On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Ben Jackson <ben@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 05:31:58PM +0900, timecop wrote:
> standard parts library. ?And if you're making footprints and symbols,
> text files generated by scripts are FAR superior to any GUI. ?I'd
never
> get 100-1000 pins right if I had to use a GUI.
lol, every altium user disagrees.
if you ever seen their IPC pattern / component wizard, you wouldn't be
saying this.
Not OT. Put up a video showing it in action.
It is not that exciting to rate a video. Screen shots maybe.
First screen gives about a dozen choices, where it asks what
your end target you want to create.
Choices are a long the line of:
Two Pin Resistors
Two Pad Resistors
Two Pad Capacitors
QFN
QFP
TQFP
etc
It then asks the appropriate questions such as:
Hole size for pins.
Distance between pins centers.
How many sides have pads.
Dimensions of pads.
Pitch of pads.
At corners it asks the corner pad to pad spacing.
Sometimes, and I've not figured out why sometimes, it asks if the
corner pads should be different,
so they don't hit each other.
For all it asks the distance from the center line for the silk outline.
At each point there is a small graphic showing a representation of a
typical part,
of the relevant section, where the related question is being asked.
You enter the dimensions,
in small boxes, near the points of the graphic where you would be
measuring a real part if you had it in hand.
If scrips could be run on gedasymboles, and its mirrors, "someone"
could make a script that does this.
Use metapost or Ploticus to dynamically generate the graphics and the
script to generate the footprint.
Have the generated footprint be added to a library automatically, so
they don't have to keep being done over and over by different people.
My gripe is that the dimensions that are asked for are rarely the ones
the data sheets give.
If there is any SummerOfCode projects, this might make a good one for
someone that likes to work on web sites rather than hack C code.
Mabye geda hackers will
be inspired. I really think one thing holding back geda is that the
users and developers don't have much experience with high-end tools.
The only reason Protel and its decedent's is popular is because LONG
ago it was good,
and inexpensive. Altium has lowered the prices, but I don't think it
is worth the money.
Today's version tries to do to much, there are options in different
places that do the same thing,
and more often than not, don't do anything no mater how much you poke
at it. It also has a habit of eating files.
Make lots of backups.
In my view what is holding gEDA back is a step-by-step tutorial,
starting right with install for Windows.
The other thing holding back the PCB end is the problems, mostly with
printing, and library windows, that I've brought up before, in the
Windows port, and Windows people like me making the time to fix them.
The Windows port of PCB might be a popular download, but how many
people actually us it? There are less than five on the list here that
I've even seen mentioned that they tried to use the Windows port of
PCB for a real project.
The other thing that is holding back gEDA Schematics is the lack of
available publication quality symbols. If I'm doing a PCB I use gEDA.
If I'm after a nice looking schematic I use XCircuit. I'd like to be
able to have it both ways, a nice looking schematic that I can make a
PCB from.