FWIW, I disagree that the current interface is "clunky."
I also enjoy standard shift sports cars. Please don't fix it to be like SolidWorks.
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 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.
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.
... 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.
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.
...So it will be a long slow switch to Kicad.
True, but don't forget about step and igis, pcb design so much more about simple 2D these days.
@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
@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/
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.
True, but don't forget about step and igis, pcb design so much more about simple 2D these days.
@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.
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.
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.
...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.