symbol with multiple package variations

Not sure I understand your question, Change.Package in v4.16 will let

you change the package on board with just a click. But only if that

package has been previously linked to the part in the library.

Otherwise, how would EAGLE know which pins to connect to which signals

in the new package?

Hope this helps...

The symbol connection diagram in a logic family for a 14 pin DIL package  is

already linked for each device in the family, i.e. pin 2 on the symbol

diagram goes to pin 2 of the package. Now a package variation  which may

only be a pad dimension change or a drill hole variation means that pin 2

symbol is still going to go to pin 2 package and the connection diagram

would remain the same. Unfortunately with Eagle, this new package variation

has to be linked in the library to every part in a family and requires a

fair bit of work. This can be made easier by the copy command in the library

device editing procedure but is still tedious. A generic 14 pin footprint of

the package variation substitution would be in my view, a lot easier where

as in Protel, the schematic symbol on the users schematic diagram is double

clicked and the package variation is specified. In that way, package

variations can be changed on the fly. However, Eagle is great s/w and I can

live with minor inconveniences such as this.

"Gary Gofstein" <ggofstein@lbl_nospam.gov> wrote in message

news:g2cc83$us5$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

Not sure I understand your question, Change.Package in v4.16 will let you

change the package on board with just a click. But only if that package

has been previously linked to the part in the library. Otherwise, how

would EAGLE know which pins to connect to which signals in the new

package?

Hope this helps...

"Gary Gofstein" <ggofstein@lbl_nospam.gov> wrote in message

news:g2cc83$us5$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

Not sure I understand your question, Change.Package in v4.16 will let you

change the package on board with just a click. But only if that package

has been previously linked to the part in the library. Otherwise, how

would EAGLE know which pins to connect to which signals in the new

package?

Hope this helps...

"Don Owen" <dono2@tpg.com.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

news:g2cmib$omk$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

The symbol connection diagram in a logic family for a 14 pin DIL package

is already linked for each device in the family, i.e. pin 2 on the symbol

diagram goes to pin 2 of the package. Now a package variation  which may

only be a pad dimension change or a drill hole variation means that pin 2

symbol is still going to go to pin 2 package and the connection diagram

would remain the same. Unfortunately with Eagle, this new package

variation has to be linked in the library to every part in a family and

requires a fair bit of work. This can be made easier by the copy command

in the library device editing procedure but is still tedious. A generic 14

pin footprint of the package variation substitution would be in my view, a

lot easier where as in Protel, the schematic symbol on the users schematic

diagram is double clicked and the package variation is specified. In that

way, package variations can be changed on the fly. However, Eagle is great

s/w and I can live with minor inconveniences such as this.

 

Eagle V3.5 REPLACE did not need a fully specified library device to operate.

"REPLACE" a SO14 by a TSSOP14? No problem, you picked the target package out

of a library of your choice and voilà, all done. Guess how often I was on my

knees to get this one back. V4 / V5 forces you into useless and time wasting

component library management. That's one of the points where Eagle outsmarts

the user, as A.Sterian pointed out elsewhere.

T.

I still do not understand your problem, if I have an opamp that has thru

hole and SMD package variations, and I want to change the package but

maintain the same part, that is easily changeable by the method I

described: on your layout, use the change command, select package, click

your part and you will be given a choice of which package to use.

Of course this only works if the package has already been tied to that

particular part in the library. It is not true ( in general) that the

pins for the different packages will always correspond, so pin 2 on

the DIL package may not be connected to the same node as pin 2 on the

SOIC package. Although, if you mostly use logic, you may never have come

across this. This is the reason why you may have to use the "connect"

dialog in the library to link a particular part to a new package. In

general, there is no one to one correspondence. If you doubt this I can

send you some examples!

I am very confused by your posting. It seems that you are saying you

wish there was another layer of package specification so that all 14DIL

packages could be substituted for one another. So you could have a 14DIL

with big and with small holes, or 8SOIC with two pad variations, one for

wave and one for hand soldering? Then they would always correspond, so

there would be no need to specify where the signals come out on each

package pin? Is this what you're saying?

Basically, I can't tell if your just overlooking the admittedly obtuse

way (that most things are in EAGLE) of changing packages simply and

easily. Or, if you really have a problem that EAGLE's package

substitution won't solve and also don't appreciate that there is no way

to generally substitute one package for another. Or, perhaps I have no

clue as to what you're talking about and your problem would instantly

make sense to me once I understood what, exactly, you are trying to do.

"Gary Gofstein" <ggofstein@lbl_nospam.gov> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

news:g2msm2$ftf$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

I still do not understand your problem, if I have an opamp that has thru

I see you respond to Don Owen, but allow me to jump in again....

hole and SMD package variations, and I want to change the package but

maintain the same part, that is easily changeable by the method I

described: on your layout, use the change command, select package, click

your part and you will be given a choice of which package to use.

 

Of course this only works if the package has already been tied to that

particular part in the library.

Exactly, and this is the point.

It is not true ( in general) that the pins for the different packages will

always correspond, so pin 2 on the DIL package may not be connected to

the same node as pin 2 on the SOIC package.

This clearly is within the designer's responsibility. I do not want to be

forced into useless library work just because there is a slight chance that

the pin numbering scheme does not correspond in some cases. Simply because

the risk is not the least bit lower if you do it all through the libraries.

This is a waste of time. Did you ever work with Eagle V3.5? I am still

working with it today for most of the time, although I have all licenses up

to V5, and this is one of the reasons.

Although, if you mostly use logic, you may never have come across this.

This is the reason why you may have to use the "connect" dialog in the

library to link a particular part to a new package. In general, there is

no one to one correspondence. If you doubt this I can send you some

examples!

I know, and I tell you this added "connect" complexity through the use of

the library editor is worth absolutely nothing. I already had these

discussions. My answer in the past was that you can do exactly the same

mistake within the library editor: In V3.5 you could replace a package with

another. Trouble arose if the pin numbering was different. Today you have to

define and "connect" a new package in the library editor. Just as easily you

can take over the (wrong) pin assignment from another package. The only

difference here is the increased effort. Again, this is a time waster. It is

even more likely that you are so busy with the definition of the new

packages in the library editor that you miss the actual problem with the non

matching numbering. With the "REPLACE" I start to think about this at

exactly the right time, and I am not distressed by this package definition

nonsense inside the lib editor.

I am very confused by your posting. It seems that you are saying you wish

there was another layer of package specification so that all 14DIL

packages could be substituted for one another. So you could have a 14DIL

with big and with small holes, or 8SOIC with two pad variations, one for

wave and one for hand soldering? Then they would always correspond, so

there would be no need to specify where the signals come out on each

package pin? Is this what you're saying?

 

Basically, I can't tell if your just overlooking the admittedly obtuse way

(that most things are in EAGLE) of changing packages simply and easily.

Or, if you really have a problem that EAGLE's package substitution won't

solve and also don't appreciate that there is no way to generally

substitute one package for another. Or, perhaps I have no clue as to what

you're talking about and your problem would instantly make sense to me

once I understood what, exactly, you are trying to do.

As I pointed out elsewhere: if we both were to update the same board by

replacing a number of components (say, from SO footprint to TSSOP), and you

do it with V5 or V4, while I do it with V3.5, I can promise you that you are

still busy defining the first two packages, when I already finished my job,

closed my office and made myself a nice tea.

T.

So you weren't really looking for "support" so much as you are asking

for a new feature, or more accurately the removal of a "misfeature".

Well, I never used v3 of EAGLE, so I guess I don't know how much more

easily it handles this problem for you.

In my case, the packages rarely have any significant correspondence, so

I am quite happy with the connect dialog. It takes me only a few seconds

to connect up those 8 op amp pins while I glance at the data sheet. My

bottleneck is remembering how to copy other packages into the library if

they are not already present.

Maybe the new pins in the connect dialog should default to the pads that

are already defined for the part. Then you'd only have to click OK if

they match up. That would save you 2 mouse clicks per pad. I could see

that if you have a package with dozens or hundreds of pins that match

up, it would make real sense.

Again, I'll stress, my situation is the exact opposite of yours, the

packages do not correspond, so I love the connection dialog. But I

generally support your view, the software doesn't need to babysit or

think for  the user. Maybe I'll download 3.5 and try it! Go have a nice tea!

Gary Gofstein wrote:

So you weren't really looking for "support" so much as you are asking

for a new feature, or more accurately the removal of a "misfeature".

 

Well, I never used v3 of EAGLE, so I guess I don't know how much more

easily it handles this problem for you.

 

In my case, the packages rarely have any significant correspondence, so

I am quite happy with the connect dialog. It takes me only a few seconds

to connect up those 8 op amp pins while I glance at the data sheet. My

bottleneck is remembering how to copy other packages into the library if

they are not already present.

Browse the package you want to copy in the control panel library view, and

right click ( with your new/cutsom lib open) is the simplest way

 

Maybe the new pins in the connect dialog should default to the pads that

are already defined for the part. Then you'd only have to click OK if

they match up. That would save you 2 mouse clicks per pad. I could see

that if you have a package with dozens or hundreds of pins that match

up, it would make real sense.

 

You can do this.  There is a copy option in the connect dialogue

cheers

David

"Gary Gofstein" <ggofstein@lbl_nospam.gov> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

news:g2s6c4$93l$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

So you weren't really looking for "support" so much as you are asking for

a new feature, or more accurately the removal of a "misfeature".

 

Well, I never used v3 of EAGLE, so I guess I don't know how much more

easily it handles this problem for you.

All these little additional steps add up to a significant amount of

superfluous work, which is why I still work with V3.5 wherever possible. And

I am not too happy about it.

In my case, the packages rarely have any significant correspondence, so I

am quite happy with the connect dialog.

You may be surprised - but I agree!

It takes me only a few seconds to connect up those 8 op amp pins while I

glance at the data sheet.

Be honest: at this time you already fired up the LIB editor, entered a

device, added another package, opened up the connect dialog... and you still

did nothing on the board itself!

My bottleneck is remembering how to copy other packages

into the library if they are not already present.

David was already so kind to point this out for you, it's pretty simple. But

to make this clear: of course the connect dialog is an important part of the

component management, and I am not trying to get rid of it. Point is, I do

not like to be forced into this sort of work for the straightforward

replacements, in many cases the pin numbering is perfectly identical. In

other cases you need minor individual modifications to packages, all leading

to additional package variants in V4/V5. In V3.5 you had one library for

these individual things, without the need to link those to your devices.

Picking up on David's mentioned comment with the "copy" feature in the

connect dialog (which is useful, no doubt): in most situations where one

copies the connection it would have been way easier to REPLACE the package

directly. The way it is today may appear convenient to you, but you would be

surprised how much simpler this was in the old V3.5 days!!

Maybe the new pins in the connect dialog should default to the pads that

are already defined for the part. Then you'd only have to click OK if they

match up. That would save you 2 mouse clicks per pad. I could see that if

you have a package with dozens or hundreds of pins that match up, it would

make real sense.

Again: in those cases I do not want to mess with devices and its packages, I

do not want to see a connect dialog, I do not even want to enter the library

editor. In V3.5 you picked a TSSOP14 from somewhere, clicked on your

existing SO14, and you were done. The process couldn't be any simpler or

faster, don't you think?

Again, I'll stress, my situation is the exact opposite of yours, the

packages do not correspond, so I love the connection dialog. But I

Nay, I confess it is not... In the course of this discussion only pronounced

the frequent situation where such 1:1 replacements are possible. There's no

less opportunities where you really had to add packages with different pin

assignments which definitely require one's attention through the use of the

library editor, but I think we do not need to mention this here. In these

cases the tools for this work do serve the purpose, and quite efficiently.

generally support your view, the software doesn't need to babysit or think

for  the user. Maybe I'll download 3.5 and try it! Go have a nice tea!

Do it - it's really worth experiencing it. Enjoy the weekend - with or

without tea,

T.