Thanks for the replies. I'm sure that geda/gaf will satisfy my needs in terms of coming up with new designs - I'm looking at making small circuit boards for 1-2 kW motor drive applications - nothing in RF or high speed - and I try to keep them to 2 layers so that I can make cheap protos. That being said, the feature comparison checklist is a nice marketing tool.
I do have one specific question on capability - I have an existing designs (schematics + layout) in PCAD and PADs formats. Is there a method which will allow me to preserve some of this work? Quoting Duncan Drennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I was in a similar position a couple of month back, wondering whether > geda/gaf was a capable tool and whether committing to it would be a > good idea. I have only really worked with the schematic editor > (gschem) and the netlister (I use a subcontractor to do layout which > is done in PCAD). > > After having worked with gschem and parts of geda for a while, I am > astounded at how powerful and excellent the tools are, as well as how > good the documentation and support is (the support on this list is > amazing and patient). > > There is a feature of geda that people underestimate the value of, > mainly because it is something that they have never been exposed to. > Randall hinted at it... > > > I end up making a lot of footprints > > myself, but again I have assembled a set of tools that automate that > > to a large extent, so it is not really a big deal. > > Open file formats and scriptable programs. Just take some time to > think about what that means. The implications are huge. > > All those repetitive tasks that you do can be automated. Creation of > components and footprints can be automated. All the tedious tasks that > integrated and closed packages force on us can be done away with. > > Yes, it will take some time to become familiar with the package (as > with any other package) and yes there are limitations (again, as with > any other package). But think about the huge time savings (i.e. money > saving/producing) you can gain from the openness of geda. > > Here is an example to think about: > > Let's say I have a stock database. Each item has a unique stock code. > Engineers don't care about the stock codes, but they do care about the > component values. The person that orders stock doesn't care about the > values, just the stock code. Lets say an 0603 100k 1% 100ppm resistor > had the stock code R00001. So the engineer goes along and puts down a > resistor in a schematic with a footprint 0603 and value 100k (in this > case he doesn't care too much about the other details). > > Once he is done with the design the engineer knows he needs to give > the bom to the person who orders stock and they just want to be able > to order based on the stock codes. So the engineer runs a script which > automatically queries the database and generates a BOM based on the > stock codes. The script can also automatically insert the rest of the > info and the stock code into the schematic. Obviously this can be far > more complicated, but you get the idea. > > Those are my thoughts. gEDA fulfils the current requirements of my > business and works well. I'm happy. > _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user