. The guys using the MFC stream writer to create binary files because they're too skittish about an open and transparent format.

Thankfully in the mechanical world we have formats like STEP or dare I say, IGES (nothing wrong in principle, just huge

. Shame really we don't have the equivalent for ecad parts. My hat's off to Cadsoft for making it easy to read the files. That was a big move and a big reason we (Autodesk) really considered them. It's on the surface so benign to change your file format but to make it open has huge significance all around.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #187 on:** July 11, 2016, 12:44:03 am »

Quote from: station240 on July 09, 2016, 02:33:53 pm

@technolomaniac

Can you do something with the size limitations on the various licences, they are a bit silly when compared to what the PCB houses offer.
eg the free version is limited to 10x8cm, PCB house is 5x5 multiples, eg 10x10cm

Can we please have the ability to copy/clone entire parts inside/between libraries ?
The current system is annoying when the only difference between the part in the Library you have, and the part you need is the part number, or the labels on the pins (or a better pad outline).
I had to revert to manually editing the existing library down to that one part, and messing around.

Noted.

Related to copying parts, just open the library, then from the Control Panel, select the same library from the list, right click the part you want and select "Copy to Library". it copies to selected component from the Control Panel to the open library. If its a duplicate name, it will prompt you to rename it. That'll give you the same part with a different Device Name and you can tweak the MPN attribute or whatever part number attribute you're using from there. Checkout http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/16030/new-eagle-library-reuse-standard-package-symbol for more detail. Hope it helps!

ehughes · « **Reply #188 on:** July 11, 2016, 07:33:34 pm »

Quote

Yes.
Forcing publicly libraries is fundamentally and demonstrably a stupid idea.
Public libraries are great for seraching and getting parts, essential in fact.
But then once you have the parts and used them, you want to lock them away locally so no one can ever touch them except under expert adult supervision.

In CircuitMaker, all parts are revision controlled. You never lose yours even if some does a revision. Your revision has your name on it and just because there is a different revision, it does not affect your design (unless you want it to).

Master libraries are very nice when you have to manage many designs. Being able to see where a part is used, etc is very nice.

Also, having your design instantly ready to get prices for all the common distributors is very nice.

My experience is that the PCB design is about 10% of a project. There is a ton of work that happens post design and tools like EAGLE totally ignores the management aspects of the design.

I used Eagle for several years (4.12). It took them ***YEARS** to simple add the ability to have user definable parameters. Then it took another 5 to get basic dimensioning tools. The excuse was always that you could write your own ULP.... That sounds nice except that my time is valuable.

I hope that Autodesk can bring EAGLE up to date. I do like the Fusion 360 tool. Most of the idioms are simply ridiculous and it has minimal design rule checking. The problem I see is that the amount of resources they will have to dump into it to get it usable will drive the price north. It already costs $1145 for the full version. Where will the pricing go once all the features are added to recoup the cost? CircuitStudio does more out of the box for less money.... The best thing I could see happening is a pricing war.

ECAD is a tiny market compared to MCAD. The business side of things is going to be tough. If they want to pull in people in the pro market for another tool, It needs to improve an order of magnitude. I will be curious to see the pricing model.

Monkeh · « **Reply #189 on:** July 11, 2016, 09:45:40 pm »

Quote from: ehughes on July 11, 2016, 07:33:34 pm

Quote
Yes.
Forcing publicly libraries is fundamentally and demonstrably a stupid idea.
Public libraries are great for seraching and getting parts, essential in fact.
But then once you have the parts and used them, you want to lock them away locally so no one can ever touch them except under expert adult supervision.

In CircuitMaker, all parts are revision controlled. You never lose yours even if some does a revision. Your revision has your name on it and just because there is a different revision, it does not affect your design (unless you want it to).

But there's no point in it, because you can never trust the parts. In my experiments with CM, I tried a couple dozen parts people had drawn up, from simple resistors to rather more complex ICs. None were worth using, many would never have worked.

uncle_bob · « **Reply #190 on:** July 11, 2016, 09:55:55 pm »

Quote from: ehughes on July 11, 2016, 07:33:34 pm

Quote
Yes.
Forcing publicly libraries is fundamentally and demonstrably a stupid idea.
Public libraries are great for seraching and getting parts, essential in fact.
But then once you have the parts and used them, you want to lock them away locally so no one can ever touch them except under expert adult supervision.

In CircuitMaker, all parts are revision controlled. You never lose yours even if some does a revision. Your revision has your name on it and just because there is a different revision, it does not affect your design (unless you want it to).

Master libraries are very nice when you have to manage many designs. Being able to see where a part is used, etc is very nice.

Also, having your design instantly ready to get prices for all the common distributors is very nice.

My experience is that the PCB design is about 10% of a project. There is a ton of work that happens post design and tools like EAGLE totally ignores the management aspects of the design.

I used Eagle for several years (4.12). It took them ***YEARS** to simple add the ability to have user definable parameters. Then it took another 5 to get basic dimensioning tools. The excuse was always that you could write your own ULP.... That sounds nice except that my time is valuable.

I hope that Autodesk can bring EAGLE up to date. I do like the Fusion 360 tool. Most of the idioms are simply ridiculous and it has minimal design rule checking. The problem I see is that the amount of resources they will have to dump into it to get it usable will drive the price north. It already costs $1145 for the full version. Where will the pricing go once all the features are added to recoup the cost? CircuitStudio does more out of the box for less money.... The best thing I could see happening is a pricing war.

ECAD is a tiny market compared to MCAD. The business side of things is going to be tough. If they want to pull in people in the pro market for another tool, It needs to improve an order of magnitude. I will be curious to see the pricing model.

Hi

ECAD up to this point has mostly been a "big whale" business. You go out after a few hundred outfits per country and get your "share" of the business. Each of the outfits buys a few dozen licenses for the big stuff (on average). There are 10 or less who buy a few hundred licenses for the big stuff (layout) and a few thousand licenses for the little stuff (schematic etc). Multiply it all up and you get some number X. Since these guys don't mover around a lot, the real number is the support on that share.

If you *don't* already have a player in that contest, wiping out that business (protecting the base !!) is no big deal to you. Sell to a few 10's of thousand nerds named Bob in the same country. Your share of that business is likely 80% if you do it right. The pile of cash you take home at the end of the day could easily be a multiple of the X above. For every person doing it with a pro license, I'd bet there are >> 10 people hanging around wishing they could do it as well.

Bob

PCB.Wiz · « **Reply #191 on:** July 12, 2016, 12:38:05 am »

Quote from: uncle_bob on July 11, 2016, 09:55:55 pm

For every person doing it with a pro license, I'd bet there are >> 10 people hanging around wishing they could do it as well.

Yes, the old market is changing quite rapidly, and some will become EDA Nokia's.
When there was little choice, users had to cough up, and suck it up.

Now more choice is out there, what sane user is going to select closed/captive/hostage situations ?

Even some of the 'high end' features are evolving.
I still see images selling meander lines to match delays, but the newest MPU/DRAMs have inbuilt delay tuning ability, so that tech is not needed, and much smaller PCBs can result.

More module-level products are coming out, in RF and RaspPi areas, which drops the complexity per seat of the end users.

As for possible seat numbers, look at info like this - these are annual numbers !
United States graduates roughly 70,000 undergraduate engineers annually, whereas China graduates 600,000 and India 350,000.

Now very, very, few of those will be actually employed as full time PCB designers, but a shipload more will be interested in designing PCBs

Warhawk · « **Reply #192 on:** July 12, 2016, 08:05:11 am »

Quote from: Monkeh on July 11, 2016, 09:45:40 pm

Quote from: ehughes on July 11, 2016, 07:33:34 pm
Quote
Yes.
Forcing publicly libraries is fundamentally and demonstrably a stupid idea.
Public libraries are great for seraching and getting parts, essential in fact.
But then once you have the parts and used them, you want to lock them away locally so no one can ever touch them except under expert adult supervision.

In CircuitMaker, all parts are revision controlled. You never lose yours even if some does a revision. Your revision has your name on it and just because there is a different revision, it does not affect your design (unless you want it to).

But there's no point in it, because you can never trust the parts. In my experiments with CM, I tried a couple dozen parts people had drawn up, from simple resistors to rather more complex ICs. None were worth using, many would never have worked.

I have the same experience. I am not sure how it is now, but when I tried CM last time, there was not any revision changelog. You had no idea, if the newer revision fixes a bug or why it was created. For instance I took FT232 in SSOP package where somebody created a new revision with QFN package instead of creating a new component.
That's why I gave up on CM.

ehughes · « **Reply #193 on:** July 13, 2016, 01:39:41 am »

Quote

But there's no point in it, because you can never trust the parts. In my experiments with CM, I tried a couple dozen parts people had drawn up, from simple resistors to rather more complex ICs. None were worth using, many would never have worked.

Why not make your own if you are unhappy. The "Build your own" link in the library window creates a part that is only visible to you.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #194 on:** July 13, 2016, 05:09:47 am »

Today, I was trying to panelize some designs in Eagle. No way.

I had to design the panel outside of Eagle and use various third party tools to get a proper panel done with v-score, partial routing, tabs, mouse bites, tooling holes etc. Like everything else in Eagle, it can be done but only after spending far too long with a manual calculator and copy/paste coordinates and whatever ULP's are laying around.

Maybe the future of Eagle will have geometry tools that are appropriate for designing a panel layout.

twistedresistor · « **Reply #195 on:** July 13, 2016, 07:28:49 am »

@technolomaniac

What I'd like to weigh in:

Give Richard Hammerl and Jorge Garcia a promotion or at least the ability to further on spend time on the eagle newsgroups.
Those two guys are saints in the support newsgroup, I can't even imagine the patience they have. Can't beat the support there. (compared to the Altium Forum or their support)

KE5FX · « **Reply #196 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:04:20 am »

Quote from: twistedresistor on July 13, 2016, 07:28:49 am

@technolomaniac

What I'd like to weigh in:

Give Richard Hammerl and Jorge Garcia a promotion or at least the ability to further on spend time on the eagle newsgroups.
Those two guys are saints in the support newsgroup, I can't even imagine the patience they have. Can't beat the support there. (compared to the Altium Forum or their support)

+1. Those guys have been very helpful for years, especially Richard (Jorge is a newer hire.)

Karel · « **Reply #197 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:53:16 am »

Quote from: KE5FX on July 13, 2016, 08:04:20 am

Quote from: twistedresistor on July 13, 2016, 07:28:49 am
@technolomaniac

What I'd like to weigh in:

Give Richard Hammerl and Jorge Garcia a promotion or at least the ability to further on spend time on the eagle newsgroups.
Those two guys are saints in the support newsgroup, I can't even imagine the patience they have. Can't beat the support there. (compared to the Altium Forum or their support)

+1. Those guys have been very helpful for years, especially Richard (Jorge is a newer hire.)

+1.

nctnico · « **Reply #198 on:** July 13, 2016, 01:24:29 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 13, 2016, 05:09:47 am

Today, I was trying to panelize some designs in Eagle. No way.

I had to design the panel outside of Eagle and use various third party tools to get a proper panel done with v-score, partial routing, tabs, mouse bites, tooling holes etc. Like everything else in Eagle, it can be done but only after spending far too long with a manual calculator and copy/paste coordinates and whatever ULP's are laying around.

Maybe the future of Eagle will have geometry tools that are appropriate for designing a panel layout.

I'm not sure whether other CAD tools have panelisation tools. When I need a panel I let the PCB manufacturer sort that out. The one I use (Eurocircuits) has a very elaborate web based tool to do that.

uncle_bob · « **Reply #199 on:** July 14, 2016, 12:55:31 am »

Quote from: nctnico on July 13, 2016, 01:24:29 pm

Quote from: rx8pilot on July 13, 2016, 05:09:47 am
Today, I was trying to panelize some designs in Eagle. No way.

I had to design the panel outside of Eagle and use various third party tools to get a proper panel done with v-score, partial routing, tabs, mouse bites, tooling holes etc. Like everything else in Eagle, it can be done but only after spending far too long with a manual calculator and copy/paste coordinates and whatever ULP's are laying around.

Maybe the future of Eagle will have geometry tools that are appropriate for designing a panel layout.
I'm not sure whether other CAD tools have panelisation tools. When I need a panel I let the PCB manufacturer sort that out. The one I use (Eurocircuits) has a very elaborate web based tool to do that.

Hi

If you let them sort it out ... it works fast and easy on their gear. If you try to do it, it takes two to four times as long for them to hog out. Guess which one costs you more in the end?

Bob