On 24/04/10 05:46, al davis wrote: > On Friday 23 April 2010, Link wrote: >> Eh? >> > > Suppose you had instead said: > =============== >> .......... I suggest >> using Eagle through Darwine. In my personal experience, >> Eagle is a lot better than geda, and >> it is definitely an easier workflow. > =============== > > Is this any different? > > No. > > > _______________________________________________ > geda-user mailing list > geda-user@moria.seul.org > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
I hadn't intended for anyone to interpret it that way, and I'm sorry if you interpreted that as bashing gEDA. Perhaps my choice of words was rather unfortunate. What I intended to is that one component (the simulator) of LTSpice tends to perform better _for me_ than gEDA's equivalents, in sheer terms of the simulation results being what I expect. I'm not sure if that is even a problem with gnucap/ngspice or if I'm simply doing something wrong myself, but I do know that I find LTSpice easier to use for simulation. That does not mean I dislike gEDA, or think it's bad, or anything of the sort - in fact, I find it to be absolutely brilliant for schematic capture and PCB design. That said, simulation in gEDA is only one of the many paths you can take with it, and perhaps because of that, along with the fact that circuit simulation is very very complicated mathematically, it is, for the time being, not very easy for the end user to get the expected simulation results quickly. As such, for an end user who may not have the time or skill to work on improving gEDA, and who already expressed confusion about how complicated the workflow is, it is possible that gEDA simply isn't the most suitable piece of software for that user yet (since gEDA is under very active development, that may change in the near future), and hence why I said, or at least intended to say, that if the workflow is an issue to that user, another piece of software - one that is, unfortunately, proprietary - may be better for that particular user. To summarise: -gEDA encompasses a lot more than simulation -As such, the workflow for simulation is a bit complicated -The simulators may or may not be as accurate as proprietary equivalents -As such, if workflow efficiency and simulation accuracy are a very big issue, then for someone who cannot improve gEDA directly, it is possible that for the time being, other software is better for said someone -The only software I know that has a workflow that is faster than gEDA's when it comes to simulation, and has a simulator at least as good as gEDA's equivalents, is unfortunately proprietary -As such, I recommended that software to a user who appeared to want a more efficient workflow for simulation I hope that clears things up. If not, I really don't know how to explain what I meant any better, so you will have to make do with the knowledge that I did not mean to sound like I was bashing gEDA. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user