On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 13:43 +0900, timecop wrote:
>> I would never trust pre-made symbols for any project, it takes very
>
> Similar for me, and I do not trust my own symbols also!
True enough. The only time I have been badly burned is when
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 01:21 +0200, Levente Kovacs wrote:
> Is there any non-interactive footprint editor around? Like a perl script which
I do not know an editor, but there are non interactive generators like
footgen and my sfg -- for sfg you can set mask offset and clearance very
easy, and if yo
Exactly, that's why I'm happily using Windows...
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 13:43 +0900, timecop wrote:
>> I would never trust pre-made symbols for any project, it takes very
>
> Similar for me, and I do not trust my own symbols also!
>
> And I
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 13:43 +0900, timecop wrote:
> I would never trust pre-made symbols for any project, it takes very
Similar for me, and I do not trust my own symbols also!
And I have to admit that I do not really trust the linux kernel, my web
browser and email client, ... Maybe I should try
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 21:36:33 -0700
Dave N6NZ wrote:
> Of course, you are asking about something different it seems, not a
> generator, but a parametric tweaker "all masks shall now have offset
> X" -- which is suppose could be handy, but I just regenerate the
> footprint with different parameters.
I would never trust pre-made symbols for any project, it takes very
little effort to make your own, and some projects would call for
something different that wasnt exactly in default pads anyway, such as
smaller width 0402 pads for a densely placed board etc.
But stuff like qfn/bga/etc, it better b
On Apr 6, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Levente Kovacs wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:41:37 -0700
> Anthony Shanks wrote:
>
>> In my opinion it's worth spending an hour going over the footprint
>> file format and just making your footprints in an ASCII editor. Once
>> you know the file format it's very fas
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:41:37 -0700
Anthony Shanks wrote:
> In my opinion it's worth spending an hour going over the footprint
> file format and just making your footprints in an ASCII editor. Once
> you know the file format it's very fast (< 10 min per footprint on
> average) and you get the exact
Hi,
Well, I am lazy, and that is why I create my own library. I am lazy, so I don't
upload it to gedasymbols.org.
But it is availabel through my git server! :-)
http://git.logonex.eu/?p=library.git;a=tree;f=electronic;hb=HEAD
Enjoy!
Levente
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:59:06 -0400
Patrick wrote:
On Apr 6, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Mark Rages wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Anthony Shanks wrote:
>> Didn't bother with any kind of scripted footprint generator as I
>> wanted to know exactly what the file format was for footprints. Once I
>> discovered how easy it was I felt it wasn't wor
Stefan Salewski wrote:
Do you really work on the *.fp files with your text editor?
This is my preferred method.
Phil
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Anthony Shanks wrote:
> Didn't bother with any kind of scripted footprint generator as I
> wanted to know exactly what the file format was for footprints. Once I
> discovered how easy it was I felt it wasn't worth fighting with a
> script that may or may not do wha
Didn't bother with any kind of scripted footprint generator as I
wanted to know exactly what the file format was for footprints. Once I
discovered how easy it was I felt it wasn't worth fighting with a
script that may or may not do what i needed to do. It's been working
fine for me and I haven't ha
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 09:41 -0700, Anthony Shanks wrote:
> In my opinion it's worth spending an hour going over the footprint
> file format and just making your footprints in an ASCII editor. Once
> you know the file format it's very fast (< 10 min per footprint on
> average) and you get the exact
In my opinion it's worth spending an hour going over the footprint
file format and just making your footprints in an ASCII editor. Once
you know the file format it's very fast (< 10 min per footprint on
average) and you get the exact dimensions you need specified by the
datasheet. Making footprints
On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:25 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> I am just getting started and may say things that sound stupid.
>
> Even something you think sounds stupid gives us some insight into how
> new users perceive our software :-)
One of the problems here is that the gschem GUI channels new users
Hi DJ, Hi Stepan
I did not know about gedasymbols.org I will check it out. The bounty
idea would work great for me if others wanted to move forward with it.
It is amazing how much open source software has been able to accomplish.
I forget how many billions of dollars it is estimated that Linux
I have 1000 or so footprints at
http://www.luciani.org/geda/pcb/pcb-footprint-list.html
The gEDA scripts and libraries that I use are also on the site.
Stefan's 15min-90min estimate for footprint creation seems about
right. With a script
you can generate families of footprints and amortize that ti
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 11:08 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>
> Please bare with me, I repair spectrometers for a living and have no
> circuit design experience. I just see an opportunity to make a device
> and I want to jump on it despite my lack of experience.
>
> -Patrick
Of course, some circuit des
> I am just getting started and may say things that sound stupid.
Even something you think sounds stupid gives us some insight into how
new users perceive our software :-)
> I guess this leaves me with a question... Is geda meant for the
> non-lazy high end user that roll's his/her own footprint
Hi Stefan
I do not really get the intension of your post. If you really should not
manage to make the needed symbols and footprints by yourself, then I
guess you may find indeed people who will support you. For example, I
can make single symbols or footprints for you, or maybe greater
quantities
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 07:59 -0400, Patrick wrote:
> Hi Everyone
>
> This is my first post here, I am also very, very new to PCB design.
>
> The last thing I want is to create another flame, Eagle vs geda etc...
> but am I basically correct that the proprietary Apps have more libraries
> and thi
On Apr 6, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Patrick wrote:
The last thing I want is to create another flame, Eagle vs geda etc...
but am I basically correct that the proprietary Apps have more
libraries and this is the main drawback of the open source alternates?
Patrick,
At work with a multi
Hi Everyone
This is my first post here, I am also very, very new to PCB design.
The last thing I want is to create another flame, Eagle vs geda etc...
but am I basically correct that the proprietary Apps have more libraries
and this is the main drawback of the open source alternates?
If this
24 matches
Mail list logo
