@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.
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?
..... The notion of locking up people's libraries and design data into their format and their systems is just really outdated and it's a shame really.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. ......
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.
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 "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.
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.
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.
.. (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?)
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).
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... (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.
..... 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
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... (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.
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 ?
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
..... 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.
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.
..... 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:
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?)