Vitaliy wrote:

> As I said in another post, the problem is the difference in how you and I 
> define quality. Eagle produces a route that no doubt will work, but it's 
> ugly, and it doesn't make sense. 

I don't think there's an autorouter that "makes sense" without putting the
sense into it. This is the hurdle when working with an autorouter. 

It starts already when creating the schematic -- assigning useful net
names, adding routing info to the nets (if that's supported by your setup)
etc. Then set up the appropriate rules for trace widths, clearances etc
(useful net names come in handy here), and most importantly route the
critical parts before the autorouter. 

IMO it depends a lot on the type of circuit how much the autorouter can do.
With mixed signal boards with both digital switching and sensitive analog
signals, there's probably a lot that needs to be either hand-routed or
carefully prepared with a quite deep knowledge of the specific autorouter. 

In any case, I think it usually will fail if the schematic (as in simple
netlist) is the only input to the autorouter.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist