Re: Newbie guide to "Eagle"?

boB wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:31:02 GMT, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


boB wrote:


On 12 Dec 2006 16:02:16 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On 12 Dec 2006 07:00:41 -0800,
rickman <gnuarm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
in Msg. <1165935641.022758.183880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I have used Eagle before and I found it to be very clumsy to learn.

That's because its user interface predates anything resembling modern
GUI standards, but once you get the knack of it it allows you to
work very quickly.

robert



I used to use PADS many years ago, then used Eagle for a few years,
and am now back to PADS again... EAGLE was OK for those few years,
but now that I've gone back to PADS again, I believe that the
developers at Eagle should look at what their competition does.

Eagle could be MUCH better if they'd do some engineering on it.
Having said that, there ARE a couple (few??) things that even Eagle
does better than PADS, I think. Like, the pan and zoom methods.

Eagles BOM capability sucks big time !


It does but you can write ULPs for that or take an existing one and modify it. The lack of additional part fields is, however, a huge minus IMHO.



The lack of additional part fields is, however, a huge minus

IMHO.


I totally agree. If Eagle had the capability to have more fields,
and be able to change and print those individual fields out with the
existing style of Eagle BOM output, it would be fine.


I have mentioned that numerous times in the Eagle forums. Guess what, it worked, they hinted that it may be done in the next release. They didn't say how many part fields and I am hoping for an additional two at the minimum. If we all are extra good maybe they'll bump it up to a total of eight. That is what OrCad always had. I really need the client P/N and budgetary pricing in there.


Cad-Soft (and Pads) should look at their competition's products
closely, and use both of the products to see why one is better than
the other in various ways.

I think that CadSoft, being a German company, may keep them from
looking at things the way us westerners do though, so looking at the
competition ~may~ not help.


Yep, then they might also some day understand why a hierarchical *** structure is important. That's the other thing I've had to wave good-bye when switching from OrCad to Eagle. So far Cadsoft doesn't seem to understand, guess that none of their engineers has ever worked in medical or defense, else they'd know.

OTOH which other company operates such great newsgroup forums? There, several Cadsoft employees are participating on a daily basis. That, to me, was a big factor in deciding.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com
.

Loading