- 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.
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.
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 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.
So, I feel rightfully hopeful for Eagle.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
- 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.
- 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
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.
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.
- 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.
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, ...)
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.
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.