Have a question about CadSoft EAGLE?  Ask our Expert, Jorge!

On 04/04/14 02:13, Graham Wideman wrote:

Well, perhaps it's the as-designed behavior, but it's hardly expected.

It was to me.

I

know of no other boxes-and-connecting-lines kind of program that leaves

the interconnections in such a trashed state after moving the boxes.

I've come across several.

Not

all programs get all  repositioned lines optimal, or even properly avoid

collisions, but at least they make an effort.

Actually my experience with programs that do try to keep orthogonal and

second-guess your intent is that they universally make a right pig's ear

of it and waste a lot of my time rectifying that.

Eagle Scehmatic's

apparently intentional behavior places a high cost on refining the

layout of a schematic, and makes it hard to develop a schematic

incrementally.

Not in my experience. In my experience it imposes less cost than the

ones which try to guess at what you're doing.

My apologies. The version is 6.3 not 6.5. And yes I have. The technical writing is not coherently structured to seamlessly flow from process to process in detail.

Thanks,

Emjay

Emjay: You have seen the manual PDFs that are installed with Eagle, at [Eagle Install Directory]\doc\manual_en.pdf, and also tutorial_en.pdf?

Jorge,

Can you please refer me to a comprehensive manual(.pdf preferred) for EAGLE Professional 6.5 in English?

The ones I have been able to get are either incomplete, or are written in German.

I appreciate having the community here for help but I am not the one to bother people thus opting to study a well-written OEM guide.

It has been many years since I have used EAGLE for any work project. I am almost ready to give up on EAGLE and buy Orcad which I was company trained to utilize.

All I need is a complete guide.

Thank you in advance,

Emjay

Jorge -- thanks for your reply.

> There's no bug, it's working as designed and expected.

Well, perhaps it's the as-designed behavior, but it's hardly expected. I know of no other boxes-and-connecting-lines kind of program that leaves the interconnections in such a trashed state after moving the boxes. Not all programs get all  repositioned lines optimal, or even properly avoid collisions, but at least they make an effort. Eagle Scehmatic's apparently intentional behavior places a high cost on refining the layout of a schematic, and makes it hard to develop a schematic incrementally.

Related question: I want to show net names on a schematic, so I name a net. I then right-click on the net and choose Label, whereupon I position the net name adjacent to the net. Later I move the net, and the label fails to follow the net that it pertains to. Do I have to move the net name label separately too? Or is there a better way to do this?

Thanks!

On 3/31/2014 10:05 AM, Graham Wideman wrote:

I'm still convinced that there have to be some editing functions I've

not discovered yet, because trying to edit wire by manually fiddling

with individual segments is so primitive. It's also not clear why, when

using right-angle wires, would moving a component cause the the wires to

adopt diagonal paths. That seems like a bug.

Hi Graham,

I hope you're doing well. There's no bug, it's working as designed and

expected. As you've noticed its a matter of using Move and Split, we've

never implemented any code to maintain the angle of a net, which is the

command that's supposed to be used to define electrical connections in

the schematic. You could also delete a few segments and then redraw them

to clean them up.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Best Regards,

Jorge Garcia

Chuck,

Thank you again for the reply for I appreciate your help immensely.I am working on it now.

From your instructions it appears I will have to enlarge the component's symbol aspect considerably in order for each of the pins to line up to the 0.1" in 1 intersects for proper wire connection. Is this correct?

Remember, I originally created this component's symbol(as well as the package & device) aspect all in 1 mil grid increments as the component is only 4mm X 5mm X 0.75 mm. Being the component is so small I chose to build its symbol aspect in mils. This is before your correction of course.

So by me enlarging the component's symbol size to match with each 0.1" spacing to allow wire connections this will have no bearing on the schematic?

Just to let you know the component has eight pads on each side along with a bottom(gnd) pad to make 17 pads in total.

Spacing each pad to conform to the 0.1" grid will enlarge the component exponentially from what I originally created(in mils).

Thanks again'Chuck for the correction instructions! I love learning(relearning in this case) it is a never ending journey!

Emjay

Hi J-M:  Thanks for your comments. You suggest the split, move and undo functions for edits that are needed after moving a part. Of course, it's move and split that I've been using, and finding very tedious. (Not sure how undo fits in here. I think it's only useful if it was the previous edit operation that created an unwanted segment.) I did discover that when you move a line so that two adjacent segments are colinear, Eagle replaces them with a single segment, so that's something.

I'm still convinced that there have to be some editing functions I've not discovered yet, because trying to edit wire by manually fiddling with individual segments is so primitive. It's also not clear why, when using right-angle wires, would moving a component cause the the wires to adopt diagonal paths. That seems like a bug.

for drawing nets i always use the orthogonal style (see attachment) -

exception: buses. if i have to change something e.g. after moving a part, i

use F8 (split), for reducing segments i use F7 (move) or F9 (undo). there is

no automatic function.

r

Attachments:

Hi Josef-Michael -- thanks for your comment. I have indeed discovered split. But on that subject, how do you unsplit? That is, combine line segments that are no longer needed?  But more to the point, why do you need split in the first place, isn't there a command to just tell the program to fix diagonal rubber-band segments into a minimal number of sensible orthogonal segments?