quick question from a customer who received the files in Eagle format

Silviu E. schrieb:

 

No, it implies changing grid and using a MARK command (that if it were by be

could be named "FRTSRZRT" as well, because it's name doesn't make me think

of relative coordinates). And there is no visual feedback for mark command

(except the second pair of coordinates, placed hard to see next to the old

ones).

More, even this method is an approximation because A) it will be a multiple

of grid points, and B) it relays on user placing the MARK cross as close as

possible to the margin of the pad (of worse, at the left area of a circle

for the drill size- you try this and will talk about later !)

 

So, anybody? a quick and precise solution?

 

This method is precise enough, if used properly (I use it with great success). For increased precision, you need to keep the ALT key pressed when placing the reference MARK. Keep ALT key pressed also when you measure distances, so you can move the cursor with increased precision (x 2 with the default grid settings). If this still is not enough, then modify the "grid alt" to 1/10 of the normal grid and you're done (btw, this is how I set my grid).

Lix

"eSilviu"  a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :

jae0mj$g4n$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

Sorry, Jerome if i am not polite. Those questions were addresed to Cadsoft,

and I still wait for a short answer to transmit to my customer. It should be

short and straight-forward, since customer's questions were ones of the

simpliest possible.

Klaus is right, this message does not belong to the suggest section. There

is a userchat for such complaints.

Eagle is not perfect. And I do not know any perfect software, even

notepad.exe has flaws, despite being so simple.

Your question was not clear so I suggested a couple of ways to make your

measurement. Each seems like a workwaround, but I use them daily and they

save me a lot of time, because I do not always want to get the same

information, sometimes seeing that > 8 mils is sufficient, sometimes I want

to measure exactly.

Eagle approach is to be open to user customization. My colleagues use other

CAD software and they keep complaining that this or that function does not

behave the way they want, and they cannot change it, it's a closed system...

Take opportunity of this open approach. If your customers require something

special (here to measure the pitch or clearance) write them a  ULP to do

exactly what they want, and to present the results with the best way <==

that's very important too.

If you cannot write it, ask someone to do it for you, there is no shame for

that.

Here is an exemple for the list of drills. Select the part, then run the

ULP. That's the same approach as in Word, select the text, then click on

bold. Your customer should manage to do it.

You can do further processing of the data if necessary (display pad name,

relative coordinates...). This is very powerful. The equivalent in other CAD

software I know is to click on a pad, scroll a list until you get the drill

size in mils, then click somewhere else to get the coordinate, and you are

lost anyway as this is so unfriendly and unefficient.

string list = "List of absolute coordinates and diameters of package drills

(X,Y,diam in mm)";

board(B) {

    B.elements(E) {

        if( ingroup(E) ) {

            E.package.contacts(C) {

                if( C.pad ) {

                    sprintf( list , "%s\n%.2f , %.2f , %.2f" , list ,

u2mm(C.pad.x) , u2mm(C.pad.y) , u2mm(C.pad.drill));

                }

            }

            E.package.holes(H) {

                sprintf( list , "%s\n%.2f , %.2f , %.2f" , list , u2mm(H.x)

, u2mm(H.y) , u2mm(H.drill));

            }

        }

    }

}

dlgDialog("Drills")

{

    dlgTextEdit( list );

};

A last remark, a short question does not always imply a short answer. Here

my best answer to your customer would be to provide customized tools (called

ULP here, plugins, addons or toolboxes for others) to help the customer

visualize exactly what he wants to see.

Best regards,

Jerome

eSilviu wrote:

 

Sorry, Jerome if i am not polite. Those questions were addresed to

Cadsoft, and I still wait for a short answer to transmit to my

customer. It should be short and straight-forward, since customer's

questions were ones of the simpliest possible.

When a forum member replies, be it good or bad, don't then bite their head

off. Appreciate the time they have taken to aquire the knowledge and the

time they  take to respond.

If you think CadSoft should have made it easier  for you , explain why and

how. make a specific detailed suggestion with a possible solution. Never

expect it to be implemented, be grateful if it is.

The problem with a quick question is:

1) You will likely get a quick answer (short answer)

2) There is no short answer

We have seen this quick question before.

A PCB designer designed in Eagle. The customer was advised they could

download the free version of eagle to view the progress. With no experience

they expected to use it as a 'dummies' viewer, couldn't so asked the

designer how to do a number of things The designer didn't know those answers

and was frustrated there was not a way to easily instruct the client how to

drive Eagle, over the phone.

If suspect this is your scenareo. A client familiar with Eagle  would not

ask this question.

Another possible solution pad spacing  question  is to generate gerbers and

use a gerber viewer to get the measurments as the gerbers are checked , if

the client has a gerber viewer and familiaer with using it.

If the client is not skilled in either of the above mentioned software  it

is encumbant upon you, and good for business, to provide the answers.

See how long these replies have had to be to your short question?  Next time

please paint the full picture so you can get a quick quality answer.

All the best

Warren

--

Viewed / responded via the newsgroup at

news.cadsoft.de

"Klaus Schmidinger" <Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de> wrote in message

news:jaeb13$ugt$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

If you want to measure the distance between two points in EAGLE, the

MARK command is what you should use, as Jorge has suggested.

 

The MARK command has it's flaws, and for holes of the components is almost

unusable.

And yes, I know what "suggest/betatest/userchat" forums are for.

What I'm trying to do is to "suggest" to Cadsoft that a elementary tool neds

to be added.

"Jorge Garcia" <jorge@cadsoftusa.com> wrote in message

news:jae9j7$p6t$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

On 11/21/2011 2:38 PM, eSilviu wrote:

>> "Jorge Garcia"<jorge@cadsoftusa.com>  wrote in message

>> news:jae950$krg$3@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

>>> On 11/21/2011 9:15 AM, eSilviu wrote:

>>>> Question 2:

>>>> How do I measure clearance betweem two IC pads?

>>>>

>>>> There is a quick answer? Why?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> Hi eSilviu,

>>>

>>> See Jerome's response, or use the dimension tool in V6 once it's

>>> released.

>>>

>>> Best Regards,

>>> Jorge

>>

>>

>> Those two are REAL QUESTIONS, that needs answer in max 24h... not half

>> year.

>> I can't answer my customer with "RTFM" or "Wait 1 year, maybe Cadsoft

>> will

>> implement a ruller "

>>

>>

>

Hello eSilviu,

 

You could also set the grid to a small increment (1mil or whatever is

convenient), use the mark command to place a relative origin at one end of

what you want to measure and then take your mouse cursor to the other

point, you can then read off the distance directly by looking at the

relative mouse coordinates.

 

This is a reasonable solution that doesn't involve counting squares, or

some sort of wacky workaround.

 

Best Regards,

Jorge

No, it implies changing grid and using a MARK command (that if it were by be

could be named "FRTSRZRT" as well, because it's name doesn't make me think

of relative coordinates). And there is no visual feedback for mark command

(except the second pair of coordinates, placed hard to see next to the old

ones).

More, even this method is an approximation because A) it will be a multiple

of grid points, and B) it relays on user placing the MARK cross as close as

possible to the margin of the pad (of worse, at the left area of a circle

for the drill size- you try this and will talk about later !)

So, anybody? a quick and precise solution?

"Jorge Garcia" <jorge@cadsoftusa.com> wrote in message

news:jae9j7$p6t$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

On 11/21/2011 2:38 PM, eSilviu wrote:

>> "Jorge Garcia"<jorge@cadsoftusa.com>  wrote in message

>> news:jae950$krg$3@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

>>> On 11/21/2011 9:15 AM, eSilviu wrote:

>>>> Question 2:

>>>> How do I measure clearance betweem two IC pads?

>>>>

>>>> There is a quick answer? Why?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> Hi eSilviu,

>>>

>>> See Jerome's response, or use the dimension tool in V6 once it's

>>> released.

>>>

>>> Best Regards,

>>> Jorge

>>

>>

>> Those two are REAL QUESTIONS, that needs answer in max 24h... not half

>> year.

>> I can't answer my customer with "RTFM" or "Wait 1 year, maybe Cadsoft

>> will

>> implement a ruller "

>>

>>

>

Hello eSilviu,

 

You could also set the grid to a small increment (1mil or whatever is

convenient), use the mark command to place a relative origin at one end of

what you want to measure and then take your mouse cursor to the other

point, you can then read off the distance directly by looking at the

relative mouse coordinates.

 

This is a reasonable solution that doesn't involve counting squares, or

some sort of wacky workaround.

 

Best Regards,

Jorge

No, it implies changing grid and using a MARK command (that if it were by be

could be named "FRTSRZRT" as well, because it's name doesn't make me think

of relative coordinates). And there is no visual feedback for mark command

(except the second pair of coordinates, placed hard to see next to the old

ones).

More, even this method is an approximation because A) it will be a multiple

of grid points, and B) it relays on user placing the MARK cross as close as

possible to the margin of the pad (of worse, at the left area of a circle

for the drill size- you try this and will talk about later !)

So, anybody? a quick and precise solution?

"Jorge Garcia" <jorge@cadsoftusa.com> wrote in message

news:jae93m$krg$2@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

On 11/21/2011 9:12 AM, eSilviu wrote:

>> How do I check if holes for components are with the right drill?

>> He has no lbr file, nor will have.

>> so?

>>

>>

>

Hi eSilviu,

 

He can extract the libraries using exp-project-lbr.ulp and measure them

there.

 

If that customer can open Eagle or double-click on xx.brd doesn't mean it

must know C,Java,Ulp or anything else.

Some elementary tools must be there in the GUI of Eagle, but they aren't.

"Jorge Garcia" <jorge@cadsoftusa.com> wrote in message

news:jae93m$krg$2@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

On 11/21/2011 9:12 AM, eSilviu wrote:

>> How do I check if holes for components are with the right drill?

>> He has no lbr file, nor will have.

>> so?

>>

>>

>

Hi eSilviu,

 

He can extract the libraries using exp-project-lbr.ulp and measure them

there.

 

If that customer can open Eagle or double-click on xx.brd doesn't mean it

must know C,Java,Ulp or anything else.

Some elementary tools must be there in the GUI of Eagle, but they aren't.

"Jorge Garcia" <jorge@cadsoftusa.com> wrote in message

news:jae950$krg$3@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

On 11/21/2011 9:15 AM, eSilviu wrote:

>> Question 2:

>> How do I measure clearance betweem two IC pads?

>>

>> There is a quick answer? Why?

>>

>>

>

Hi eSilviu,

 

See Jerome's response, or use the dimension tool in V6 once it's released.

 

Best Regards,

Jorge

Those two are REAL QUESTIONS, that needs answer in max 24h... not half year.

I can't answer my customer with "RTFM" or "Wait 1 year, maybe Cadsoft will

implement a ruller "

On 11/21/2011 9:15 AM, eSilviu wrote:

Question 2:

How do I measure clearance betweem two IC pads?

 

There is a quick answer? Why?

 

>

Hi eSilviu,

See Jerome's response, or use the dimension tool in V6 once it's released.

Best Regards,

Jorge