I interpreted Tobias to be talking about more geometrical-type equations. I think this could be very useful. For example, I have had boards where I needed to place 9 identical half-H bridge units on a grid across the board. I couldn't use "copy and paste" within the layout because the parts were already in existence in the schematic - I had to arrange them into their own blocks and then move the blocks around. It would have been much better if I could create a layout for one unit, assign that subunit an identifier, tell the tool to duplicate that unit N times, and then assign parts from the schematic to each unit. Then, a simple numerical "step and repeat" command could be used to place those N units into a grid pattern. Similarly, I often have components which need to be placed all in a row at some certain spacing, and then another group of components which need to go in a row but with a different spacing. It would be nice to just be able to select all of the parts in one group and then issue a command "place in a line with 0.1 inch spacing" This is the kind of thing which Solidworks lets you do but I've never seen a PCB layout tool with many such features (unless you write your own macros/scripts) Sean On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:58 AM, M.L. wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Tobias Gogolin wrot= e: >> What I am envisioning is that, starting from the schematic, components c= an >> be associated with formulas that consider placement options, variations = of >> product capabilities (for example number of parallel transistors or memo= ry >> banks) and eventually associativity to the pads of the PCB (linked to or= via >> =A0spreadsets), BOM and pick and place coordinates generated, etc. > > > A complicated schematic is just many small circuits put together. Some > are linear, some are not. > Some are programmable and may output a signal that appears non-linear > (a digital PWM signal) but that can be interpreted in a linear fashion > through a simple R-C filter and fed into an opamp. > > This is getting very complicated very quickly. Maybe not to us who > design electronics, but to describe this parametrically with equations > in a complete and unambiguous seems very very tedious and complicated. > > Electronic parametric EDA seems to be adding a time dimension to your > example of parametric 3D modelling such as Solidworks. In Solidworks > you create 2D drawings and extrude or cut. Now imagine if you not only > had to design a single 3D part, but also describe how they interact, > then add electrons and semiconductors that behave in non-mechanical > ways. > > An interesting idea - > It might be more complicated than just having the design engineer redo > the calculations. > > -- > Martin K. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .