Quality of Eagle schematics for publication

On 9/21/2012 9:44 PM, James Wood wrote:

Our firm is shopping a new CAD suite for both PC layout and schematic capture.  It seems that many of the high-priced, "professional" packages utilize the schematic utility solely as a means of generating a netlist for board layout, the 'publication quality' of the schematic remaining utilitarian at best.  Can Eagle generate a decent-looking schematic that can be imported into a product manual or serve for a magazine article, etc.  As a benchmark for schematic quality, I have attached a PDF of our current program's output.  I hesitate to name the program, but it is probably 20 years old, the company is no longer in business, but it was absurdly inexpensive and only now needs to be replaced.  I'd be very appreciative of any direction that contributors of this Forum might lead me to meeting this objective.

 

See attached, partial, not polished for publication.  I draw my own

symbols when the supplied versions look too ugly; for publication I'd

want to redraw a few more.

Export Image accepts 1000 dpi, attached is 450 so it isn't too big for

the mailbox...

...L

Larry Baxter schrieb:

See attached, partial, not polished for publication.  I draw my own

symbols when the supplied versions look too ugly; for publication I'd

want to redraw a few more.

In the schematic you should not use the (ugly) vector font, but

"proportional" instead. This makes the document much prettier - and

searchable (if you export/import it the right way).

For "classic" documentation, don't use colored schematics - use the

"black only" checkbox in the print dialog or the "monochrome" checkbox

in the export image dialog.

Export Image accepts 1000 dpi, attached is 450 so it isn't too big for

the mailbox...

If you want to get good (and not bloated) documents, try to use a

vectored format like PS/EPS instead of a pixel based image file - you

get much higher quality at less space, and a searchable result (if your

document processing software is able to import such a format - otherwise

high resolution PNG is OK).

Tilmann

I agree with Tilmann: see the attached low resolution example.

Regards

Alberto Vignati

Il 02/10/2012 08:39, Tilmann Reh ha scritto:

Larry Baxter schrieb:

 

>> See attached, partial, not polished for publication.  I draw my own

>> symbols when the supplied versions look too ugly; for publication I'd

>> want to redraw a few more.

 

In the schematic you should not use the (ugly) vector font, but

"proportional" instead. This makes the document much prettier - and

searchable (if you export/import it the right way).

 

For "classic" documentation, don't use colored schematics - use the

"black only" checkbox in the print dialog or the "monochrome" checkbox

in the export image dialog.

 

>> Export Image accepts 1000 dpi, attached is 450 so it isn't too big for

>> the mailbox...

 

If you want to get good (and not bloated) documents, try to use a

vectored format like PS/EPS instead of a pixel based image file - you

get much higher quality at less space, and a searchable result (if your

document processing software is able to import such a format - otherwise

high resolution PNG is OK).

 

Tilmann

 

I agree with Tilmann: see the attached low resolution example.

Regards

Alberto Vignati

Il 02/10/2012 08:39, Tilmann Reh ha scritto:

Larry Baxter schrieb:

 

>> See attached, partial, not polished for publication.  I draw my own

>> symbols when the supplied versions look too ugly; for publication I'd

>> want to redraw a few more.

 

In the schematic you should not use the (ugly) vector font, but

"proportional" instead. This makes the document much prettier - and

searchable (if you export/import it the right way).

 

For "classic" documentation, don't use colored schematics - use the

"black only" checkbox in the print dialog or the "monochrome" checkbox

in the export image dialog.

 

>> Export Image accepts 1000 dpi, attached is 450 so it isn't too big for

>> the mailbox...

 

If you want to get good (and not bloated) documents, try to use a

vectored format like PS/EPS instead of a pixel based image file - you

get much higher quality at less space, and a searchable result (if your

document processing software is able to import such a format - otherwise

high resolution PNG is OK).

 

Tilmann