I decided to give gEDA a go as my design tool for a project (I've
previously used PCAD and ORCAD), but now that I'm about to put pen to
paper I'm questioning whether using gEDA is a good long term solution.
I'm an electronic engineer and currently contract out my skills, so
the solution needs to
Duncan,
I use a heavily modified (and at times buggy but getting better) version
of geda and I have built a couple of very complex boards but it isn't easy.
We have also built a number of more strieght forward boards and geda/pcb
seemed very much up to the job. Geda, gschem and gnetlist more
Thanks Steve (something was wrong with my list settings, so I didn't
receive the reply - got it from the archives).
If those are the only three serious limitations, then gEDA would seem
suitable for me. My main concern has been going ahead and bumping my
head (which will just slow everything
On Jul 3, 2007, at 1:52 AM, Duncan Drennan wrote:
I decided to give gEDA a go as my design tool for a project (I've
previously used PCAD and ORCAD), but now that I'm about to put pen to
paper I'm questioning whether using gEDA is a good long term solution.
I'm an electronic engineer and
If those are the only three serious limitations, then gEDA would seem
suitable for me. My main concern has been going ahead and bumping my
You will probably also have draw your own symbols as people have been
complaining about the dreadful state of the shipped library.
-Ales
On 7/3/07, Ales Hvezda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If those are the only three serious limitations, then gEDA would seem
suitable for me. My main concern has been going ahead and bumping my
You will probably also have draw your own symbols as people have been
complaining about the dreadful
You will probably also have draw your own symbols as people have been
complaining about the dreadful state of the shipped library.
Drawing symbols is no big issue (to me at least). There are always new
components and typically I've had to draw them in the past anyway.
I chose gEDA as the
That is fair.
A lot of the component companies (altera, analog etc) provide patterns
and footprints for the main commercial tools.
However making a symbol isn't that hard (unless its a 1020 pin fpga) .
Steve Meier
Ales Hvezda wrote:
If those are the only three serious limitations, then gEDA
Steve Meier wrote:
3) Do you need back anotation?
If you answer yes to any of these then geda/pcb isn't there yet and may
never be. If you would like to discuss your project requirements either
here or more privately don't hesitate to ask.
depends a bit on the flow. Using gschem +
On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:08 AM, John Luciani wrote:
On 7/3/07, Ales Hvezda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If those are the only three serious limitations, then gEDA would
seem
suitable for me. My main concern has been going ahead and bumping my
You will probably also have draw your own symbols as
Duncan -
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:52:00AM +0200, Duncan Drennan wrote:
I decided to give gEDA a go as my design tool for a project (I've
previously used PCAD and ORCAD), but now that I'm about to put pen to
paper I'm questioning whether using gEDA is a good long term solution.
[chop]
So
Dan McMahill wrote:
Steve Meier wrote:
3) Do you need back anotation?
If you answer yes to any of these then geda/pcb isn't there yet and may
never be. If you would like to discuss your project requirements either
here or more privately don't hesitate to ask.
depends a bit on the flow.
Hello,
As a tread of wishes has started I thought I'd add mine in the list. But
I couldn't do so without first expressing all my gratitude to all those
who contribute to the development of gEDA. So, well, thanks guys!
As far as the wish goes: would anyone but me like to have oval pin
Anne,
I think you can accomplish this now by using a combination of a pin and
a surface mount pad.
Steve Meier
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 16:06 +0100, anne Vanhoest wrote:
Hello,
As a tread of wishes has started I thought I'd add mine in the list. But
I couldn't do so without first expressing
John Doty wrote:
On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:08 AM, John Luciani wrote:
You do need to verify symbols and footprints against your process
requirements
The good thing about the library is that even for symbols that aren't
boxes, you rarely need to draw one from scratch. There's usually
anne Vanhoest wrote:
as I am developing
my PCBs with very basic tools I cannot make super-fine tracks and must
keep a decent copper to copper distance. In the past I use to draw oblong
pins, narrow enough to allow a track between two pins of a typical IC
socket. Any chances to see this option
Are we any closer to being able to do that?
I haven't been working on it, but it shouldn't be *too* hard to reload
at least the newlib library categories when you select each one.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
On 7/3/07, anne Vanhoest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
As far as the wish goes: would anyone but me like to have oval pin
footprints?
You can overlay a pin and a square pads with rounded corners. No oval
but it may be what you want.
Check out my DIP footprints at
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:31:20 +0100, Peter TB Brett wrote:
Then the workflow would be:
1. Down symbol. If it's possible to edit the original library symbol,
you have the option to; otherwise it opens the embedded version for
editing.
2. Save symbol. If you're editing the embedded
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:14:26 -0700, Ben Jackson wrote:
That's a good idea. What I do instead now is just select the inline
all components (or whatever it's called) menu option before I
distribute the .sch.
Hmm. I Can't find such an option (gschem 20070526). Can you point me to
the right
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 09:09:10 Steve Meier wrote:
2) Do you need hierarchical Buses?
3) Do you need back anotation?
If you answer yes to any of these then geda/pcb isn't there yet and may
never be. If you would like to discuss your project requirements either
here or more privately don't
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 16:28:56 John Griessen wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:08 AM, John Luciani wrote:
You do need to verify symbols and footprints against your process
requirements
The good thing about the library is that even for symbols that aren't
boxes, you rarely
Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 16:28:56 John Griessen wrote:
rapid update with a new library window...leaving a
complicated set of pages open and ready to add to.That gives speed.
Actually, this is currently broken in unstable gschem -- a restart is
required
to rebuild
How about a circle at a junction, and an X at an unconnected net end?
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
DJ Delorie wrote:
How about a circle at a junction, and an X at an unconnected net end?
X at an unconnected net end has good intuitive meaning to me.
I also like the convention of crossing wires like:
|
|
---o-o-
|
|
I'd like that to be
How about a circle at a junction, and an X at an unconnected net end?
Actually for a while there gschem did exactly that, however, based on
user feedback (at the time) this functionality was unused and
subequently removed.
Right now the filled rectangle and filled circle are controlled via a
Peter,
Again please don't try to put words in my mouth. I didn't say that they
may never appear! I have said that the work I am doing requires them
and as such I can't use the standard geda. But in a sense this is what
is wonderfull about open source and geda. The code is available to be
used as
Hi folks,
I'd really appreciate it if someone would design some button icons for the
component selector dialog.
- The Apply button should become a Place button, with appropriate icon.
- The OK button should become a Hide button, with appropriate icon.
I hope someone can design some nice icons
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 02:02:42PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
How about a circle at a junction, and an X at an unconnected net end?
I like that. I even made a symbol with a pin and an 'X' to put on
intentionally unused pins of chips and headers. If I could just drag
a short wire off the pin
On Jul 3, 2007, at 1:26 PM, John Griessen wrote:
Actually, this is currently broken in unstable gschem -- a restart
is required
to rebuild the library. However, I'm going to add a Refresh
button to the
component library dialog
Sounds fine for going onward. You an Peter C and Patrick B
You will probably also have draw your own symbols as people have been
complaining about the dreadful state of the shipped library.
I think that's pretty standard in the commercial world. Allegro ships
with a completely useless set of footprints, and many other programs
don't include anything.
On 7/3/07, Steve Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is fair.
A lot of the component companies (altera, analog etc) provide patterns
and footprints for the main commercial tools.
However making a symbol isn't that hard (unless its a 1020 pin fpga) .
Actually, a 1020 pin FPGA would be pretty
32 matches
Mail list logo
