[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: gEDA-user: paid help?
On Apr 6, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Levente Kovacs wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:41:37 -0700
> Anthony Shanks <yamazakir2-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion it's worth spending an hour going over the footprint
>> file format and just making your footprints in an ASCII editor. Once
>> you know the file format it's very fast (< 10 min per footprint on
>> average) and you get the exact dimensions you need specified by the
>> datasheet. Making footprints with this method in my opinion is easier
>> and faster than most closed source tools I have used.
>>
>> With that said, I still think pcb has many shortcomings, but
>> footprints aren't one of them.
>
> Is there any non-interactive footprint editor around? Like a perl script which
> can set mask and clearence. It would be nice for example run it through your
> library, and it would set the mask offset to x.
Yes, well, some of DJ's footprint generators are on the geda symbols website as interactive web pages. And I have written a couple of quick generator programs that I've yet to make public -- first excuse being that until I fabbed some boards with the footprints I didn't think that wise, (excuse no longer applicable), second excuse being that they aren't really in a form where I'm not embarrassed to have other people read my code :( I've just never cleaned them up.
Of course, you are asking about something different it seems, not a generator, but a parametric tweaker "all masks shall now have offset X" -- which is suppose could be handy, but I just regenerate the footprint with different parameters.
-dave
>
> It would also be nice to do this on a footprint in *.pcb file.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Levente
>
> P.S.: If no one have such thing... I warm up my editor to write it. :-)
>
>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:35 AM, John Doty
>> <jpd-eOgpOkEIG7IAvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:25 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am just getting started and may say things that sound stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Even something you think sounds stupid gives us some insight into
>>>> how new users perceive our software :-)
>>>
>>> One of the problems here is that the gschem GUI channels new users
>>> in a dysfunctional direction. Referencing library symbols is more
>>> often than not the wrong way to go. Embedding, sometimes given as
>>> an alternative, scales poorly, so it's only applicable to the
>>> smallest projects.
>>>
>>> A better way is to import every symbol you're using into your
>>> *project* (not just the schematic page you happen to be working
>>> on). One you have a project-local copy, the needed customizations
>>> are easy through Hierarchy->Down Symbol.
>>>
>>> I keep a shell window open for this purpose. Use gschem to browse
>>> for a symbol similar to what I need, go to shell window and copy to
>>> project, hit the #$@% refresh button on the symbol browser, then
>>> pick it up from the project symbol directory. This isn't at all
>>> time consuming, and in the end saves a *lot* of time, but it sure
>>> isn't obvious to the beginner.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I guess this leaves me with a question... Is geda meant for the
>>>>> non-lazy high end user that roll's his/her own footprints?
>>>>
>>>> It's a mix of both. We *do* have libraries of symbols and
>>>> footprints for many of the commonly needed parts. People *still*
>>>> often have to "roll their own" because we just don't have *every*
>>>> part in our library.
>>>
>>> Not just that: the symbols in the library are inevitably wrong in
>>> some way in light of the needs of a particular project flow.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we'd like our library to be more complete, but we've been
>>>> discussing this problem for YEARS and have yet to come up with a
>>>> workable solution.
>>>>
>>>>> If so then if I paid for a few more then it would not really help
>>>>> as this is not the intended direction.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm... no, that's not right. Intent has nothing to do with it,
>>>> it's just not practical for us to have every part in our libraries.
>>>
>>> Every part in every manufacturer's variant for every customer's
>>> documentation requirements using every design flow and every
>>> manufacturing flow...
>>>
>>> A trillion symbols would not be sufficient.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If the project does need more footprints then would it not be good
>>>>> to come up with a viable solution to create them?
>>>>
>>>> Sure. Go ahead :-)
>>>>
>>>>> For instance could someone sell a support package, i.e includes 50
>>>>> footprints for X amount of money. These footprints would then
>>>>> become open source and available to all, free as in beer. Would
>>>>> this approach not bring more people to the project? or would it
>>>>> bring the wrong kind of people?
>>>>
>>>> I think this would be a great idea, if (1) you could find people
>>>> willing to do that, (2) you could find people willing to pay for
>>>> it, and (3) they could agree on a price.
>>>>
>>>> But this has nothing to do with *our* desires, it's a free market -
>>>> all it needs is two people willing to deal. We already have
>>>> gedasymbols.org where people can put freely usable symbols and
>>>> footprints, I don't think anyone would have a problem with someone
>>>> promoting their own services and rates on their gedasymbols page.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps what we need is a bounty system? Someone posts an URL for
>>>> a part's spec sheet and how much they're willing to pay.
>>>> Contenders post screenshots of the symbols and footprints they
>>>> come up with, and one is chosen to get the bounty and submit their
>>>> data files to the community.
>>>
>>> The single most important thing is to fix gschem so that it doesn't
>>> lead users into the unproductive trap of referencing unmodified
>>> library symbols in designs. Then maybe we can escape from the
>>> delusion that what's primarily needed is a bigger library.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong: I think publishing symbols is great.
>>> gedasymbols.org is a great resource, and indeed I have thrown a
>>> bunch of symbols into the pot there over the last few days.
>>> Starting with a symbol that's as close to what you need as possible
>>> is always best. But publishing symbols cannot solve the fundamental
>>> problem: "as close as possible" rarely means "exactly".
>>>
>>> John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
>>> http://www.noqsi.com/
>>> jpd-eOgpOkEIG7IAvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> geda-user mailing list
>>> geda-user-3OLirty5fqqAvZLjymCQLg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> geda-user mailing list
>> geda-user-3OLirty5fqqAvZLjymCQLg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>>
>
>
> --
> Levente Kovacs
> http://logonex.eu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user