I 'am using Eagle 5.11
In my layout I have many traces with WIDTH of 0.2mm.
Now I would like to change all that wires in WIDTH 0.15mm.
I know I can do that with the command CHANGE and GROUP but is there an
other way ?
With GROUP some other wires ( for example WIDTH of 0.5mm ) change too.
THANKS
On 2/8/2011 11:22 PM, Tilmann Reh wrote:
Gary Gofstein schrieb:
>>> In my layout I have many traces with WIDTH of 0.2mm.
>>> Now I would like to change all that wires in WIDTH 0.15mm.
>>
>> Also, you should look into classes, by assigning nets to a certain
>> class, you can control width and clearance for that class. that way your
>> hi current or power nets don't need to change with your signal nets.
>> maybe this is what you are really looking for.
I don't think so:
- Modifying classes does not change anything that is already routed;
- Class widths are used /only/ by the autorouter and have absolutely no
effect when routing manually.
Tilmann
Yes, I was wondering if maybe the OP was really after a way to control
the widths as he was doing the board, since he mentioned "other ways".
That's why I said "look into" classes, because it is not clear if it
solves his problem or not, but may be useful to him.
As an aside, wouldn't it be better if the manual router used the net
class information to preload the width of the traces? I never actually
noticed that it doesn't. Maybe that's why I stopped using net classes 
On 2/8/2011 11:22 PM, Tilmann Reh wrote:
Gary Gofstein schrieb:
>>> In my layout I have many traces with WIDTH of 0.2mm.
>>> Now I would like to change all that wires in WIDTH 0.15mm.
>>
>> Also, you should look into classes, by assigning nets to a certain
>> class, you can control width and clearance for that class. that way your
>> hi current or power nets don't need to change with your signal nets.
>> maybe this is what you are really looking for.
I don't think so:
- Modifying classes does not change anything that is already routed;
- Class widths are used /only/ by the autorouter and have absolutely no
effect when routing manually.
Tilmann
Yes, I was wondering if maybe the OP was really after a way to control
the widths as he was doing the board, since he mentioned "other ways".
That's why I said "look into" classes, because it is not clear if it
solves his problem or not, but may be useful to him. Rereading my post,
I could be interpreted to say that this method will work for him for his
current problem, which is not true, in any case, the effort to classify
the nets exceeds the effort to just change their width individually.
As an aside, wouldn't it be better if the manual router used the net
class information to preload the width of the traces? I never actually
noticed that it doesn't. Maybe that's why I stopped using net classes 
Maybe it would be good to be able to GROUP, highlight, ripup, or
autoroute by CLASS - rather than net name as well.
Gary Gofstein wrote on Thu, 10 February 2011 17:29
As an aside, wouldn't it be better if the manual router used the net
class information to preload the width of the traces? I never actually
noticed that it doesn't. Maybe that's why I stopped using net classes
Yes, that has bothered me too on accasion. Sometimes I have forgotten when
manually routing that a trace had a different width. I have wasted time
routing, only to have the DRC tell me the width is wrong. At least it
tells me, but it would be nice to minimize this kind of inevitable mistake
in the first place. The default or easy action should be to pick up the
width from the netclass when starting a manual route.
However, there also needs to be a override that is not too hard. I'm not
sure how exactly that should work. Perhaps you start ROUTE first, then if
you do a CHANGE WIDTH while ROUTE was active it sets the width override
until you route a signal of a different netclass. Or there could be a
explicit width override, but that would either make it ambiguous what it
applies to, how long it applies, or would run the danger of it persisting
after the setting was forgotten and no longer intended. It's not a trivial
problem, but somehow there must be a way to take the width from the
netclass by default most of the time.
In any case, not using net classes just because of this manual routing
default is silly. That's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Netclasses work correctly when autorouting as far as I can tell, and they
are good to document intent and have the DRC check the widths, even when
manual routing.
--
Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca. Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.
Olin Lathrop wrote:
Gary Gofstein wrote on Thu, 10 February 2011 17:29
>> As an aside, wouldn't it be better if the manual router used the net
>> class information to preload the width of the traces? I never
>> actually noticed that it doesn't. Maybe that's why I stopped using
>> net classes 
Yes, that has bothered me too on accasion. Sometimes I have
forgotten when manually routing that a trace had a different width.
I have wasted time routing, only to have the DRC tell me the width is
wrong. At least it tells me, but it would be nice to minimize this
kind of inevitable mistake in the first place. The default or easy
action should be to pick up the width from the netclass when starting
a manual route.
However, there also needs to be a override that is not too hard. I'm
not sure how exactly that should work. Perhaps you start ROUTE
first, then if you do a CHANGE WIDTH while ROUTE was active it sets
the width override until you route a signal of a different netclass.
Or there could be a explicit width override, but that would either
make it ambiguous what it applies to, how long it applies, or would
run the danger of it persisting after the setting was forgotten and
no longer intended. It's not a trivial problem, but somehow there
must be a way to take the width from the netclass by default most of
the time.
Much of this is already there
See HELP/ROUTE/"Selecting the Routing Layer and Wire width"
I have not used this to date but I will try it out.
If someone is using this could they let us know how they feel about it.
Cheers
Warren
On 2/10/2011 3:01 PM, Olin Lathrop wrote:
Gary Gofstein wrote on Thu, 10 February 2011 17:29
>> As an aside, wouldn't it be better if the manual router used the net
>> class information to preload the width of the traces? I never actually
>> noticed that it doesn't. Maybe that's why I stopped using net classes 
Yes, that has bothered me too on accasion. Sometimes I have forgotten when
manually routing that a trace had a different width. I have wasted time
routing, only to have the DRC tell me the width is wrong. At least it
tells me, but it would be nice to minimize this kind of inevitable mistake
in the first place. The default or easy action should be to pick up the
width from the netclass when starting a manual route.
However, there also needs to be a override that is not too hard. I'm not
sure how exactly that should work. Perhaps you start ROUTE first, then if
you do a CHANGE WIDTH while ROUTE was active it sets the width override
until you route a signal of a different netclass. Or there could be a
explicit width override, but that would either make it ambiguous what it
applies to, how long it applies, or would run the danger of it persisting
after the setting was forgotten and no longer intended. It's not a trivial
problem, but somehow there must be a way to take the width from the
netclass by default most of the time.
In any case, not using net classes just because of this manual routing
default is silly. That's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Netclasses work correctly when autorouting as far as I can tell, and they
are good to document intent and have the DRC check the widths, even when
manual routing.
I wouldn't desire an override as long as eagle doesn't try to enforce
that I use the default width for a net class. The main instance I can
see where one needs to use a different width is to squeeze between
components. If the trace is looking to big, thankfully, in eagle, you
can change width on the fly and go back to routing without drop the
trace. If the next trace starts out too big because of the default,
well, it can be seen easily and corrected.
Now on the other hand, for operations where traces are grouped by net
class, there is a question of handling overridden trace widths or other
parameters. I would vote that the changes apply only to areas that are
not overridden on that particular parameter. A dialog choice of
"defaulted areas" or "all areas" for a change would be acceptable to me
as well, because, after all, this global sort of replace operation
should be infrequent. And sometimes you might want to start with a clean
slate and make manual tweaks afterward.
Also, while I am a defender of eagle's autorouter, my boards never
require it. Classes, for me, are most useful for the DRC rather than
layout, and I do use them to document intents as you said. I usually
find that I have to use rather broad min/max limits to finish the board.
I would rather use them ( and had hoped to use them) as guides for my
layout as well.
"Gary Gofstein" <nospam@use.forum.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
ij1pl0$3k3$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...
On 2/8/2011 11:22 PM, Tilmann Reh wrote:
>> Gary Gofstein schrieb:
>>
>>>> In my layout I have many traces with WIDTH of 0.2mm.
>>>> Now I would like to change all that wires in WIDTH 0.15mm.
>>>
>>> Also, you should look into classes, by assigning nets to a certain
>>> class, you can control width and clearance for that class. that way your
>>> hi current or power nets don't need to change with your signal nets.
>>> maybe this is what you are really looking for.
>>
>> I don't think so:
>> - Modifying classes does not change anything that is already routed;
>> - Class widths are used /only/ by the autorouter and have absolutely no
>> effect when routing manually.
>>
>> Tilmann
Yes, I was wondering if maybe the OP was really after a way to control the widths as he was doing
the board, since he mentioned "other ways". That's why I said "look into" classes, because it is
not clear if it solves his problem or not, but may be useful to him. Rereading my post, I could
be interpreted to say that this method will work for him for his current problem, which is not
true, in any case, the effort to classify the nets exceeds the effort to just change their width
individually.
As an aside, wouldn't it be better if the manual router used the net class information to preload
the width of the traces? I never actually noticed that it doesn't. Maybe that's why I stopped
using net classes
In Options > Settings > Misc, there is a parameter for that:
[] Auto set route width and drill
Maybe it would be good to be able to GROUP, highlight, ripup, or autoroute by CLASS - rather than
net name as well.
"Gary Gofstein" <nospam@use.forum.net> wrote in message
news:ij1pl0$3k3$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...
As an aside, wouldn't it be better if the manual router used the net class
information to preload the width of the traces? I never actually noticed
that it doesn't. Maybe that's why I stopped using net classes
I guess this should happen when you click the route icon (or type route) the
same way as the layer you start routing gets visible (if it's disabled). I
have missed that (although its a suggest topic, rather than support).
Of course when routing is activated, you may change the width as you wish .
I also wish net classes had different width range selections for each layer,
so that it can be used to DRC check for track impedance issues.
Ive somewhat implemented this in my own DRC checker (written in ULP), where
I embed the layer specific stuff into the class name. Here is an example:
class1
name="LVDS100:strict:skew=0.127:1=0.0991/0.2:3=0.0762/0.2:5=0.0762/0.2:7=0.0762/0.2:9=0.0813/0.2:16=0.0991/0.2"
This tells my ULP to check class1 lvds signals for:
"strict" says its not allowed on other layers than specified here
skew=0.127mm
layer1,16 with=0.0991,spacing 0.2
layer3,5,7 with=0.0762,spacing 0.2
Hopefully this will be obsolete when v6 comes out 
Christian Bohrer wrote on Fri, 11 February 2011 01:24
<snip>
As an aside, wouldn't it be better if the manual router used the
net class information to preload
the width of the traces? I never actually noticed that it doesn't.
Maybe that's why I stopped
using net classes
In Options > Settings > Misc, there is a parameter for that:
[] Auto set route width and drill
When did that sneak in there? I've often had the same thought about net
classes and manual routing. But it seems difficult to implement, knowing
when to use the default and when to use any overrides by the user.
I'll give it a try next time I route....
James.
--
James Morrison ~~~ Stratford Digital
Specializing in CadSoft EAGLE
Online Sales to North America
Electronic Design Services
EAGLE Enterprise Toolkit
--
Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca. Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.
James Morrison wrote:
>> In Options > Settings > Misc, there is a parameter for that:
>> [] Auto set route width and drill
>
When did that sneak in there? I've often had the same thought about
net classes and manual routing. But it seems difficult to implement,
knowing when to use the default and when to use any overrides by the
user.
I'll give it a try next time I route....
Seems it came with v5.5 according to the Update notes
I tried it and it seems very usable. I did have a few "operator problems"
when using the Shift key to continue a trace with the last used width. I
found I kept my finger on the shift key so at the next wire end I would end
up placing a via. It was a bit alarming the first time it happened as the
via layer was hidden so it took some moments to determine why I had airwires
poking out all over the place. 
Warren
