Eagle library editor

Don't worry. Nothing bad happens if you do not exchange schematics with shady folks who use cracked software. Since I only use it for business this has never happened to me.

However, Eagle cannot do hierarchical schematics and that is a major flaw if you do very large projects. Not so much in my case because most clients use me to only design the really difficult chunks of a project. RF, nanoscond stuff, low noise, things like that. So my schematics rarely exceed 4-5 sheets which can be handled sans hierarchy. Designing, for example, a whole ultrasound machine on Eagle would be next to impossible.

Other than that ugly fixed frame, what didn't you like about it?

When I need to baseline or checkpoint a Kicad schematic, or otherwise produce one with the approved frame, I just do a plot to DXF with the "print page references" (e.g., the frame) un-checked, and then suck that into CAD for framing, naming, etc..

Everybody can read DXF/DWG or a PDF printed from CAD and I can continue on with the "working copies" in Kicad. One nice thing about the format is that I can stick rcs tags ($Id$ or $Revision$) into the frame and have them automatically updated by rcs.

I tried the PCB package. I didn't like the way you have to edit traces.

Ok, I usually don't do layouts and mostly I looked at the schematic editor.

DXF/DWG no, but PDF yes. However, I need to be able to edit a custom title block right there in the schematic. Having to roach one on and edit as an "afterthought" is kludgy, and in some highly regulated markets very much frowned upon by the agencies that audit us. Because it is de-facto separated from the data file.

That is nice. But it won't help if one cannot have a frame that matches the corporate standard. Many of us have to work by standard operating procedures and then this kind of software can be a no-no.

I think you misunderstood me, and/or didn't read my first post.

In Protel, you can define a layer as a plane (like Orcad, I expect), but the copper plane extends to the horizon. You draw a wide track on the board edge on the plane layer to keep the copper away from the actual board edge.

You can also place filled polygons on the normal routing layers if you want a large copper area there. If you place a filled polygon on a plane layer, you get a hole in the plane.

Nico Coesel Inscribed thus:

Jeff has a grudge ! In your case he achieved his aim... If it was a legitimate complaint there would be dozens of people complaining, but there aren't. In fact its just the opposite, many satisfied users.

Perhaps, but when there is smoke there is fire. Nobody has provided any solid proof that Jeff is telling lies. Besides if he is telling lies then he would have been sued by the owners of Eagle for slander a long time ago.

Sometimes I need to push software or equipment to its limits and that is where lesser products (even the ones with many happy users) fail. When it comes to the risk of losing productivity (wasting time) I don't take any chances.

dialogue

I read it and I already had a feeling I pressed the send button too quickly.

Orcad Layout has a similar feature. I think I used it once on a PCB but I have never used it since. Its not very usefull because it offers very little control over where the copper goes. In most of my PCBs I can't use a single plane anyway.

If you only do the high-speed sections, how do you integrate your designs into the larger boards? ...almost wishing for OrCAD again.

The client transcribes my schematic into theirs. Has to happen almost regardless of which CAD system I use because there does not exist any common standard but there are a dozen or so CAD systems in widespread use. EDIF was just a big joke.

Sometimes I work on their CAD system.

Same here ...

I agree he has a grudge and he has been jumping all over any mention of Eagle with this tale.

And there is nothing wrong with that! I appreciate it.

I have my own List of companies I will not deal with. I don't have the time or the energy to sue them or even write letters to the complaints department or whatever. But I can not deal with them and I can take every opportunity to tell people about them when their name is mentioned.

Slagging off companies on the internet is one of the few practical methods of redress. How else are we supposed to discourage this sort of high-handed contempt for legitimate buyers of their products?

Deliberately and permanantly breaking the design files of legitimate users because they incorporate a circuit fragment from what turned out to be a pirated copy? Years after the fact after an update?

Yes this would rarely happen in the corporate environment. So what? Eagle is (was?) squarely aimed at the hobbiest/amateur user where such sharing is not at all unlikely, look at all the LTSpice schematics that get shared here. What would people here think if a rogue circuit posted here could silently "infect" your installation, so that years later after an update all your design files suddenly become permanently and irretrievably useless? Not a by a random virus, but because of a deliberate strategy by the people who sold you the program?

Hi Phil,

I've been using eagle for about 10 years but never use the command line! :) I know this was answered but I wouldn't recommend using the '@' symbol to distinguish between the two source pins, usually I just would name them "source1" and source2" etc, this is just my personal preference since it keeps all pin info available.

ps. if you need a contractor to do eagle cad I would be interested!

cheers, Jamie

Or you use the same software as your client. This sorta negates any advantage of your software having hierarchy, though, since you're stuck at the lowest common denominator. EDIF works for what it was intended. Pretty pictures ain't it.

Have you ever looked at their license agreement? Cadence doesn't allow off-site contractors to use the license.

I thought I'd never have anything nice to say about OrCAD.

into

Huh? So what good does it do?

No, the intention was that CAD data becomes exchangeable between CAD system. That clearly did not materialize.

I know. That's why I had to rent a license earlier this year. The reason was not me being a consultant but because the company was not in the US and they obviously have the ancient turf-protection sales system.

Not about the new Orcad, I personally would never buy that. It pretty much broke the record in the number of crashes per week on my computer. Orcad-SDT, in contrast, was of cast-iron quality. Then they were bought and the new owners appear to have broken it. Happens a lot in the world of software.

John Devereux Inscribed thus:

If you are going to slag a company off its only fair to tell both sides of the tale. Jeff isn't going to admit that he was lazy or dishonest in the first place.

So do I ! But I don't make a career out of it.

If there are good grounds for doing so, fine.

I've used many circuit fragments from various unaccountable sources without any issues what so ever ! So I find Jeff's complaint as "creating a bandwagon" !

I've seen no evidence of a deliberate strategy, but if it has occurred because of a side effect of protecting intellectual property, then that is very unfortunate ! I can understand Jeff's angst.

Seasons Greetings to All.

Eat shit and die, asswipe. If you're going to comment on the topic, at least become informed about what the facts are. Ignorant dumbass.

JeffM Inscribed thus:

Point proved !

(My rant was not aimed at you particularly by the way) :)

IIRC I don't actually think Jeff was even directly affected, let alone "lazy" or "dishonest". So that is uncalled for.

Actually to me this supports the argument that the companies behaviour is reprehensible. There *are* people that, in good faith, use circuit fragments from anaccountable sources. What would you think if the next update rendered all those designs permanenly useless?

Likewise!