Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
On 4/2/07, John Coppens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:03:08 -0700 william estrada [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have made my first drawing using gEDA. I have some questions about using gEDA. In the drawing I used an 'arc' to jump over one of the 'traces'. Is the a better way to show that lines are not connected? By definition, in modern diagrams, if two lines cross, they are _not_ connected. A connection is only there if a dot is seen on the crossing. I haven't seen the arc-crossing for a while now. It probably takes just too much time to draw that. Microsoft Visio has a feature that make wire jumps automagically. You can even deside if the horisontal wires or the vertical wires should jump. Arc crossing makes readability of schematics subjectively better, just like that solder dot to explicite show connection even on T-connections. (If the dot happens automagically, then you know that there is a connection) I don't think there is another way but to use wire jumps to explicitely tell the reader that there is no connection on a crossing. All other means are implicite and you will have to state the date of drawing and the state of mind of the drawer in order for the reader to be 100% shure if there is an X-crossing or a jump when he sees two cords in a schematic. -- Svenn ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 74164.sym question
On 4/9/07, Peter Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 08:27 +0200, Werner Hoch wrote: Also I would like to use a sym that has the physical layout of the chip not the logical layout. I don't like that stile. The schematics are very hard to read with that symbols. I don't like that style either, but is this a common style for service manual type schematics - where the user is likely to be tracing a connection on a chip? When debugging my own PCB I find it quite convenient to have the components viewed as their physical packages. I even find it convenient to have the components in the schematic placed in about the same way as the components are placed on the PCB. And, quess what, I find it nice to have the schematic connections approximately follow the routing of the PCB. This calls for a new schematic generated _after_ the PCB has been made. I guess this work could be done automagically based on placement information from the PCB program. I don't think it is possible without more tight integration of schematic capture and PCB layout program. -- Svenn ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
I don't think there is another way but to use wire jumps to explicitely tell the reader that there is no connection on a crossing. Sorry, you're wrong. The correct thing to do is the same thing everyone else on the planet is doing. This means, crossed lines without a dot are not connected, crossed lines with a dot are. That's the standard, that's what everyone does, so we do it also. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 74164.sym question
I just use assembly prints from pcb itself for that. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: HowTo?
DJ, I'm beginning to feel a little dense. I re-ran configure as you indicated below, but as far as I can tell, lesstif is not running. I even went so far as to create a /home/lesstif_user directory, and did the lesstif configure-make-make install operations in that directory, then modified the local .bash_profile file to point to the pcb code. Again, same thing. I could execute pcb, with the 32 layers, but it looked to me like I was still running gtk, not lesstif. Any further suggestions? Harold Skank On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 16:11 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: Could you encapsulate the configuration necessary to run lesstif just on the /home/designer user who uses pcb? ./configure --with-gui=lesstif I want to thank for your assistance so far. Unfortunately, I'm not done yet. Also, what should I look for that would tell me that lesstif is running as opposed to gtk? gtk has the sidebar on the left, lesstif doesn't. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: gEDA coordinate origin
Is there a way to place the coordinate origin in the bottom left hand of the screen? This would match the gerbers produced and make more sense when dealing with board house violations. For now I am using the relative marker ctrl m to do this. Thanks, Ryan ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
On 4/10/07, DJ Delorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think there is another way but to use wire jumps to explicitely tell the reader that there is no connection on a crossing. Sorry, you're wrong. The correct thing to do is the same thing everyone else on the planet is doing. This means, crossed lines without a dot are not connected, crossed lines with a dot are. That's the standard, that's what everyone does, so we do it also. A wire jump tells the reader _explicitely_ Here are two wires crossing. Two lines just crossing may trigger the question: Are these lines connected or not?. The original poster was asking for a better way than a wire jump, and in my opinion there isn't. gschem doesn't support automagically generation of wire jumps so most users (me included) do not take the hassle to generate them by hand. When they _are_ automagically generated, like in Visio, I tend to use them as there are no questions like do those lines cross or are they connected? during presentations. -- Svenn ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
A wire jump tells the reader _explicitely_ Here are two wires crossing. Two lines just crossing may trigger the question: Are these lines connected or not?. And a junction (circle or dot) doesn't do this??? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: HowTo?
Expanded build instructions: In the pcb source tree: ./configure --with-gui=lesstif make (rather than install, let's just test it) cd src ./pcb ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
Svenn - On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:54:19PM +0200, Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote: A wire jump tells the reader _explicitely_ Here are two wires crossing. [chop] When they _are_ automagically generated, like in Visio, I tend to use them as there are no questions like do those lines cross or are they connected? during presentations. So, are you volunteering to add crossing jumps to gschem? It should be a change to the drawing engine only, and a (default off) setting in the GUI. That way you can see the drawing with or without jumps, but the connectivity of the circuit and its rendition in the file is not affected. Unix tools have a history of providing mechanism, not setting policy. - Larry ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: HowTo?
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 10:48 -0500, Harold D. Skank wrote: DJ, I'm beginning to feel a little dense. I re-ran configure as you indicated below, but as far as I can tell, lesstif is not running. I even went so far as to create a /home/lesstif_user directory, and did the lesstif configure-make-make install operations in that directory, then modified the local .bash_profile file to point to the pcb code. Again, same thing. I could execute pcb, with the 32 layers, but it looked to me like I was still running gtk, not lesstif. Any further suggestions? Just check which version of PCB it is picking up once more, with the command: which pcb Old versions of pcb had a bash script to execute the real pcb-bin executable, however the newer versions have abandoned this. It would be useful to check what exactly is being picked up when you execute pcb. Regards, Peter Clifton ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
On 4/10/07, Ryan Seal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A wire jump tells the reader _explicitely_ Here are two wires crossing. Two lines just crossing may trigger the question: Are these lines connected or not?. And a junction (circle or dot) doesn't do this??? A solder dot does _explicitely_ tell the reader that there is a connection. The lack of a solder dot does not explicitely tell you that there is a crossing as you can have two T-connections look like an X-connection in your schematic viewer but the netlist (and pcb) will show you something else). A wire jump shows an explicite crossing. I think there must be some kind of misconseption of the use of the words explicite and implicite in my original post. Sorry for that. -- Svenn ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
Svenn - On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 06:32:31PM +0200, Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote: A solder dot does _explicitely_ tell the reader that there is a connection. The lack of a solder dot does not explicitely tell you [chop] If you want to tell people that they should use wire jumps in their schematics, you have already lost. If you want gschem to have the capability of showing unconnected wire crosses with jumps, so you can display schematics that way, you have a chance. Especially if you volunteer to help code. I think there must be some kind of misconseption of the use of the words explicite and implicite in my original post. The correct English spellings are explicit and implicit. - Larry ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
So, are you volunteering to add crossing jumps to gschem? It should be a change to the drawing engine only, and a (default off) setting in the GUI. I agree that *IF* we want such a thing, it should be done deep in the draw this net line code in gschem. It would be cool auto have them magically appear, but I'm not volunteering to do it either. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
On 4/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Svenn - On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:54:19PM +0200, Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote: A wire jump tells the reader _explicitely_ Here are two wires crossing. [chop] When they _are_ automagically generated, like in Visio, I tend to use them as there are no questions like do those lines cross or are they connected? during presentations. So, are you volunteering to add crossing jumps to gschem? Since when is the offering of opinions on a mailing list the same as stepping up as a volunteer? It should be a change to the drawing engine only, and a (default off) setting in the GUI. That way you can see the drawing with or without jumps, but the connectivity of the circuit and its rendition in the file is not affected. When you say so. I never really picked up programming in gEDA as they started off with literal programming. I got thrown off the marry-go-round and haven't tried to get back on. Unix tools have a history of providing mechanism, not setting policy. What is your definition of a unix tool? I think that has to be made clear first. -- Svenn ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
Since when is the offering of opinions on a mailing list the same as stepping up as a volunteer? It's just a general observation, that (1) the people who want something are the most likely ones to invest in getting it, (2) if nobody else wants to do it, it's the *only* way to get it, and (3) if you volunteer to do it, most likely the admins will let you :-) Convincing someone your idea is cool is one thing, convincing them to implement it is another. Unix tools have a history of providing mechanism, not setting policy. What is your definition of a unix tool? I think that has to be made clear first. I think *any* tool in general, should provide options for multiple policies (if practical) and let the user decide which they're going to follow. Unix applies this theory to its tools more than other OSs. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 12:39 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: So, are you volunteering to add crossing jumps to gschem? It should be a change to the drawing engine only, and a (default off) setting in the GUI. I agree that *IF* we want such a thing, it should be done deep in the draw this net line code in gschem. It would be cool auto have them magically appear, but I'm not volunteering to do it either. *IF* this were done, we'd need probably need to track crossed objects as well as connected objects, otherwise the drawing code would have to check lots of lines for intersection at each redraw. Perhaps another way to do it could be to allow arcs as net segments, and introduce a tool to insert them. Auto-magically doing so is fine too.. just like net segments are consolidated automatically at the moment. It has been such a long time since I used a jog to represent non-connected wires... it isn't a feature I'd really be interested in coding. What I do, to avoid confusion when making a + type connection, is to: | | \ --o---o-- \ | | Or, more simply: | | --o--o-- | | I'm not opposed to being able to make jogs at will, as flexibility is a great virtue with such things. Adding this functionality obviously isn't a great priority though. Peter C ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
*IF* this were done, we'd need probably need to track crossed objects as well as connected objects, otherwise the drawing code would have to check lots of lines for intersection at each redraw. pcb does this rather efficiently using rtrees to keep track of what's where. Since most net lines in schematics tend to be horizontal or vertical anyway, I think we can optimize this enough to be doable with minimal code changes. Not that I know anything about gschem's internals, just guessing. Perhaps another way to do it could be to allow arcs as net segments, and introduce a tool to insert them. Auto-magically doing so is fine too.. just like net segments are consolidated automatically at the moment. I really don't want to think of the problems involved with trying to move a net segment after doing that, though. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
DJ Delorie wrote: I don't think there is another way but to use wire jumps to explicitely tell the reader that there is no connection on a crossing. Sorry, you're wrong. The correct thing to do is the same thing everyone else on the planet is doing. This means, crossed lines without a dot are not connected, crossed lines with a dot are. That's the standard, that's what everyone does, so we do it also. Yep. That old way showing a croquet wicket shaped wire jumping over another is pretty old now... you see it on things from 1925... and a few tube circuit diagrams. John Griessen ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
DJ Delorie wrote: I don't think there is another way but to use wire jumps to explicitely tell the reader that there is no connection on a crossing. Sorry, you're wrong. The correct thing to do is the same thing everyone else on the planet is doing. This means, crossed lines without a dot are not connected, crossed lines with a dot are. That's the standard, that's what everyone does, so we do it also. I personally _never_ use a 4-way connection. If you see a crossing on my schematics, there will not be a solder dot. good: | o---o- | bad: | o | Why is the 2nd bad? Suppose one of those wires got close but you didnt' connect that last grid space? Suppose you fax the schematic to someone and it is hard to tell solder dots or no solder dots? Suppose some older CAD tool you once used had a bug and didn't always include all 4 nets. (ok, so I'll admit the last one has introduced a bit of superstition in my opinion). -Dan ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
Why is the 2nd bad? Suppose one of those wires got close but you didnt' connect that last grid space? Suppose you fax the schematic to someone and it is hard to tell solder dots or no solder dots? Suppose some older CAD tool you once used had a bug and didn't always include all 4 nets. (ok, so I'll admit the last one has introduced a bit of superstition in my opinion). -Dan Not being able to see unconnected lines is a flaw in my opinion. The box at the end of an unconnected line should simply be larger than the solder dots. I know this is just an aesthetic thing that is irrelevant to the actual use of the software so I shouldn't really care. Some how it still bothers me though. It is like the fact that I can't get an omega symbol after a resistors value. -- http://www.coe.neu.edu/~efoss/ http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
[snip] it still bothers me though. It is like the fact that I can't get an omega symbol after a resistors value. I just checked in an upper case omega font file into CVS that I've had sitting around for a while along with the magic to make it work. However, I haven't confirmed that omegas show up in the postscript (postscript output seems to be doing the right thing (thanks to all the effort that MikeJ put into it), but I don't have Omegagreek in my gs font it seems). CTRL-SHIFT-3A9 will input one (at least on my box) into a gtk entry. -Ales ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: TwoStageAmp example
On Monday 02 April 2007 15:50, John Doty wrote: On Apr 2, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Stuart Brorson wrote: I suggest you play around with both Gnucap and ngspice, and see which one suits your purposes. I believe Gnucap still accepts SPICE syntax netlists, so you can netlist using spice-sdb and then use either Gnucap or ngspice for simulation. Thanks. Nearly a straight answer. But I believe ... still ... is a little disturbing. Gnucap is in transition. Now: Accepts Spice syntax netlists, some HSPICE style extensions, some other extensions. Lacks a few components. Future: Format is determined by a plugin. The structural subset of Verilog-AMS and VHDL-AMS, and a general form of Spice will be available. The use of plugins enhances backward compatibility, because there can be many of them, even for obscure formats. Longer future: Specific Spice variants can be made, for exact compatibility with variants of Spice. Since the format is determined in a plug-in, direct support for many other formats is likely. If you give it a try, and let me know what you think, you can influence the direction and make it much better. Getting feedback from users now is important to me. I want you to tell me what you want, not restricted by what you have now or what you think you can get. You may be surprised how easy it is to give you what you thought was impossible. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
[snip] it still bothers me though. It is like the fact that I can't get an omega symbol after a resistors value. I just checked in an upper case omega font file into CVS that I've had sitting around for a while along with the magic to make it work. However, I haven't confirmed that omegas show up in the postscript (postscript output seems to be doing the right thing (thanks to all the effort that MikeJ put into it), but I don't have Omegagreek in my gs font it seems). CTRL-SHIFT-3A9 will input one (at least on my box) into a gtk entry. Thank you so much. -- http://www.coe.neu.edu/~efoss/ http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Gnucap crash
On Monday 09 April 2007 08:52, Patrick Doyle wrote: * gnetlist -g spice-sdb -o spice.netlist.wpd TwoStageAmp.sch .model 2N3904 NPN(IS=1E-14 VAF=100 + Bf=300 IKF=0.4 XTB=1.5 BR=4 + CJC=4E-12 CJE=8E-12 RB=20 RC=0.1 RE=0.1 + TR=250E-9 TF=350E-12 ITF=1 VTF=2 XTF=3 Vceo=40 + Icrating=200m mfg=Philips) R5 Vin 1 10 .OP RE1 0 Vem1 100 Q1 Vcoll1 Vbase1 Vem1 2N3904 R2 0 Vbase1 2K .end The crash/assertion failure occurs when I execute the op command at the Gnucap prompt. It didn't crash for me. Hmmm It does crash for me... and it triggers an assertion failure when I build with debugging enabled -- the assertion is definately tied to the fact that 'precalc()' doesn't get called for RE1. I see it now. I ran it different than you did. I know what happened ... It has to do with the ability to change a circuit and continue. What triggers the bug is putting .op (or any simulation command) in the middle of a Spice netlist. The bug first appeared during work that allows you to change values in the middle of a run without losing data. It works fine if there is an intervening command, but screws up when they are mixed like this. You've mentioned that one way I can help is by being a newbie doing newbie things to the simulator. I encountered the crash last week, learned that I needed to move the .OP command to the end of the script, and continued on with my exercise. Then, this weekend, I went back to where I saw crash and tried to debug it some more. I load that netlist with $ gnucap blah.ckt then I execute the op command at the gnucap prompt gnucap op I get a segmentation fault (with the 3-29 snapshot) -- I get an assertion failure at line 105 of d_res.cc when I do the same thing with a debug build of the 3-29 snapshot. Based on what I saw in the code, I remain very confused that you don't see the same error, but that's life, I guess. --wpd ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
