Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 46 replies
  • Subscribers 176 subscribers
  • Views 3035 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Whats happening with EagleCad & Cadsoft?

Former Member

HI,

 

There have been plenty of user suggestions (including myself ) over the

years and many relating to the same old issues.

 

As a PAYING User, I have essentially invested my money ( but a lot of my

time) into using & Learning EagleCad.

 

So..

 

I would like to know ( from the horses mouth if possible) what is Cadsoft

Proposing/Planning for the next release(s) of Eagle Cad?

Is there an advantage to anyone ( especially users) if future features are

kept secret?

 

The following is what I can see as major changes in no particular order and

not inclusive..

 

Q1) Are there going to be any major changes to the LIBRARY?

 

Q2) Are we going to have a proper user definable /properly integrated BOM

window ?

 

Q3) Can CUT, COPY & PASTE ( and selection/group) work just like any other

application?

 

Q4) Can we open more than one PROJECT or LIBRARY part at the same time?

Will we be able to copy and paste ( Drag and drop) between these?

 

Q5) Can all the user settings and scr files ( or whatever setting files) be

kept in just ONE FILE , in one place and All accessible in ONE User

Preference (TABBED) window? (we can get rid of the Control panel if we do

this, and it means that updating Eaglecad will be less painful).

 

Q6) Are their any plans for some sort of SChematic/Layout hierarchy or

SUB-Circuits feature.

 

Q7) Any plans for a built in Gerber Viewer ( mac users have almost nothing

to work with here?)

 

Q8) Any plans for built in Circuit Simulation ( even basic stuff)?

 

Q9) Any plans for The Built in text editor to have its own Syntax

Highlighting etc?

 

Q10) Any plans for a built in Gerber Panalizer/Merger Tool?

 

Q11) Are there any plans for more control over pads/holes in the device

editor? i.e Odd/Complex shapes.

 

Q12) Can the design link feature work with other suppliers. ( should be

part of the BOM System anyhow)

 

Q13) Can we place less reliance on ULP's and command line entries as a

source of features/enhancements or usability, this should really be only

for specialised tasks. If you have a look at the ULP's over the years

theres a ton of them for Library Management and BOM'S  Is that telling you

something?

 

Q14) Can we have single keystroke functions for at lease basic items, Move,

Change Layer, etc ( user definable of course).

 

I just want to know whats happening, The Beta Test forum is VERY QUIET, The

last release only really had Farnell Shopping added/improved and a few bug

fix's, I am worried that development has either slowed down or stopped. OR

is their  something big in the pipeline. ( hoping!)

 

I am also worried that most suggestions are "Frowned" upon and this really

puts new users off !

 

So that I , ( and everyone else ) can stop wasting our time ( and your

time) with suggestions, can you please answer or give us something to look

forward to?

 

One reason I am asking all the above is that I am considering spending a

LOT OF TIME learning the scripting language so that I can program my own

features ( I have lots of big ideas) , Why, Because I don't know what is

the future for Eaglecad, And I am concerned that I may get to the stage of

writing very useful ULP's and then Cadsoft will release something in the

near future that replaces my work. Remember that all the time I spend

learning the scripting language TAKES ME AWAY From designing boards and

managing production, which is what brings in the money! and besides I

really pay cadsoft for the programming expertise.

 

At the end of the day I believe Eaglecad has a lot of potential, while I

can get boards designed ( its all there as far as capabilities are

concerned) I just think that there are too many frustrating / cumbersome

ways of doing things when I know there are easier /better ways.

 

The designing of a schematic or Layout or even designing a library part is

quite easy ( once you finally figure out the Eaglecad way) , and yes this

is the main parts of an application like this. The issues are with the way

it all comes together or integrates and is managed and how the user

interacts with it. As I have stated above  the key issues are Mainly

Project management, BOM Management, and especially Libray Management.

 

Thanks for listening .

 

Dave M

 

PS Please don't condemn me for asking.

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

 

  •  

    "James Morrison" <james@eaglecentral.ca> wrote in message

    news:j0v47r$1ga$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

    Joerg wrote on Fri, 29 July 2011 16:06

    >> Andrew Sterian wrote:

    I agree with you Joerg.  I see more and more requirements for hierarchy

    support.  Design reuse of layout is tightly-integrated with hierarchy as

    well, which is another requirement for professional design which I hope

    doesn't get dropped as well.

     

     

    If the "project's library" (that I have proposed a while ago) would have

    been implemented, this "hierarchy/reuse" problem would have been solved by

    default....

     

     

     

  • Am 29.07.2011 21:57, schrieb Andrew Sterian:

    On 7/29/11 3:41 PM, Joerg wrote:

    >> Thanks for the info, Klaus. This is very sad. I can only tell you from

    >> about 25 years of experience that not having a hierarchy is a major

    >> show-stopper in the sales process of a schematic editor. At many large

    >> companies a strict top down design flow is required, so they'll never

    >> buy Cadsoft tools. Yet that's where the big bucks would be for you guys,

    >> companies that buy licenses by the baker's dozen.

     

    No company should attempt to be everything to everybody. Eagle is Eagle,

    Altium is Altium. I can live without hierarchy and would much rather

    CadSoft focused on improving Eagle for the purpose/market that it serves.

     

    Andrew.

     

    You are right! Fortunately eagle is eagle and others are others.

    I wouldn't want to mix up apples with pears BUT the hobbyists use the

    free or low price version. The pro's asking (in my opinion) for

    hierarchy because it is not only them but mostly the client who wants

    this. For me it is:"take it or leave it". So it sometimes hurt to see a

    fat order go.

    Certainly eagle has not all the features like the high price segments

    but a good price / performance ratio.

    So as eagle goes to a new version with some mayor changes as it seems

    I'm disappointed, because this wish exists since ages (seit JahrenDEN,

    wie man in Norddeutschland sagen würde;-) )

     

    So cadsoft, I'm not pushig you, take your time but PLEASE give us hierarchy.

     

    --

    Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards

     

    Joern Paschedag

     

  •  

    "Joern Paschedag" <jpaschedag@t-online.de> wrote in message

    news:j116t1$5o3$3@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

    So as eagle goes to a new version with some mayor changes as it seems I'm

    disappointed...

    The same was here, with all "new major versions". This is specific to

    Cadsoft team, and I don't think it will change any time soon.

     

    And yes, hobbyist price is decent for the offered features.

     

     

     

  • davem wrote:

    Hi,

     

    Obviously for CADSOFT to implement some kind of hierarchy feature would be

    a big job!

     

     

    Afraid so image

     

     

    First it would not be a bad idea for all registered users to have a say in

    ideas in how this should work.

     

     

    That's why we have these NNTP groups. Which is, by the way, a most

    excellent form of communicating with a customer base. I don't know any

    other company other than Cadsoft that does this. Most others use web

    forums which are sluggish.

     

     

    Perhaps the idea/specification could be developed first , and then we could

    implement parts of the feature in stages.

     

     

    The spec is already there, since a long time. In the past I used

    Orcad-SDT which does hierarchies nicely since the 1980's. The only

    reason I switched away from it was lack of printer and graphics support

    because they switched to Windows in the 90's and I found those releases

    not to be up to my software quality standards.

     

    So all we need to do it look at how it's done in such software.

     

     

    --

    Regards, Joerg

     

    http://www.analogconsultants.com/

     

  • davem wrote:

    Hi, Joerg,

     

    You mentioned the "Spec is already there"

     

    Can you point to where this is? , I would be interested in reading it.

     

     

    Unfortunately this predates the Internet age and it's on my bookshelf,

    the OrCad SDT manual. There is a Yahoo group "OldDosOrcad" that has the

    manuals for OrCad 386 in the file section. It's a zip file and it was

    the next generation from mine, early 90's. Haven't looked at it because

    I don't have 386 but I am pretty sure they didn't take any features of

    the hierarchy out.

     

    Essentially you can nest numerous hierarchy layers and you only have to

    draw or place repetitive blocks once. That is almost inevitable if, for

    example you are designing a 32-channel ultrasound frontend. I can't

    imagine how to do that with Eagle without contortions. Entering the next

    layer in a hierarchy is deceptively slick in DOS-OrCad. You just click

    on the sheet that says "Pre-Amplifier" and whoops, it take you right there.

     

    --

    Regards, Joerg

     

    http://www.analogconsultants.com/

     

  • davem wrote:

    Hi, Joerg,

     

    You mentioned the "Spec is already there"

     

     

    The subject and the requests/suggests have beeen discussed ad infinitum.

    Thats why there has been no discussion in recent months. Those forum members

    here at the time understand that CadSoft already have the guidence they

    need. This could be thought of as 'the spec'.

     

    Warren

     

     

     

     

  • in reply to Former Member

    davem wrote:

    Hi, Joerg,

     

    You mentioned the "Spec is already there"

     

    Can you point to where this is? , I would be interested in reading it.

     

     

    Unfortunately this predates the Internet age and it's on my bookshelf,

    the OrCad SDT manual. There is a Yahoo group "OldDosOrcad" that has the

    manuals for OrCad 386 in the file section. It's a zip file and it was

    the next generation from mine, early 90's. Haven't looked at it because

    I don't have 386 but I am pretty sure they didn't take any features of

    the hierarchy out.

     

    Essentially you can nest numerous hierarchy layers and you only have to

    draw or place repetitive blocks once. That is almost inevitable if, for

    example you are designing a 32-channel ultrasound frontend. I can't

    imagine how to do that with Eagle without contortions. Entering the next

    layer in a hierarchy is deceptively slick in DOS-OrCad. You just click

    on the sheet that says "Pre-Amplifier" and whoops, it take you right there.

     

    --

    Regards, Joerg

     

    http://www.analogconsultants.com/

     

  • in reply to kcadsoft

    Klaus Schmidinger wrote:

     

    ..........We normally don't speak publicly about things that haven't been

    implemented yet, but here are the things I can say so far:.............

     

    ................This is what's currently being implemented. Any wires in

    signal

    layers that are connected to a pad, and any polygons in signal layers

    that contain a pad, will be handled as part of that pad.

     

     

    It has been declared that the Power layers will be dispensed with and all

    inner copper layers will be regular signal layers.

    It has been said that pads will now be enhanced with polygon and wire

    extensions, thus making irregular shaped pads possible. I assume that SMD

    are included.

     

    For the through hole PAD this raises the question of the requested feature

    'Pad stack'. Will there be Pad Stack functionality to specify pad dimension

    for the inner layers and  for each outer layer seperately, for a library

    package?  This part needs to ignore DRC restring settings. (likely only for

    the outer layers as internal layers will likely be meeting an 'internal

    layer standard' based on drill size).

     

     

    Thanks

    Warren

     

     

     

     

     

  • in reply to Former Member

    On 08/02/11 01:47, Warren Brayshaw wrote:

    Klaus Schmidinger wrote:

     

    >> ..........We normally don't speak publicly about things that haven't been

    >> implemented yet, but here are the things I can say so far:.............

    >>

    >> ................This is what's currently being implemented. Any wires in

    signal

    >> layers that are connected to a pad, and any polygons in signal layers

    >> that contain a pad, will be handled as part of that pad.

    >

    It has been declared that the Power layers will be dispensed with and all

    inner copper layers will be regular signal layers.

    It has been said that pads will now be enhanced with polygon and wire

    extensions, thus making irregular shaped pads possible. I assume that SMD

    are included.

     

    Yes, this applies to SMDs as well.

     

    For the through hole PAD this raises the question of the requested feature

    'Pad stack'. Will there be Pad Stack functionality to specify pad dimension

    for the inner layers and  for each outer layer seperately, for a library

    package?  This part needs to ignore DRC restring settings. (likely only for

    the outer layers as internal layers will likely be meeting an 'internal

    layer standard' based on drill size).

     

    You will be able to draw wires and polygons for pads in any signal

    layer.

     

    Klaus Schmidinger

    --

    _______________________________________________________________

     

    Klaus Schmidinger                       Phone: +49-8635-6989-10

    CadSoft Computer GmbH                   Fax:   +49-8635-6989-40

    Pleidolfweg 15                          Email:   kls@cadsoft.de

    D-84568 Pleiskirchen, Germany           URL:     www.cadsoft.de

    _______________________________________________________________

     

  • in reply to kcadsoft

    Klaus Schmidinger wrote:

     

     

    ...............You will be able to draw wires and polygons for pads in any

    signal

    layer........................

     

    Klaus Schmidinger

    --

     

    Hmmm! How will thermals and be applied when a pad/SMD has been enlarged to a

    custom shape?

    Will a polygon pour, on the board, keep away from and create thermals to the

    total custom shape or only the initial pad/SMD object?

     

    Warren