Bitmap import into schematic

Long story short in a graphics program the bitmap looked crisp and

clear. After importing it into an Eagle schematics window it was all

blurry like I had ten beers and with a bright yellow background. Useless

for any redline work, so I did it as usual with a red pen and my

scanner. Why is that rendering so badly in Eagle?

i know similar problems in other programs if they fail to render the

alpha channel in a Bitmap picture.

Perhaps you have better effort, with a different fileformat,

or after adding a white background layer and flatten the layers

to the visible.

Gimp can do that.

hth, good luck,

--

Jonas Stein <news@jonasstein.de>

Jonas Stein wrote:

>> Long story short in a graphics program the bitmap looked crisp and

>> clear. After importing it into an Eagle schematics window it was all

>> blurry like I had ten beers and with a bright yellow background. Useless

>> for any redline work, so I did it as usual with a red pen and my

>> scanner. Why is that rendering so badly in Eagle?

 

i know similar problems in other programs if they fail to render the

alpha channel in a Bitmap picture.

 

Perhaps you have better effort, with a different fileformat,

or after adding a white background layer and flatten the layers

to the visible.

 

Gimp can do that.

 

AFAIK Eagle will only take a bitmap. The background was white but after

importing into Eagle it turned bright yellow. That would be ok (sort of)

but the resolution was greatly reduced and so bad that I had to do this

sketch job by hand again.

Maybe I should buy a green ink pen as well in case another reviewer has

used red already

--

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 5/9/2011 4:00 PM, Joerg wrote:

Jonas Stein wrote:

>>> Long story short in a graphics program the bitmap looked crisp and

>>> clear. After importing it into an Eagle schematics window it was all

>>> blurry like I had ten beers and with a bright yellow background. Useless

>>> for any redline work, so I did it as usual with a red pen and my

>>> scanner. Why is that rendering so badly in Eagle?

>>

>> i know similar problems in other programs if they fail to render the

>> alpha channel in a Bitmap picture.

>>

>> Perhaps you have better effort, with a different fileformat,

>> or after adding a white background layer and flatten the layers

>> to the visible.

>>

>> Gimp can do that.

>>

>

AFAIK Eagle will only take a bitmap. The background was white but after

importing into Eagle it turned bright yellow. That would be ok (sort of)

but the resolution was greatly reduced and so bad that I had to do this

sketch job by hand again.

 

Maybe I should buy a green ink pen as well in case another reviewer has

used red already

 

I think the problem is that EAGLE can not handle the bitmap image

directly, i believe when it is imported it will be converted to polygons

and vectors. but the yellow background is very interesting...no

explanation for that!

Gary Gofstein wrote:

On 5/9/2011 4:00 PM, Joerg wrote:

>> Jonas Stein wrote:

>>>> Long story short in a graphics program the bitmap looked crisp and

>>>> clear. After importing it into an Eagle schematics window it was all

>>>> blurry like I had ten beers and with a bright yellow background.

>>>> Useless

>>>> for any redline work, so I did it as usual with a red pen and my

>>>> scanner. Why is that rendering so badly in Eagle?

>>>

>>> i know similar problems in other programs if they fail to render the

>>> alpha channel in a Bitmap picture.

>>>

>>> Perhaps you have better effort, with a different fileformat,

>>> or after adding a white background layer and flatten the layers

>>> to the visible.

>>>

>>> Gimp can do that.

>>>

>>

>> AFAIK Eagle will only take a bitmap. The background was white but after

>> importing into Eagle it turned bright yellow. That would be ok (sort of)

>> but the resolution was greatly reduced and so bad that I had to do this

>> sketch job by hand again.

>>

>> Maybe I should buy a green ink pen as well in case another reviewer has

>> used red already

>>

I think the problem is that EAGLE can not handle the bitmap image

directly, i believe when it is imported it will be converted to polygons

and vectors. but the yellow background is very interesting...no

explanation for that!

Once the bitmap was in Eagle it didn't look like vector but an

assortment of coarse fuzzy blocks. Similar to what you see on the screen

of a digital TV set shortly before the signal pixelates out, plus the

fuzz overlay.

The yellow was full pigmentation, like a school bus

--

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg schrieb:

AFAIK Eagle will only take a bitmap. The background was white but after

importing into Eagle it turned bright yellow. That would be ok (sort of)

but the resolution was greatly reduced and so bad that I had to do this

sketch job by hand again.

I don't understand your problem. Of course, EAGLE can take only "binary"

pixels, no color shades, and the color it displays is the color assigned

to the particular layer. There also is no background color.

So it's pretty obvious you need a true b/w image and convert that by one

of the available programs. The result are rectangles in the given layer,

representing single pixels resp. pixel lines of your image. The

pixel/rectangle size is provided to the converter as a parameter. It's a

simple 1:1 conversion, and in EAGLE the result looks /exactly/ identical

to the bitmap source.

BTDT.

Tilmann

Tilmann Reh wrote:

Joerg schrieb:

 

>> AFAIK Eagle will only take a bitmap. The background was white but after

>> importing into Eagle it turned bright yellow. That would be ok (sort of)

>> but the resolution was greatly reduced and so bad that I had to do this

>> sketch job by hand again.

 

I don't understand your problem. Of course, EAGLE can take only "binary"

pixels, no color shades, and the color it displays is the color assigned

to the particular layer. There also is no background color.

 

Hmm, the import-bmp.ulp just asked me to reduce the number of colors to

32 or something like that, so I did.

So it's pretty obvious you need a true b/w image and convert that by on

of the available programs. The result are rectangles in the given layer,

representing single pixels resp. pixel lines of your image. The

pixel/rectangle size is provided to the converter as a parameter. It's a

simple 1:1 conversion, and in EAGLE the result looks /exactly/ identical

to the bitmap source.

 

Ok, so now I took a graph from the BC857 datasheet (source: NXP) and

reduced the grayscale to pure black and white. Looks less nice after

that and won't work for all cases but ok, man's gotta do what man's

gotta do. The result is attached. This time it turned green

I had cut cut out little pieces and reduce the JPEG because the Cadsoft

server limits post sizes. But the green and the white stripes still

show, also the poor quality of the graph. Result is in the next post

(hopefully ...)

BTDT.

 

Wish I knew how. The other thing that happens is that rendering in Eagle

becomes very slow after import.

--

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Tilmann Reh wrote:

Joerg schrieb:

 

>> AFAIK Eagle will only take a bitmap. The background was white but after

>> importing into Eagle it turned bright yellow. That would be ok (sort of)

>> but the resolution was greatly reduced and so bad that I had to do this

>> sketch job by hand again.

 

I don't understand your problem. Of course, EAGLE can take only "binary"

pixels, no color shades, and the color it displays is the color assigned

to the particular layer. There also is no background color.

 

Hmm, the import-bmp.ulp just asked me to reduce the number of colors to

32 or something like that, so I did.

So it's pretty obvious you need a true b/w image and convert that by on

of the available programs. The result are rectangles in the given layer,

representing single pixels resp. pixel lines of your image. The

pixel/rectangle size is provided to the converter as a parameter. It's a

simple 1:1 conversion, and in EAGLE the result looks /exactly/ identical

to the bitmap source.

 

Ok, so now I took a graph from the BC857 datasheet (source: NXP) and

reduced the grayscale to pure black and white. Looks less nice after

that and won't work for all cases but ok, man's gotta do what man's

gotta do. The result is attached. This time it turned green

I had cut cut out little pieces and reduce the JPEG because the Cadsoft

server limits post sizes. But the green and the white stripes still

show, also the poor quality of the graph. Result is in the next post

(hopefully ...)

BTDT.

 

Wish I knew how. The other thing that happens is that rendering in Eagle

becomes very slow after import.

--

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg wrote:

Tilmann Reh wrote:

>> Joerg schrieb:

>>

>>> AFAIK Eagle will only take a bitmap. The background was white but

>>> after importing into Eagle it turned bright yellow. That would be

>>> ok (sort of) but the resolution was greatly reduced and so bad that

>>> I had to do this sketch job by hand again.

>>

>> I don't understand your problem. Of course, EAGLE can take only

>> "binary" pixels, no color shades, and the color it displays is the

>> color assigned to the particular layer. There also is no background

>> color.

>>

>

Hmm, the import-bmp.ulp just asked me to reduce the number of colors

to 32 or something like that, so I did.

 

>

>> So it's pretty obvious you need a true b/w image and convert that by

>> on of the available programs. The result are rectangles in the given

>> layer, representing single pixels resp. pixel lines of your image.

>> The pixel/rectangle size is provided to the converter as a

>> parameter. It's a simple 1:1 conversion, and in EAGLE the result

>> looks /exactly/ identical to the bitmap source.

>>

>

Ok, so now I took a graph from the BC857 datasheet (source: NXP) and

reduced the grayscale to pure black and white. Looks less nice after

that and won't work for all cases but ok, man's gotta do what man's

gotta do. The result is attached. This time it turned green

 

I had cut cut out little pieces and reduce the JPEG because the

Cadsoft server limits post sizes. But the green and the white stripes

still show, also the poor quality of the graph. Result is in the next

post (hopefully ...)

 

>

>> BTDT.

>>

>

Wish I knew how. The other thing that happens is that rendering in

Eagle becomes very slow after import.

Joerg

I believe your expectations are different to the way the ULP presents its

results.

Here are some points to assist you. To get it clear in your mind, practice

with a monochrome bit image.

A monochrome image has one (1) colour, black. The other colour (white) is

'background' so when you are asked to select colors, only select the black.

The background colour will be that of the editor.

For each colour imported the ULP creates a layer and assigns a colour to it.

For a monochrome image with one colour selected you get one new layer. In

your case you selected two, the second being the green/yellow you see.

Import a six colour image and you will get six new layers. By default they

are layers 200 and up.

Image choice is important. Ensure there is no anti-aliasing, like your BC857

example. This creates a number of greys which will all get their own layer.

As mentioned by others. The pixels of your image are changed to rectangle

objects. The foggy look is a mix of the rectangles, the layer's fill pattern

and the resolution of your source image.

Hope this helps

Warren

Joerg wrote on Tue, 10 May 2011 15:14

Tilmann Reh wrote:

Wish I knew how. The other thing that happens is that rendering in

Eagle

becomes very slow after import.

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Hi Joerg,

The reason EAGLE becomes slower is because the bitmap import is creating a

small rectangle for every pixel (or number of pixels, depending on scale

factor you selected).  The idea is that you then use that as a guide and

draw bigger objects (like one rectangle for 100's of the little pixels) on

the layers you want (like tplace typically).  Then delete all the objects

on the importing layers used.

It's not perfect and not real polished.  But it will work--I've done it for

a bunch of different logos.

Good luck.

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.

Warren Brayshaw wrote:

Joerg wrote:

>> Tilmann Reh wrote:

>>> Joerg schrieb:

>>>

>>>> AFAIK Eagle will only take a bitmap. The background was white but

>>>> after importing into Eagle it turned bright yellow. That would be

>>>> ok (sort of) but the resolution was greatly reduced and so bad that

>>>> I had to do this sketch job by hand again.

>>> I don't understand your problem. Of course, EAGLE can take only

>>> "binary" pixels, no color shades, and the color it displays is the

>>> color assigned to the particular layer. There also is no background

>>> color.

>>>

>> Hmm, the import-bmp.ulp just asked me to reduce the number of colors

>> to 32 or something like that, so I did.

>>

>>

>>> So it's pretty obvious you need a true b/w image and convert that by

>>> on of the available programs. The result are rectangles in the given

>>> layer, representing single pixels resp. pixel lines of your image.

>>> The pixel/rectangle size is provided to the converter as a

>>> parameter. It's a simple 1:1 conversion, and in EAGLE the result

>>> looks /exactly/ identical to the bitmap source.

>>>

>> Ok, so now I took a graph from the BC857 datasheet (source: NXP) and

>> reduced the grayscale to pure black and white. Looks less nice after

>> that and won't work for all cases but ok, man's gotta do what man's

>> gotta do. The result is attached. This time it turned green

>>

>> I had cut cut out little pieces and reduce the JPEG because the

>> Cadsoft server limits post sizes. But the green and the white stripes

>> still show, also the poor quality of the graph. Result is in the next

>> post (hopefully ...)

>>

>>

>>> BTDT.

>>>

>> Wish I knew how. The other thing that happens is that rendering in

>> Eagle becomes very slow after import.

 

Joerg

I believe your expectations are different to the way the ULP presents its

results.

Here are some points to assist you. To get it clear in your mind, practice

with a monochrome bit image.

 

A monochrome image has one (1) colour, black. The other colour (white) is

'background' so when you are asked to select colors, only select the black.

Aha! Thanks, that did it. Still not pretty but loads.

The background colour will be that of the editor.

For each colour imported the ULP creates a layer and assigns a colour to it.

For a monochrome image with one colour selected you get one new layer. In

your case you selected two, the second being the green/yellow you see.

Import a six colour image and you will get six new layers. By default they

are layers 200 and up.

 

Image choice is important. Ensure there is no anti-aliasing, like your BC857

example. This creates a number of greys which will all get their own layer.

 

I chopped grayscale in the file, so color it completely binary, only two

states.

As mentioned by others. The pixels of your image are changed to rectangle

objects. The foggy look is a mix of the rectangles, the layer's fill pattern

and the resolution of your source image.

 

Slowly I get the impression this isn't such a useful thing for the

purpose I want it for, at least not with Eagle. What I planned was this:

Receive PDF schematics from a client. Snapshot large sections out of

those, place in Eagle, delete stuff, draw some new stuff in there so

their circuit will work alright, print to PDF and send back.

Sad thing is, PDF is often already vector graphics. But not after using

snapshot, and probably Eagle could not import foreign vector graphics

anyhow.

--

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.

Use another domain or send PM.

James Morrison wrote:

Joerg wrote on Tue, 10 May 2011 15:14

>> Tilmann Reh wrote:

>> Wish I knew how. The other thing that happens is that rendering in

>> Eagle

>> becomes very slow after import.

>> http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

Hi Joerg,

 

The reason EAGLE becomes slower is because the bitmap import is creating a

small rectangle for every pixel (or number of pixels, depending on scale

factor you selected).  The idea is that you then use that as a guide and

draw bigger objects (like one rectangle for 100's of the little pixels) on

the layers you want (like tplace typically).  Then delete all the objects

on the importing layers used.

 

Yeah, it ain't useful for what I was planning to do, marking up other

people's schematics taken by snapshot out of PDF.

It's not perfect and not real polished.  But it will work--I've done it for

a bunch of different logos.

 

For logos I can imagine it'll work. But for schematic work the imported

(and converted) bitmap makes it way too slow to be useful. So here I

thought I had found a really wacky use for Eagle but fell on my behind

Guess I'll keep buying red pens and white-out then. Some day they may

not even carry white-out because nobody uses typewriters anymore.

--

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.

Use another domain or send PM.

Joerg wrote on Tue, 10 May 2011 20:26

It's not perfect and not real polished.  But it will work--I've

done it for

a bunch of different logos.

 

 

For logos I can imagine it'll work. But for schematic work the

imported

(and converted) bitmap makes it way too slow to be useful. So here I

thought I had found a really wacky use for Eagle but fell on my behind

I hope in EAGLE 6 they allow for pasting in real images like a word

document.  In the schematic it should be easy enough I would think.  It's a

great way to document things like boot mode resistor settings and other

configurations.  In other tools I'll copy a section right out of the

datasheet and paste it right into the schematic--nice and quick and no

typos.  You can also paste in any other information to help document the

design.

In the board editor, I can see it being a bit more complicated.  But I'm

sure they could make a special layer for this that doesn't have any real

electrical use.  Maybe the CAM processor just ignores these objects.  It

would be useful for the same reasons and more.

Cheers,

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.

Joerg schrieb:

Slowly I get the impression this isn't such a useful thing for the

purpose I want it for, at least not with Eagle. What I planned was this:

Receive PDF schematics from a client. Snapshot large sections out of

those, place in Eagle, delete stuff, draw some new stuff in there so

their circuit will work alright, print to PDF and send back.

Yes, this is exactly not what it's for.

Tilmann

James Morrison wrote:

Joerg wrote on Tue, 10 May 2011 20:26

>>> It's not perfect and not real polished.  But it will work--I've

>>> done it for

>>> a bunch of different logos.

>>>

>> For logos I can imagine it'll work. But for schematic work the

>> imported

>> (and converted) bitmap makes it way too slow to be useful. So here I

>> thought I had found a really wacky use for Eagle but fell on my behind

>>

 

I hope in EAGLE 6 they allow for pasting in real images like a word

document.  In the schematic it should be easy enough I would think.  It's a

great way to document things like boot mode resistor settings and other

configurations.  In other tools I'll copy a section right out of the

datasheet and paste it right into the schematic--nice and quick and no

typos.  You can also paste in any other information to help document the

design.

Absolutely. Maybe you remember TV set schematics from the good old days?

They had dozens of oscilloscope plots in there, often in the form of

photos because back then no (affordable) computers existed. These "mini

plots" told the reader of the schematic what to look for, how the

signals had to be. Very effective for the diagnosis of a faulty set.

Seems the only way to do that with Eagle is to finish the schematic,

export to a graphics format, load it into some photo shop type

application and add the pics there.

Would be nice if V6 was a bit better in the graphics import features but

it's only a "nice to have", not so essential. Hierarchy is much more

important, that can really help Eagle move more into the mainstream. It

won't stand a chance without, IMHO.

 

In the board editor, I can see it being a bit more complicated.  But I'm

sure they could make a special layer for this that doesn't have any real

electrical use.  Maybe the CAM processor just ignores these objects.  It

would be useful for the same reasons and more.

 

In a layout I wouldn't really know what it'd be good for. I do the same

kind of reviewing with layouts. But there I just import a chunk of the

Gerbers into, ahem, MS-Paint. Then lots of delete, copy, paste and now

the client or layouter has instructions how to re-route stuff so they

pass EMC this time.

--

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg wrote on Wed, 11 May 2011 10:24

I hope in EAGLE 6 they allow for pasting in real images like a

word

document.  In the schematic it should be easy enough I would think.

It's a

great way to document things like boot mode resistor settings and

other

configurations.  In other tools I'll copy a section right out of

the

datasheet and paste it right into the schematic--nice and quick and

no

typos.  You can also paste in any other information to help

document the

design.

 

Absolutely. Maybe you remember TV set schematics from the good old

days?

They had dozens of oscilloscope plots in there, often in the form of

photos because back then no (affordable) computers existed. These

"mini

plots" told the reader of the schematic what to look for, how the

signals had to be. Very effective for the diagnosis of a faulty set.

There are lots of ways you could paste in diagrams, charts, datasheet

snippets, block diagrams, ... that would all help document the design.

Quote:

In the board editor, I can see it being a bit more complicated.

But I'm

sure they could make a special layer for this that doesn't have any

real

electrical use.  Maybe the CAM processor just ignores these

objects.  It

would be useful for the same reasons and more.

 

 

In a layout I wouldn't really know what it'd be good for. I do the

same

kind of reviewing with layouts. But there I just import a chunk of the

Gerbers into, ahem, MS-Paint. Then lots of delete, copy, paste and now

the client or layouter has instructions how to re-route stuff so they

pass EMC this time.

Images I would paste into a PCB:

1)  datasheet snippets (text and images) that discuss layout issues and

recommendations

2)  mechanical drawings

3)  stackup diagrams, e.g. screen shot from HyperLynx

4)  connector pinout diagrams from design specs

That is just off the top of my head.

I think one of the most frustrating things to me is CadSoft seems to

consider documentation to not be part of the design.  To me, this sort of

documentation is as much a part of a successful design as the actual traces

and vias.  This is especially true when more than one person works on the

design.

With Altium changing their strategy and seemingly trying to become a higher

and higher level design tool, it seems to be that the value CAD market is

ripe for domination by EAGLE.

And the sad part is, most of these features that everyone uses and EAGLE

can do, it just doesn't do very well or doesn't do it out of the box,

wouldn't take very long to integrate in properly and improve the newbie

experience by a big percentage.

Then there are the more advanced features like heirarchy and differential

routing which pushes CadSoft into the more professional tool arena.

By doing these things, I would think that EAGLE would start taking a big

amount of market share from others.  When a lifetime license is less than a

one year service contract, who can argue.  Very few companies need the big,

vertical toolsets.  Some do, most don't.

Cheers,

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:

Joerg wrote on Wed, 11 May 2011 10:24

>>> In the board editor, I can see it being a bit more complicated.

>>> But I'm

>>> sure they could make a special layer for this that doesn't have any

>>> real

>>> electrical use.  Maybe the CAM processor just ignores these

>>> objects.  It

>>> would be useful for the same reasons and more.

>>>

>> In a layout I wouldn't really know what it'd be good for. I do the

>> same

>> kind of reviewing with layouts. But there I just import a chunk of the

>> Gerbers into, ahem, MS-Paint. Then lots of delete, copy, paste and now

>> the client or layouter has instructions how to re-route stuff so they

>> pass EMC this time.

 

Images I would paste into a PCB:

1)  datasheet snippets (text and images) that discuss layout issues and

recommendations

2)  mechanical drawings

3)  stackup diagrams, e.g. screen shot from HyperLynx

4)  connector pinout diagrams from design specs

 

That is just off the top of my head.

 

Ok, that's a bit unusual to me but then again I don't do layouts.

I think one of the most frustrating things to me is CadSoft seems to

consider documentation to not be part of the design.  To me, this sort of

documentation is as much a part of a successful design as the actual traces

and vias.  This is especially true when more than one person works on the

design.

 

Back since the days of Orcad-SDT I have a strict rule that still

applies: When I start a design I never start in the schematic editor but

always with Word document. All pertinent information from the client

goes in there first, becoming chapter 1 or the spec. Then as ideas come

up text and schematics are developed concurrently, including

explanations why I used an I/Q mixer over yonder and not a filter

approach, stuff like that. So if I get hit by a falling meteorite

someone else can pick it up right from there.

With Altium changing their strategy and seemingly trying to become a higher

and higher level design tool, it seems to be that the value CAD market is

ripe for domination by EAGLE.

 

Their move to China didn't instill much confidence in me.

And the sad part is, most of these features that everyone uses and EAGLE

can do, it just doesn't do very well or doesn't do it out of the box,

wouldn't take very long to integrate in properly and improve the newbie

experience by a big percentage.

 

Then there are the more advanced features like heirarchy and differential

routing which pushes CadSoft into the more professional tool arena.

 

I never understood why the hierarchy was pushed out as "not so

important". Until a week ago I worked with a schematic of over 50 pages.

Without a hierarchy that would have been over 150 pages. I see no way a

project of that magnitude could be handled with the current versions of

Eagle.

By doing these things, I would think that EAGLE would start taking a big

amount of market share from others.  When a lifetime license is less than a

one year service contract, who can argue.  Very few companies need the big,

vertical toolsets.  Some do, most don't.

 

Integrated is nice, for example I cannot simulate from within Eagle and

I've had a couple of cases where schematic transcription errors snuck

in. Then again Orcad-PSpice which is fully integrated crashed on me so

many times the last couple of months that I really don't want that to be

my main CAD tool.

--

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 5/11/2011 9:17 AM, James Morrison wrote:

Joerg wrote on Wed, 11 May 2011 10:24

>>> I hope in EAGLE 6 they allow for pasting in real images like a

>>> word

>>> document.  In the schematic it should be easy enough I would think.

>>>   It's a

>>> great way to document things like boot mode resistor settings and

>>> other

>>> configurations.  In other tools I'll copy a section right out of

>>> the

>>> datasheet and paste it right into the schematic--nice and quick and

>>> no

>>> typos.  You can also paste in any other information to help

>>> document the

>>> design.

>>

>>

>> Absolutely. Maybe you remember TV set schematics from the good old

>> days?

>> They had dozens of oscilloscope plots in there, often in the form of

>> photos because back then no (affordable) computers existed. These

>> "mini

>> plots" told the reader of the schematic what to look for, how the

>> signals had to be. Very effective for the diagnosis of a faulty set.

>

There are lots of ways you could paste in diagrams, charts, datasheet

snippets, block diagrams, ... that would all help document the design.

 

Quote:

>>> In the board editor, I can see it being a bit more complicated.

>>> But I'm

>>> sure they could make a special layer for this that doesn't have any

>>> real

>>> electrical use.  Maybe the CAM processor just ignores these

>>> objects.  It

>>> would be useful for the same reasons and more.

>>>

>>

>> In a layout I wouldn't really know what it'd be good for. I do the

>> same

>> kind of reviewing with layouts. But there I just import a chunk of the

>> Gerbers into, ahem, MS-Paint. Then lots of delete, copy, paste and now

>> the client or layouter has instructions how to re-route stuff so they

>> pass EMC this time.

>

Images I would paste into a PCB:

1)  datasheet snippets (text and images) that discuss layout issues and

recommendations

2)  mechanical drawings

3)  stackup diagrams, e.g. screen shot from HyperLynx

4)  connector pinout diagrams from design specs

 

That is just off the top of my head.

 

I think one of the most frustrating things to me is CadSoft seems to

consider documentation to not be part of the design.  To me, this sort of

documentation is as much a part of a successful design as the actual traces

and vias.  This is especially true when more than one person works on the

design.

 

With Altium changing their strategy and seemingly trying to become a higher

and higher level design tool, it seems to be that the value CAD market is

ripe for domination by EAGLE.

 

And the sad part is, most of these features that everyone uses and EAGLE

can do, it just doesn't do very well or doesn't do it out of the box,

wouldn't take very long to integrate in properly and improve the newbie

experience by a big percentage.

 

Then there are the more advanced features like heirarchy and differential

routing which pushes CadSoft into the more professional tool arena.

 

By doing these things, I would think that EAGLE would start taking a big

amount of market share from others.  When a lifetime license is less than a

one year service contract, who can argue.  Very few companies need the big,

vertical toolsets.  Some do, most don't.

 

Cheers,

 

James.

Some very good points here James, IMHO...