Actually, I have done exactly one project using Eagle, and I will have to agree that the process is very different from what I was used to using PADs. It may be that, in Eagle, it would be difficult or impossible to make the kind of mistake I refer to. If so, that is another advantage attributable to Eagle. In fact, the library functions in PADs are very difficult to use - there is really no equivalent to the library views one has in Eagle. I refer back to PADs only because I spent much more time using IT than I have in using Eagle, so I guess I am seeing potential problems where there are none. Thank you all for your input on this. RJG > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Olin Lathrop" > To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." > Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 10:07 AM > Subject: Re: [EE]: question for EAGLE users > > > > Roy J. Gromlich wrote: > > > For those who never saw the PADs utility I was referring to, its > > > advantage is probably not clear, so I will elaborate. > > > > The fact that you can get yourself into the trouble you describes in the > > first place sounds like a big disadvantage to me. > > > > > On occasion one picks a part from the library and misses the fact that > > > you wanted a thru-hole part and accidentally picked an SMT part. > > > > This is unlikely to happen in Eagle since you are shown a picture of the > > board footprint when selecting the variant of a part. I have never made > > this particular mistake in Eagle. Even if you did, it would be obvious > once > > you started working on the board layout. > > > > > Or you > > > specified an IC using a part number which specified the wrong temp > > > range or tolerance. > > > > There is no way for it to know your intent in this case as the selection > is > > perfectly legal. I guess you'd have to catch this when creating the BOM. > > > > > Maybe you wanted a bi-color LED with three leads > > > and picked the part number for a two lead device. > > > > There is no way to make that mistake in Eagle since the schematic symbol > for > > a two leaded and three leaded LED would necessarily be obviously > different. > > > > > None of these are killer issues, and you would almost certainly pick > > > them up when checking the assembly proof copies, but then what do you do > > > about it? > > > > You are asking questions about Eagle for a process that applies to Pads. > > This doesn't make any sense. Once you learn Eagle, you'll see how > > inapplicable your questions are. The process is very different. > > > > If you do notice you picked the wrong package while working on layout, all > > you have to do is CHANGE PACKAGE and select the correct one. > > > > > In PADs these were not easy to correct without deleting parts > > > and replacing them - and that often produced strange results in the > > > netlist when done manually. > > > > If you really blow it in Eagle and put the wrong part in, not just the > wrong > > package for that part, you go back to the schematic, delete the part and > add > > the correct one. The fact that you're asking about the netlist shows you > > haven't even tried Eagle. Eagle users don't ever generate, look at, or > give > > a crap about netlists. I guess the important distinction is that Eagle is > > one integrated package. The schematic editor and board editor are not two > > pieces of software you run independently by tossing a netlist over the > wall. > > In Eagle they are two views of your project that are "live" at the same > > time. You have to go out of your way and ignore a bunch of warnings to > get > > them out of sync. > > > > > The utility in question would list every part in the design which > > > differed in any way between the schematic and layout files. > > > > Again, you don't have separate parts in the schematic and layout. They > > can't be different because each refers to the same project database. You > > add parts to your project and define their connectivity in the schematic > > editor, then define their placement and interconnect routing in the board > > editor, but they are the *same parts*. > > > > > Not a must have item, just a nice to have. > > > > Even better, a mechanism for not needed such a kludge in the first place. > > > > > > ***************************************************************** > > Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts > > (978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com > > -- > > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > > View/change your membership options at > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist