| ??? 03/16/07 21:46 Modified: 03/16/07 21:52 Read: times |
#135148 - You may want to go back and read the comments Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Mike Stegmaier said:
Richard Erlacher said:
First, and foremost, their schematic capture package STINKS! It might be in an unusual format, but I managed to use it well. I think that remains to be seen. Secondly, their library management is terrible, Its OK, but a palette would be nice. Pallete? For what? You are too mouse-bound! You should be able to type a part number and have it appear instantly. Instead you have to ensure that the library you need is selected, and that it has the correct package. and the libraries' contents, often supplied by users, are often quite wrong. And I won't be affected that much by errors in user libraries, because I don't use many of them. Most libraries i use are included with Eagle. Yes, you will! It's bEAGLE libraries that are often wrong, and even more often totally useless because they don't have appropriate part numbers. The result is that you spend hours searching for components that are clearly there but under a name other than what's on someone else's edited schematic. Some of their libraries have hundreds of numbers, but not one name for their components. There's no distinction made between user-supplied libraries and those produced at CadSoft. They just call 'em good and ship 'em. Thirdly, there's no way to generate a "decent-looking" schematic in bEagle. Personally, I don't care too much about appearance, as long as the wires appear to be connected properly. and the "autorouter" quits right where the work begins. You have to configure it. It is dependent on factors. Higher restrictions causes it to stop early. You might want to change the maximum values to 9999 (except for vias) and then you will have better results. "configuring" doesn't improve anything about the level of completion. It does sometimes manage to connect all the appropriate points, but then you have to go in manually editing all the routes to make sure they're sensible. You have to adjust track spacing manually, segment by segment, and make sure the spacing between fixed artifacts and traces is sufficient. Often, you have to move a track's connection to a pad becuase it's not entirely on the pad, which will likely lead to an over-etch that interrupts your trace. In other cases, in which case their grid will foul you up, and it will often leave a track at the minimal distance from a via or pad, which will lead to an under-etch in a case where the temperature control and agitation in etching aren't 100.00% perfect. It doesn't know how to do things that other tools do automatically, e.g. allocating space for routes, rather than just using the mimimum. There I have to agree. I think it needs more parameters for me to configure. Go back and read my comments about DOS-OrCAD. It's the very best, and above all else, fastest and easiest tool set that I've ever encountered, and I've seen and used the very best of them. There's a learning curve but it's shorter than that of any Windows-based tool set I've seen. What's more, it's priced right, so you should like it. Now, it's not for the average amateur, as it will let you do things wrong, in the course of keeping its features out of your way. It is a professional-quality tool, not a toy, such as you see under Windows. If you've made up your mind to use the worst piece of crap in the universe of CAE tools, this is it! If there is something better (that also allows me to print out the board), let me know. PCB123.com is one of those packages that lets you design a PCB, but I think they didn't include printing, but instead, they have an "order" button. I am in the middle of eagle, and I have to say, it is better than Winboard and Windraft (from Ivex). I have to say it doesn't crash at all, and it "tries" to make a board. bEagle, like the other toys you've tried, can be used, but will always be more work than using a good tool. With a small board, with fewer than 10 components, and using two (not one) sides, it can route a decent board in a short time. I remember one promject not more than a couple of years ago, that took >96 hours to route despite the fact that there were only a half-dozen IC's and perhaps five connectors. Then it needed about three weeks' manual editing to make the board producible. You might want to visit <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/OldDosOrcad/> RE |
