I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.  I have
looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found
two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that
are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab
house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them.  

Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free
packages are not viable.  The PCB package from
http://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~haceaton/pcb/ seems to work, but is not
supported under windows.  It is not clear if it will run under Cygwin. 
I guess I could dedicate a machine to PCB design and run Linix, but I am
pretty sure I would end up creating problems from my lack of experience
with *NIX.  

I looked at a few of the PCB vendor packages and have done one design
and ordered boards.  It was fairly low risk since it only cost $59
including shipping from expressPCB.  But these boards have no soldermask
or silk screen.  I can live without silk screen, but the solder mask is
important when using fine pitch parts.  In general, I am not happy being
tied to a vendor and having to duplicate the layout work to use a
different vendor.  Reentering a schematic is no big deal, but layout is
very time intensive and each tool is toally different.  

So that brings us to the commercial layout packages.  Most of them are
several kilobucks and out of my budget.  I found a list at
http://www.olimex.com/pcb/dtools.html of a lot of packages, but there is
no real info on them.  So that is why I am here.  Can I ask for opinions
on what tools will give the best benifit for the cost of the low end
tools?  I hate to spend even $100 on a tool that I am not sure I will
want to continue to use, but if I have confidence that it will be a good
tool, I would not mind paying $500.  

So what are my options and how good are they for fine pitch work, up to
6 layers?  

And does anyone have any experience with TCI3?  It seems to be a free
tool, but when I follow the link, the page is in French.  Anyone know if
the tool can be used by English speakers (and readers)?  Any English
docs?  I guess I could learn metric dimensions; 0.15 trace - 0.15 space
:).

Ralph Malph wrote:
<snip>

I have had three packages I have purchased over the years.

Two are no logner available.  :-(

All PCB packages will have a different user interface. This is
really a pain. When you get use to useing one package, the same
vendor will change their interface, or they will go under.

So, try some of the freeware packages just to get a feel for
whats out there. Yes, you will burn up a lot of time.

I have just starting useing E.A.G.L.E software.
<http://www.cadsoft.de/index.htm>

Their demo version will only allow you two layers and a small PCB,
but it does work and you can send the Gerber files to anyone you like.

If you find anything you like, reply here so we can get a feel for
how you evaluated those packages.

hamilton

"Ralph Malph" <noone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3FE89C8B.7FE17366@yahoo.com...
> I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
> overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
> parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.

Laying out boards is such a pain in the neck. As the layout s/w becomes more
"featureful", the work becomes more difficult and more time consuming.

My opinion is that it isn't worth doing these things on your own. I had
olimex.com do a several board layouts for me and the boards came out fine.
They can do the manufacturing, too, at a good price, and I'm pretty sure
they can provide you with gerbers.

There are a lot of other places to go for board layout, for sure. I just
mention this place because I've worked with them before and they did a good
job.

Mike

Ralph Malph wrote:

> I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
> overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
> parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.  I have
> looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found
> two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that
> are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab
> house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them.  

Check out Protel Autotrax and Easytrax.  They are at the
bottom of the page under freeware:

http://www.protel.com/resources/downloads/

I started my company with Autotrax when I couldn't afford
anything else.  If you can find yourself an early dos
version of Orcad, Autotrax will take it's netlist.

Autotrax runs under DOS, but that shouldn't be a big
hassle if money is your major concern.

Hi,

> I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
> overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
> parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.  I have

Did you evaluate EAGLE (www.cadsoftusa.com)? It is available for
Windows and Linux, it is very mature, and the current version has
(finally) added support for blind/buried vias, making it much better
suited for 6-layer boards and MBGA. You can't evaluate that in the
free version (limited to two layers) but trust me, it works :) Eagle
is always the package I recommend when people ask here for
cost-effective PCB layout tools. It even has an autorouter which is
adequate for most simple jobs.

Pitch is neither here nor there, Eagle can handle any trace
width/spacing you care to name.

The cheapest version is $50 but it won't do your layer requirement
(basically, it is just permission to use the free version for
commercial projects). But the pricing of the full package is very
reasonable compared to similarly featured products. And the Cadsoft
newsgroups are very active, so there is good peer support.

> are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab
> house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them.  

These packages are evil. Don't use them.

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Ralph Malph wrote:
> 
>> I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
>> overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
>> parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.  I have
>> looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found
>> two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that
>> are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab
>> house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them.  
> 
> 
> Check out Protel Autotrax and Easytrax.  They are at the
> bottom of the page under freeware:
> 
> http://www.protel.com/resources/downloads/
> 
> I started my company with Autotrax when I couldn't afford
> anything else.  If you can find yourself an early dos
> version of Orcad, Autotrax will take it's netlist.
> 
> Autotrax runs under DOS, but that shouldn't be a big
> hassle if money is your major concern.
> 
> 
I agree; give Protel Autotrax a go.

There are some higher resolution display drivers available.
It runs fine DOS full screen in windows.

The biggest problem I found is that display zoom; it would be nice to go 
another level or two in for very fine work (0.001 tweeking). It doesn't 
support burried vias and the copper pour could be better, but it's OK 
for fine pitch double sided boards.

I purchased Autotrax when it was first released probably 15 years ago 
and still use it. Autotrax can be used very quickly from the keyboard 
with little mousing. The manual editing, draging etc. is quick and easy. 
It's also quite easy to create new component footprints.

I've recently tried other packages looking for a replacement but haven't 
picked one yet. To get the same features you end up with a bit more at 
prices starting at $1000 to $1500 USD, and a windows interface that's 
quite different to Autotrax and I find slower.

Paul Bealing
www.pmb.co.nz

I've used Eagle from CADSoft for a few months now and have been
generally pleased.  The trial version is free for download, but the
board size is limited and the auto router dosen't work.  This can be
"fixed" by paying a resonable registration fee of 50 USD, or by other
means.  Their website is:

http://www.cadsoftusa.com/

-J


Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3FE89C8B.7FE17366@yahoo.com>...
> I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
> overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
> parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.  I have
> looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found
> two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that
> are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab
> house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them.  
> 
> Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free
> packages are not viable.  The PCB package from
> http://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~haceaton/pcb/ seems to work, but is not
> supported under windows.  It is not clear if it will run under Cygwin. 
> I guess I could dedicate a machine to PCB design and run Linix, but I am
> pretty sure I would end up creating problems from my lack of experience
> with *NIX.  
> 
> I looked at a few of the PCB vendor packages and have done one design
> and ordered boards.  It was fairly low risk since it only cost $59
> including shipping from expressPCB.  But these boards have no soldermask
> or silk screen.  I can live without silk screen, but the solder mask is
> important when using fine pitch parts.  In general, I am not happy being
> tied to a vendor and having to duplicate the layout work to use a
> different vendor.  Reentering a schematic is no big deal, but layout is
> very time intensive and each tool is toally different.  
> 
> So that brings us to the commercial layout packages.  Most of them are
> several kilobucks and out of my budget.  I found a list at
> http://www.olimex.com/pcb/dtools.html of a lot of packages, but there is
> no real info on them.  So that is why I am here.  Can I ask for opinions
> on what tools will give the best benifit for the cost of the low end
> tools?  I hate to spend even $100 on a tool that I am not sure I will
> want to continue to use, but if I have confidence that it will be a good
> tool, I would not mind paying $500.  
> 
> So what are my options and how good are they for fine pitch work, up to
> 6 layers?  
> 
> And does anyone have any experience with TCI3?  It seems to be a free
> tool, but when I follow the link, the page is in French.  Anyone know if
> the tool can be used by English speakers (and readers)?  Any English
> docs?  I guess I could learn metric dimensions; 0.15 trace - 0.15 space
> :).

Ralph Malph threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

> I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
> overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
> parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.  I have
> looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found
> two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that
> are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab
> house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them.  
>
> Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free
> packages are not viable.  The PCB package from
> http://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~haceaton/pcb/ seems to work,

It definitely does work, I've been using it for at least 5 years.

> but is not
> supported under windows.

That's because it was developed on GNU/Linux.

> It is not clear if it will run under Cygwin. 
> I guess I could dedicate a machine to PCB design and run Linix, but I am
> pretty sure I would end up creating problems from my lack of experience
> with *NIX.

I think if you can lay out pcbs, you can handle simple file operations
with GNU/Linux, it really isn't hard.

PCB is "click and grunt" just like any other GUI cad app.

I have some pics of PCB at work on my site:-
http://milkstone.d2.net.au/software/pcb.html

-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

Ralph Malph wrote:
> I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
> overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
> parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.  I have
> looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found
> two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that
> are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab
> house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them.  
> 
> Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free
> packages are not viable.  The PCB package from
> http://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~haceaton/pcb/ seems to work, but is not
> supported under windows.  It is not clear if it will run under Cygwin. 
> I guess I could dedicate a machine to PCB design and run Linix, but I am
> pretty sure I would end up creating problems from my lack of experience
> with *NIX.  
> 
> I looked at a few of the PCB vendor packages and have done one design
> and ordered boards.  It was fairly low risk since it only cost $59
> including shipping from expressPCB.  But these boards have no soldermask
> or silk screen.  I can live without silk screen, but the solder mask is
> important when using fine pitch parts.  In general, I am not happy being
> tied to a vendor and having to duplicate the layout work to use a
> different vendor.  Reentering a schematic is no big deal, but layout is
> very time intensive and each tool is toally different.  
> 
> So that brings us to the commercial layout packages.  Most of them are
> several kilobucks and out of my budget.  I found a list at
> http://www.olimex.com/pcb/dtools.html of a lot of packages, but there is
> no real info on them.  So that is why I am here.  Can I ask for opinions
> on what tools will give the best benifit for the cost of the low end
> tools?  I hate to spend even $100 on a tool that I am not sure I will
> want to continue to use, but if I have confidence that it will be a good
> tool, I would not mind paying $500.  
> 
> So what are my options and how good are they for fine pitch work, up to
> 6 layers?  
> 
> And does anyone have any experience with TCI3?  It seems to be a free
> tool, but when I follow the link, the page is in French.  Anyone know if
> the tool can be used by English speakers (and readers)?  Any English
> docs?  I guess I could learn metric dimensions; 0.15 trace - 0.15 space
> :).

Have a loom at EasyPC: http://www.numberone.com

It's very easy to use and is inexpensive. I used it for years.

Leon
-- 
Leon Heller, G1HSM
Email: aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com
My low-cost Philips LPC210x ARM development system:
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller/lpc2104.html

> generally pleased.  The trial version is free for download, but the
> board size is limited and the auto router dosen't work.  This can be
> "fixed" by paying a resonable registration fee of 50 USD, or by other

The autorouter is disabled in eval versions now? That is a new twist
for 4.11. Download 4.09 - it's still available on their ftp site, and
the autorouter works in eval mode.

>I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
>overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
>parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.  I have
>looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found
>two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that
>are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab
>house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them.  
>
>Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free
>packages are not viable.  The PCB package from
>http://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~haceaton/pcb/ seems to work, but is not
>supported under windows.  It is not clear if it will run under Cygwin. 
>I guess I could dedicate a machine to PCB design and run Linix, but I am
>pretty sure I would end up creating problems from my lack of experience
>with *NIX.  
>
>I looked at a few of the PCB vendor packages and have done one design
>and ordered boards.  It was fairly low risk since it only cost $59
>including shipping from expressPCB.  But these boards have no soldermask
>or silk screen.  I can live without silk screen, but the solder mask is
>important when using fine pitch parts.  In general, I am not happy being
>tied to a vendor and having to duplicate the layout work to use a
>different vendor.  Reentering a schematic is no big deal, but layout is
>very time intensive and each tool is toally different.  
>
>So that brings us to the commercial layout packages.  Most of them are
>several kilobucks and out of my budget.  I found a list at
>http://www.olimex.com/pcb/dtools.html of a lot of packages, but there is
>no real info on them.  So that is why I am here.  Can I ask for opinions
>on what tools will give the best benifit for the cost of the low end
>tools?  I hate to spend even $100 on a tool that I am not sure I will
>want to continue to use, but if I have confidence that it will be a good
>tool, I would not mind paying $500.  
>
>So what are my options and how good are they for fine pitch work, up to
>6 layers?  
>
>And does anyone have any experience with TCI3?  It seems to be a free
>tool, but when I follow the link, the page is in French.  Anyone know if
>the tool can be used by English speakers (and readers)?  Any English
>docs?  I guess I could learn metric dimensions; 0.15 trace - 0.15 space

Have a look at www.seetrax.co.uk

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:50:35 -0500, Ralph Malph wrote:

> I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
> -----snip-----

	Check out http://www.icadsys.com pretty complete, I've been using it for
12 years when it ran on an XT under DOS.

Paul Bealing wrote:

> 
<snip>
> I purchased Autotrax when it was first released probably 15 years ago 
> and still use it. Autotrax can be used very quickly from the keyboard 
> with little mousing. The manual editing, draging etc. is quick and easy. 
> It's also quite easy to create new component footprints.
> 
> I've recently tried other packages looking for a replacement but haven't 
> picked one yet. To get the same features you end up with a bit more at 
> prices starting at $1000 to $1500 USD, and a windows interface that's 
> quite different to Autotrax and I find slower.
> 
> Paul Bealing
> www.pmb.co.nz

One replacement for Autotrax I tried was Circuit/Traxmaker (now from 
Protel, originally from Microcode).
It's interface is similar to "Autotrax for the Mac" which it was 
probably derived from. It has a lot of autotrax type stuff which make it 
eminently recommendable. But it also violates a lot of it's own 
interface guidelines i.e. it does lack consistency in it's interface.
Anyway it is downloadable from the Protel website.

http://www.altium.com/circuitmaker/

regards Andrew

"Albert Lee Mitchell" <albmit@albert.amresearch.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.24.22.02.49.367761@albert.amresearch.com...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:50:35 -0500, Ralph Malph wrote:
>
> > I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
> > -----snip-----
>
> Check out http://www.icadsys.com pretty complete, I've been using it for
> 12 years when it ran on an XT under DOS.9

I was talking with a friend of mine the other day. We were talking about
winxp being fairly stable. "Yup," I said, "Its the most stable microsoft OS
since DOS." -- Mike

Andrew Tweddle wrote:
> Paul Bealing wrote:
> 
>>
> <snip>
> 
>> I purchased Autotrax when it was first released probably 15 years ago 
>> and still use it. Autotrax can be used very quickly from the keyboard 
>> with little mousing. The manual editing, draging etc. is quick and 
>> easy. It's also quite easy to create new component footprints.
>>
>> I've recently tried other packages looking for a replacement but 
>> haven't picked one yet. To get the same features you end up with a bit 
>> more at prices starting at $1000 to $1500 USD, and a windows interface 
>> that's quite different to Autotrax and I find slower.
>>
>> Paul Bealing
>> www.pmb.co.nz
> 
> 
> One replacement for Autotrax I tried was Circuit/Traxmaker (now from 
> Protel, originally from Microcode).
> It's interface is similar to "Autotrax for the Mac" which it was 
> probably derived from. It has a lot of autotrax type stuff which make it 
> eminently recommendable. But it also violates a lot of it's own 
> interface guidelines i.e. it does lack consistency in it's interface.
> Anyway it is downloadable from the Protel website.
> 
> http://www.altium.com/circuitmaker/
> 
> regards Andrew
> 

Yes, it's not bad; I have the demo CD.
Bad; the demo only runs for 5 or 10 minutes at a time for 30 days.
Good: it imports Autotrax files.
It's like a windows version of Autotrax with a few improvements.
It's quite expensive for just the PCB layout considering Autotrax is 
free and almost as good. The Circuitmaker packet says it includes 
schematic capture and simulation but I haven't tried these.

Another that was quite good was Protel For Windows (PFW). I've looked at 
version 2.8 (I think); again an improved Autotrax.
Problem; I don't think it's free and no longer sold.

I think Altium should continue selling the last version of PFW for about 
$250 USD.

Regards
Paul Bealing

Ralph Malph wrote:
> 
> Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free
> packages are not viable.  

Well, I have read all the replies and have looked at most, if not all of
the recommended systems.  Unfortunately I have not found any of them to
be workable (or at least easily used).  

The Eagle software from CadSoft seemed like it had the most promise, but
I tried to download the older version 4.09 as someone recommended and
could not get either release to install.  Both complain of bad files
even though I downloaded them twice.  I then tried to download 4.11 and
can't seem to connect to the server.  

So at this point I am still looking.  The Protel Autotrax software is
very much a DOS package complete with a memory manager which did not
seem to initialize correctly under Win2k.  So I don't think it is worth
trying to get it to work with a modern OS.  Other packages installed ok,
but are very limited including providing nearly no parts library.  If
they are going to limit the number of layers and pins, why don't they at
least include a moderately complete library?  My idea was to do a
simple, small project to evaluate the tool.  But with all the work
required to learn how to create my own device footprints, it is not
worth it.   

I find it expecially odd when they don't provide a file save
capability.  If you can't do *any* useful work with their eval package,
just how much time do they expect you to spend with it?  


Eagle      Cadsoft      Can't download or install
Autotrax   Protel       DOS based memory management
Easytrax   Protel       Poor UI
EasyPC     Numberone    Demo has no save or plot functionality
Cadstar    Zuken        Not simple
RangerXL   Seetrax      Still haven't gotten a password file (not sure
if it is time limited or not)

I'll keep trying to download one of the Eagle versions.  But otherwise I
have found all of these demo programs to be lacking for my needs.

Ralph Malph wrote:
> The Eagle software from CadSoft seemed like it had
> the most promise, but I tried to download the older
> version 4.09 as someone recommended and could not
> get either release to install.

Ralph,

Eagle really is a good package.  It'd be worth working through your
install errors, if you've got the patience.

Cadsoft hosts newsgroups for product support, and I've been pleased with
the user community as well.  Before I bought, I scoured both to look for
the chronic complaints and found there were no serious issues, and a lot
of compliments - a nice side-effect of an open support forum.  Here are
their English newsgroups:
news://news.cadsoft.de/eagle.userchat.eng
news://news.cadsoft.de/eagle.support.eng

If you're like me, you'll dislike Eagle's mouse UI, but once you learn
the keyboard syntax things go much faster (it also has some potent
scripting capabilities).  It does take a little training; the UI is not
intuitive to newcomers.  There's a tutorial you can download from
Cadsoft's site - I highly recommend it.

The demo version is full-featured, but limited to ~4x6" board and 2
layers.  (The board, traces, and PTH can exceed this dimention, but not
component pads/holes.)  The demo sadly does not include the PDF manual,
which makes eval quite a bit harder.

And as someone else commented - when it comes to libraries, "Trust but
verify" against datasheets.  I've been very pleased with the extensive
Eagle library, though I have found a few errors (like pad spacing on an
SMT package).  The good thing is... it's fairly easy to publish the
corrections to the user community.

> The Eagle software from CadSoft seemed like it had the most promise, but
> I tried to download the older version 4.09 as someone recommended and
> could not get either release to install.  Both complain of bad files

This is really bizarre. What OS are you trying to install on? Are you
running antivirus software, automatic file restoration utilities or
other weird programs that may be hooking file I/O?

My guess is that you probably downloaded with Internet Explorer, and
the download silently timed out, so you have a partial file only. Try,
try again :) Eagle has one of the least restricted eval modes you'll
find.

"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" wrote:
> 
> > The Eagle software from CadSoft seemed like it had the most promise, but
> > I tried to download the older version 4.09 as someone recommended and
> > could not get either release to install.  Both complain of bad files
> 
> This is really bizarre. What OS are you trying to install on? Are you
> running antivirus software, automatic file restoration utilities or
> other weird programs that may be hooking file I/O?
> 
> My guess is that you probably downloaded with Internet Explorer, and
> the download silently timed out, so you have a partial file only. Try,
> try again :) Eagle has one of the least restricted eval modes you'll
> find.


I agree.  Eagle seems like the best approach and seems to be well
recommended.  But I don't get what's with the file errors.  I have
downloaded both the rel 1 and rel 2 versions of 4.09 twice and get the
same error each time.  The sizes match the expected sizes and are the
same each time.  The current version 4.11 seems to be downloading now. 
I guess they may have had the server down for some of the weekend.  That
would not be the first time a company did maintenance over the weekend.  

We'll see how the current release goes.  I'm sorry that one poster said
the GUI is not intuitive.  Seems to me that a layout package should be
very straightforward.  But then I am not a board layout expert.  I guess
there can be subtleties that I am not aware of that make it complex.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:26:35 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I agree.  Eagle seems like the best approach and seems to be well
>recommended.  But I don't get what's with the file errors.  I have
>downloaded both the rel 1 and rel 2 versions of 4.09 twice and get the
>same error each time.  The sizes match the expected sizes and are the
>same each time.

It would be a Good Thing if the Windows app vendors would post MD5 sums
alongside the download links -- at least for large files -- as is common
practice over in the Linux side of things.

FWIW, my connection here is usually pretty clean and the 4.11 I just
downloaded installed OK. The checksum is

FA53F89BCD6430F6B3F610FCD84044C6  eagle-4.11e.exe

If you don't have md5sum, here's one place to get a Windows binary,
along with a usage summary. I think there are GUI-ized versions, too.

http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/using_md5sums.html

-- 
Rich Webb   Norfolk, VA

> We'll see how the current release goes.  I'm sorry that one poster said
> the GUI is not intuitive.  Seems to me that a layout package should be
> very straightforward.  But then I am not a board layout expert.  I guess
> there can be subtleties that I am not aware of that make it complex.

It's a personal preference thing as much as anything else. When I
*first* started working with EAGLE, I also found it unintuitive,
because it doesn't behave like other Windows applications. There are a
couple of things that are decidedly non-Windows-standard. For
instance, you don't use the Copy tool to copy, you use the Cut tool.
And the procedure is not simply "select item to copy, and click copy".
The procedure is:

* select item(s) to copy
* click Cut
* either click Go, or right-click on where you want the pickup point
to be.

The reason for this, by the way, is so that you can select where the
grab point on a group lies. The default (clicking Go) is the center of
the selection.

Like all of its counterparts, EAGLE is descended from a DOS package.
(It was also at one time available for OS/2). Cadsoft decided to stay
with consistency with the old DOS interface in preference to moving to
a more standardized way of doing things.

4.11 has ironed out some of the oddities in the library manager, which
was also a bit unusual to use.

The bottom line is, whatever package you use will have a learning
curve. My experience with Eagle and OrCAD, both of which I've used for
my "daily bread" (plus a couple of packages I just evaluated) is that
you have to expect a significant learning curve to use any of these
packages *effectively*. I wouldn't say EAGLE's is steeper or longer
than any of the others.

http://www.pcb123.com/?source=eetimes

I'm not sure if this one is already mentioned.

Gerard

Rich Webb wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:26:35 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >I agree.  Eagle seems like the best approach and seems to be well
> >recommended.  But I don't get what's with the file errors.  I have
> >downloaded both the rel 1 and rel 2 versions of 4.09 twice and get the
> >same error each time.  The sizes match the expected sizes and are the
> >same each time.
> 
> It would be a Good Thing if the Windows app vendors would post MD5 sums
> alongside the download links -- at least for large files -- as is common
> practice over in the Linux side of things.
> 
> FWIW, my connection here is usually pretty clean and the 4.11 I just
> downloaded installed OK. The checksum is
> 
> FA53F89BCD6430F6B3F610FCD84044C6  eagle-4.11e.exe
> 
> If you don't have md5sum, here's one place to get a Windows binary,
> along with a usage summary. I think there are GUI-ized versions, too.
> 
> http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/using_md5sums.html

Help me with this.  I downloaded the MD5sum program and the checksum is
not ok, then what do I try to fix?  I have done the same downloads
several times from this website and they just don't seem to work.  Other
sites download just fine and the programs run.  

I use a download utility called Star Downloader 1.42 and have never had
any trouble with it before.  I repeated the download and got a different
wrong checksum.  

Can anyone make these files available from a different source?

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:47:20 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Ralph Malph wrote:
>> 
>> Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free
>> packages are not viable.  
>
>Well, I have read all the replies and have looked at most, if not all of
>the recommended systems.  Unfortunately I have not found any of them to
>be workable (or at least easily used).  
>
>The Eagle software from CadSoft seemed like it had the most promise, but
>I tried to download the older version 4.09 as someone recommended and
>could not get either release to install.  Both complain of bad files
>even though I downloaded them twice.  I then tried to download 4.11 and
>can't seem to connect to the server.  
>
>So at this point I am still looking.  The Protel Autotrax software is
>very much a DOS package complete with a memory manager which did not
>seem to initialize correctly under Win2k.  So I don't think it is worth
>trying to get it to work with a modern OS.  Other packages installed ok,
>but are very limited including providing nearly no parts library.  If
>they are going to limit the number of layers and pins, why don't they at
>least include a moderately complete library?  My idea was to do a
>simple, small project to evaluate the tool.  But with all the work
>required to learn how to create my own device footprints, it is not
>worth it.   
>
>I find it expecially odd when they don't provide a file save
>capability.  If you can't do *any* useful work with their eval package,
>just how much time do they expect you to spend with it?  
>
>
>Eagle      Cadsoft      Can't download or install
>Autotrax   Protel       DOS based memory management
>Easytrax   Protel       Poor UI
>EasyPC     Numberone    Demo has no save or plot functionality
>Cadstar    Zuken        Not simple
>RangerXL   Seetrax      Still haven't gotten a password file (not sure
>if it is time limited or not)
>
>I'll keep trying to download one of the Eagle versions.  But otherwise I
>have found all of these demo programs to be lacking for my needs.

Greetings,
I am a retired consulting EE.  I have been using Eagle for many years.
I was a beta tester for the OS2 version and have just bought the
4.1Pro  version but I have not installed it yet.  I like the
autorouter and think it works quite well. I would be willing to sell
it all to you or I offer my services to do the schematic capture and
board layout for you.  I'm always looking for ways to make a little
extra money to support my R/C airplane habit.  My email is:ahorne1 at
comcast dot net.  If I can be any help feel free to contact me.

Regards,

Art

Rich Webb wrote:
> Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > I agree.  Eagle seems like the best approach and seems to be
> > well recommended.  But I don't get what's with the file errors. 
> > I have downloaded both the rel 1 and rel 2 versions of 4.09
> > twice and get the same error each time.  The sizes match the
> > expected sizes and are the same each time.
> 
> It would be a Good Thing if the Windows app vendors would post
> MD5 sums alongside the download links -- at least for large files
> -- as is common practice over in the Linux side of things.

It would be quite enough to use ZIP (or ARJ, LHZ, etc) formats,
possibly combined with a self extractor for the unwashed.  All
such formats include internal consistency checks and can be
examined before installation.  MD5 is simply overkill, but can
also be used internally for the consistency checks.

 *** Ad Hoc Committee to Stamp Out Delivery in Executables ***

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well,

  I'll throw in the lone voice of the Macintosh community.  I use Osmond,
which is currently a freeware package being created, but is VERY good.  It
can't autoroute (which no one seems to like anyway) but it does support 
partlist and netlist files, copper floods and "ratsnesting" which allows
you to see what pins should be connected.  Building your own libraries is
very easy, as is doing minute individual mods after the board is done.  It
can handle any number of board layers and does the standard modern Gerber
and drill file outputs.  Joe (the author) also does a Gerber-to-PDF tool
so you can look at the gerber file outputs to make yourself feel better about
the final product.  I've used the files on a bunch of PCB manufacturers and
never had any complaints.

  He has both OS9 and OSX versions of the software.  You can get it here:
http://www.swcp.com/~jchavez/osmond.html

  If you are into Mac electronics, don't bother with the Douglas PC layout
system, it looks like the last time they gave that package a facelift the 
80286 was the hottest thing on the market...

  I use LogicWorks 4.0 to do my schematic capture, then massage the parts
and connection list files to work with Osmond to give me a GREAT CAD package
for PC boards.  Designworks would be a better package, but Logicworks is 
about $80 and comes with a book on Amazon.com - Osmond is free.

have fun,
DLC

: I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
: overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
: parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.  I have
: looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found
: two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that
: are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab
: house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them.  

: Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free
: packages are not viable.  The PCB package from
: http://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~haceaton/pcb/ seems to work, but is not
: supported under windows.  It is not clear if it will run under Cygwin. 
: I guess I could dedicate a machine to PCB design and run Linix, but I am
: pretty sure I would end up creating problems from my lack of experience
: with *NIX.  

: I looked at a few of the PCB vendor packages and have done one design
: and ordered boards.  It was fairly low risk since it only cost $59
: including shipping from expressPCB.  But these boards have no soldermask
: or silk screen.  I can live without silk screen, but the solder mask is
: important when using fine pitch parts.  In general, I am not happy being
: tied to a vendor and having to duplicate the layout work to use a
: different vendor.  Reentering a schematic is no big deal, but layout is
: very time intensive and each tool is toally different.  

: So that brings us to the commercial layout packages.  Most of them are
: several kilobucks and out of my budget.  I found a list at
: http://www.olimex.com/pcb/dtools.html of a lot of packages, but there is
: no real info on them.  So that is why I am here.  Can I ask for opinions
: on what tools will give the best benifit for the cost of the low end
: tools?  I hate to spend even $100 on a tool that I am not sure I will
: want to continue to use, but if I have confidence that it will be a good
: tool, I would not mind paying $500.  

: So what are my options and how good are they for fine pitch work, up to
: 6 layers?  

: And does anyone have any experience with TCI3?  It seems to be a free
: tool, but when I follow the link, the page is in French.  Anyone know if
: the tool can be used by English speakers (and readers)?  Any English
: docs?  I guess I could learn metric dimensions; 0.15 trace - 0.15 space
: :).

-- 
============================================================================
* Dennis Clark         dlc@frii.com                www.techtoystoday.com   * 
* "Programming and Customizing the OOPic Microcontroller" Mcgraw-Hill 2003 *    
============================================================================

Thanks for the info, but other than this one tool, there are not many
engineering uses for Macs; at least there are not many that I can use. 
The bulk of my work is doing DSP and FPGA design and FPGA tools just
don't exist on the Mac.  I don't know of any DSP tools on the Mac
either.  


Dennis Clark wrote:
> 
> Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well,
> 
>   I'll throw in the lone voice of the Macintosh community.  I use Osmond,
> which is currently a freeware package being created, but is VERY good.  It
> can't autoroute (which no one seems to like anyway) but it does support
> partlist and netlist files, copper floods and "ratsnesting" which allows
> you to see what pins should be connected.  Building your own libraries is
> very easy, as is doing minute individual mods after the board is done.  It
> can handle any number of board layers and does the standard modern Gerber
> and drill file outputs.  Joe (the author) also does a Gerber-to-PDF tool
> so you can look at the gerber file outputs to make yourself feel better about
> the final product.  I've used the files on a bunch of PCB manufacturers and
> never had any complaints.
> 
>   He has both OS9 and OSX versions of the software.  You can get it here:
> http://www.swcp.com/~jchavez/osmond.html
> 
>   If you are into Mac electronics, don't bother with the Douglas PC layout
> system, it looks like the last time they gave that package a facelift the
> 80286 was the hottest thing on the market...
> 
>   I use LogicWorks 4.0 to do my schematic capture, then massage the parts
> and connection list files to work with Osmond to give me a GREAT CAD package
> for PC boards.  Designworks would be a better package, but Logicworks is
> about $80 and comes with a book on Amazon.com - Osmond is free.
> 
> have fun,
> DLC
> 
> : I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
> : overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
> : parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.  I have
> : looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found
> : two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that
> : are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab
> : house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them.
> 
> : Clearly I need something that actually works, so most of the truely free
> : packages are not viable.  The PCB package from
> : http://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~haceaton/pcb/ seems to work, but is not
> : supported under windows.  It is not clear if it will run under Cygwin.
> : I guess I could dedicate a machine to PCB design and run Linix, but I am
> : pretty sure I would end up creating problems from my lack of experience
> : with *NIX.
> 
> : I looked at a few of the PCB vendor packages and have done one design
> : and ordered boards.  It was fairly low risk since it only cost $59
> : including shipping from expressPCB.  But these boards have no soldermask
> : or silk screen.  I can live without silk screen, but the solder mask is
> : important when using fine pitch parts.  In general, I am not happy being
> : tied to a vendor and having to duplicate the layout work to use a
> : different vendor.  Reentering a schematic is no big deal, but layout is
> : very time intensive and each tool is toally different.
> 
> : So that brings us to the commercial layout packages.  Most of them are
> : several kilobucks and out of my budget.  I found a list at
> : http://www.olimex.com/pcb/dtools.html of a lot of packages, but there is
> : no real info on them.  So that is why I am here.  Can I ask for opinions
> : on what tools will give the best benifit for the cost of the low end
> : tools?  I hate to spend even $100 on a tool that I am not sure I will
> : want to continue to use, but if I have confidence that it will be a good
> : tool, I would not mind paying $500.
> 
> : So what are my options and how good are they for fine pitch work, up to
> : 6 layers?
> 
> : And does anyone have any experience with TCI3?  It seems to be a free
> : tool, but when I follow the link, the page is in French.  Anyone know if
> : the tool can be used by English speakers (and readers)?  Any English
> : docs?  I guess I could learn metric dimensions; 0.15 trace - 0.15 space
> : :).
> 
> --
> ============================================================================
> * Dennis Clark         dlc@frii.com                www.techtoystoday.com   *
> * "Programming and Customizing the OOPic Microcontroller" Mcgraw-Hill 2003 *
> ============================================================================

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:54:42 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Help me with this.  I downloaded the MD5sum program and the checksum is
>not ok, then what do I try to fix?  I have done the same downloads
>several times from this website and they just don't seem to work.  Other
>sites download just fine and the programs run.  
>
>I use a download utility called Star Downloader 1.42 and have never had
>any trouble with it before.  I repeated the download and got a different
>wrong checksum.  

Try a simple FTP from ftp://ftp.cadsoft.de/pub/program/4.11/. If you
don't have an FTP client, there's one available from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/filezilla

-- 
Rich Webb   Norfolk, VA

Ralph Malph wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the info, but other than this one tool, there are not
> many engineering uses for Macs; at least there are not many that
> I can use. The bulk of my work is doing DSP and FPGA design and
> FPGA tools just don't exist on the Mac.  I don't know of any DSP
> tools on the Mac either.

Please don't toppost.  Your answer belongs after the material to
which you are replying, after snipping out whatever is not
germane.

I thought MACs these days were running Linux/Unix in one form or
another.  This opens up the whole world for them.  At worst such
things as WINE and DOSEMU should allow you to run ugly Windoze and
DOS applications.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

In article <3FEF6F8D.BDB96B02@yahoo.com>, noone@yahoo.com says...
> Thanks for the info, but other than this one tool, there are not many
> engineering uses for Macs; at least there are not many that I can use. 
> The bulk of my work is doing DSP and FPGA design and FPGA tools just
> don't exist on the Mac.  I don't know of any DSP tools on the Mac
> either.  
> 

I was under the impression that MAC OS X was able to run many UNIX
apps.  Is this not true, or are there no DSP tools for UNIX?
> 
> Dennis Clark wrote:
> > 
>

<<SNIP>>

Mark Borgerson

"Dennis Clark" <dlc@io.frii.com> wrote in message
news:3fef283f$0$196$75868355@news.frii.net...
> Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well,
>
>   I'll throw in the lone voice of the Macintosh community.  I use Osmond,
> which is currently a freeware package being created, but is VERY good.  It
> can't autoroute (which no one seems to like anyway) but it does support
> partlist and netlist files, copper floods and "ratsnesting" which allows
> you to see what pins should be connected.  Building your own libraries is
> very easy, as is doing minute individual mods after the board is done.  It
> can handle any number of board layers and does the standard modern Gerber
> and drill file outputs.  Joe (the author) also does a Gerber-to-PDF tool
> so you can look at the gerber file outputs to make yourself feel better
about
> the final product.  I've used the files on a bunch of PCB manufacturers
and
> never had any complaints.
>
>   He has both OS9 and OSX versions of the software.  You can get it here:
> http://www.swcp.com/~jchavez/osmond.html
>
>   If you are into Mac electronics, don't bother with the Douglas PC layout
> system, it looks like the last time they gave that package a facelift the
> 80286 was the hottest thing on the market...
>
>   I use LogicWorks 4.0 to do my schematic capture, then massage the parts
> and connection list files to work with Osmond to give me a GREAT CAD
package
> for PC boards.  Designworks would be a better package, but Logicworks is
> about $80 and comes with a book on Amazon.com - Osmond is free.
>
> have fun,
> DLC
>

Denis did you post in the eagle forums on the thread requesting
an eagle version for macosx ?

Can't remember which forum it was.
And don't have a link.

They were considering it a few months back.
I haven't heard anything about it since.

Alex Gibson

In article <3FEF90B2.408E1BE0@yahoo.com>,
 CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I thought MACs these days were running Linux/Unix in one form or
> another.  This opens up the whole world for them.  At worst such
> things as WINE and DOSEMU should allow you to run ugly Windoze and
> DOS applications.

That is correct, Mac OS X is a variant (Darwin) of FreeBSD UNIX.  X 
Windows is supported (with a free download from Apple); standard 
supplied shells are tcsh (C shell, extended) and zsh (Korn shell, 
extended).  "gcc", "cc", "ld", and "make" are present, "imake" is 
supplied with X Windows...

> That is correct, Mac OS X is a variant (Darwin) of FreeBSD UNIX.  X 
> Windows is supported (with a free download from Apple); standard 

Yes, but I hate the way Apple did it. I wish they had implemented the
new Finder as an X window manager. As it is, there is no integration
whatsoever between XWindows and "normal" applications. Particularly
disappointing in the case of openoffice.org. (sigh). But it was a
great step forward for Apple to use the UNIX kernel.

Rich Webb wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:54:42 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >Help me with this.  I downloaded the MD5sum program and the checksum is
> >not ok, then what do I try to fix?  I have done the same downloads
> >several times from this website and they just don't seem to work.  Other
> >sites download just fine and the programs run.
> >
> >I use a download utility called Star Downloader 1.42 and have never had
> >any trouble with it before.  I repeated the download and got a different
> >wrong checksum.
> 
> Try a simple FTP from ftp://ftp.cadsoft.de/pub/program/4.11/. If you
> don't have an FTP client, there's one available from
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/filezilla

I got the file to download correctly by telling the download utility to
download it in one stream rather than in several.  I am not sure how
multiple streams helps, perhaps improving speed when the source limits
bandwidth to any one stream.  

But now that I have tried to use Eagle, I do not find it an easy to use
tool.  One of the first tasks I have is to make a foot print for a
TSSOP20 package.  I can find various commands to add the SMD pads, but
it is *extremely* tedious since I have to calculate the X,Y of every pad
and then go though a process of creating each one and moving it to the
right location using the mouse.  Since the X,Y coordinate shown depends
on where the pad is picked up using the mouse, I have to use the info
command to find the current location, make sure I pick it up by that
location and then move it to the correct location.  I tired using typed
commands for this, but the editor complains saying the move command can
only be used on "boards".  

I can't seem to find a way to pour copper on this part, which it needs
to create a large pad under the body for heat conduction.  I suppose I
could add an extra pin to the schematic and use the SMD command, but
that seems like an odd way to do it.  

All in all, this seems like yet another program that is very far from
modern GUI techniques.  I have drawn this layout in Visio to make sure
it will fit on the board and it was much, much easier to do than it is
in the board layout package.  

I have looked at the tutorial and did not find it very enlightening. 
Anyone know of other sources of info on how to use this tool?  The
manuals just don't cut it.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:30:44 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>I got the file to download correctly by telling the download utility to
>download it in one stream rather than in several.  I am not sure how
>multiple streams helps, perhaps improving speed when the source limits
>bandwidth to any one stream.  
>
>But now that I have tried to use Eagle, I do not find it an easy to use
>tool.  One of the first tasks I have is to make a foot print for a
>TSSOP20 package.  I can find various commands to add the SMD pads, but
>it is *extremely* tedious since I have to calculate the X,Y of every pad
>and then go though a process of creating each one and moving it to the
>right location using the mouse.  Since the X,Y coordinate shown depends
>on where the pad is picked up using the mouse, I have to use the info
>command to find the current location, make sure I pick it up by that
>location and then move it to the correct location.  I tired using typed
>commands for this, but the editor complains saying the move command can
>only be used on "boards".  
>
>I can't seem to find a way to pour copper on this part, which it needs
>to create a large pad under the body for heat conduction.  I suppose I
>could add an extra pin to the schematic and use the SMD command, but
>that seems like an odd way to do it.  
>
>All in all, this seems like yet another program that is very far from
>modern GUI techniques.  I have drawn this layout in Visio to make sure
>it will fit on the board and it was much, much easier to do than it is
>in the board layout package.  
>
>I have looked at the tutorial and did not find it very enlightening. 
>Anyone know of other sources of info on how to use this tool?  The
>manuals just don't cut it.

Try working through the tutorial.  It isn't that difficult.  I'm
definitely no expert but to place pads at regular intervals I set the
grid to the pad spacing and set the ALTernate grid to 1/2 of the
pad spacing interval.  Then all that is needed is to select SMD, set
the pad size as needed and click away.  The right mouse button rotates
the pads as needed.  What I haven't found yet is an easy way to number
the pads as I desire.  Presently I go back and selet the RENAME tool
and edit each pad after placing them all.
BTW the grid set button is the one in the upper left corner of the
window which has a rectangular array of dimples.
The current version (4.11) has a nice feature where you can OPEN your
custom library, then from the control panel browse the other
libraries.  When you find a DEVice or PACkage that is close to what
you need, it can easily be copied to your open library.
Good luck.
-Bill Knight
R O SOftWare

> > >I use a download utility called Star Downloader 1.42 and have never had

Ah. But many, many sites say "Don't use special downloading utilities
here". Inherently risky software.

> TSSOP20 package.  I can find various commands to add the SMD pads, but
> it is *extremely* tedious since I have to calculate the X,Y of every pad
> and then go though a process of creating each one and moving it to the
> right location using the mouse.  Since the X,Y coordinate shown depends

First step: Set the grid to the pin pitch with "grid mm 1234" or "grid
mil 1234" according to the controlling dimension of the package. Next,
create an SMD with the appropriate dimensions using "smd x y 'name'".
The handle by default is in the center of the SMD. Move the mouse
cursor where you want the first pin. It's convenient if you use either
the real origin or a local origin for this. Left-click to place the
first SMD. Now move along the first edge of the device. Click on each
grid intersection until you've laid enough pins. They are
automatically numbered with incrementing numbers if you specified an
integer for 'name' above. For particularly long devices, it may be
faster to lay down eight or ten and copy them. Once you've laid down
the first edge, select all those items, click Cut, right-click
somewhere inside pin 1, click Paste, right-click twice to rotate 180
degrees, move the strip of new pads up the correct distance above the
first strip (note that the grab handle will be inside the exact center
of pad 1 and you simply move around until the coord indicator in the
ULH of the window shows you (-) the package width as the y-coord -
this is why it's helpful to use a local or global origin at pin 1).
Left-click to drop the new set of pins. They'll automatically be
numbered correctly.

> commands for this, but the editor complains saying the move command can
> only be used on "boards".  

Move doesn't move the cursor, it moves a selected item.

> I can't seem to find a way to pour copper on this part, which it needs

Use the polygon tool. Give the polygon the same name as the pin it
connects to.

> All in all, this seems like yet another program that is very far from

New software always feels this way, and CAD software is never going to
be as instant-gratification as, say, MS-Word. If you used Visio to
draw a PCB layout then you clearly have the tenacity and masochism
required to accomplish almost anything, so persevere and I'm sure
you'll get accustomed to EAGLE :)

> Anyone know of other sources of info on how to use this tool?  The
> manuals just don't cut it.

Peer support is the best way to get running with EAGLE. I never even
read the manuals (they're in my attic somewhere), although I do
frequently refer to the on-line help.

Bill Knight wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:30:44 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >But now that I have tried to use Eagle, I do not find it an easy to use
> >tool.  One of the first tasks I have is to make a foot print for a
> >TSSOP20 package.  I can find various commands to add the SMD pads, but
> >it is *extremely* tedious since I have to calculate the X,Y of every pad
> >and then go though a process of creating each one and moving it to the
> >right location using the mouse.  Since the X,Y coordinate shown depends
> >on where the pad is picked up using the mouse, I have to use the info
> >command to find the current location, make sure I pick it up by that
> >location and then move it to the correct location.  I tired using typed
> >commands for this, but the editor complains saying the move command can
> >only be used on "boards".
> >
> >I can't seem to find a way to pour copper on this part, which it needs
> >to create a large pad under the body for heat conduction.  I suppose I
> >could add an extra pin to the schematic and use the SMD command, but
> >that seems like an odd way to do it.
> >
> >All in all, this seems like yet another program that is very far from
> >modern GUI techniques.  I have drawn this layout in Visio to make sure
> >it will fit on the board and it was much, much easier to do than it is
> >in the board layout package.
> >
> >I have looked at the tutorial and did not find it very enlightening.
> >Anyone know of other sources of info on how to use this tool?  The
> >manuals just don't cut it.
> 
> Try working through the tutorial.  It isn't that difficult.  I'm
> definitely no expert but to place pads at regular intervals I set the
> grid to the pad spacing and set the ALTernate grid to 1/2 of the
> pad spacing interval.  Then all that is needed is to select SMD, set
> the pad size as needed and click away.  The right mouse button rotates
> the pads as needed.  

But the grid works in both directions, X and Y.  Just by coincidence
this worked out for this part (off by only 0.0002").  But in general the
spacing in the X and Y directions will not have a happy multiple.  I
guess I expected to have a way to enter the coordinates of a pad as text
to save all the awkward GUI mouse stuff.  But I don't see a clean way to
do that.  I would have expected an interface based on a DOS program to
have keyboard commands for this sort of thing.  


> What I haven't found yet is an easy way to number
> the pads as I desire.  Presently I go back and selet the RENAME tool
> and edit each pad after placing them all.

I did not do it, but it looks like they can be done in order and you get
the right names.  

> BTW the grid set button is the one in the upper left corner of the
> window which has a rectangular array of dimples.
> The current version (4.11) has a nice feature where you can OPEN your
> custom library, then from the control panel browse the other
> libraries.  When you find a DEVice or PACkage that is close to what
> you need, it can easily be copied to your open library.

Wow, that is only avaialble with the most current release?  Seems like a
standard sort of feature that should have been in place long ago.

Thanks for your advice.  I figured out some of it on my own, but a lot
of what you said is new and useful.  

I am drawing the footprint of a TSSOP20 with a thermal pad underneath. 
I think I have the 20 pins (SMDs) laid down ok, but I am very unclear on
how to do the thermal pad.  I added a 21st SMD in the area where the
solder mask is open for connection.  I also added the vias for thermal
connection to the back of the board.  I am unclear if this is a good way
to handle this or if I should use PADs instead.  The TI data sheet
recommends 10 vias of two different sizes, one inside the open area and
a larger via outside the open area.  I guess this was not a good chip to
use for a first try of the software.  


"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" wrote:
> 
> > > >I use a download utility called Star Downloader 1.42 and have never had
> 
> Ah. But many, many sites say "Don't use special downloading utilities
> here". Inherently risky software.
> 
> > TSSOP20 package.  I can find various commands to add the SMD pads, but
> > it is *extremely* tedious since I have to calculate the X,Y of every pad
> > and then go though a process of creating each one and moving it to the
> > right location using the mouse.  Since the X,Y coordinate shown depends

> Peer support is the best way to get running with EAGLE. I never even
> read the manuals (they're in my attic somewhere), although I do
> frequently refer to the on-line help.

I agree as long as you don't mind answering questions :) 

Is there a better group for discussing board layout or Eagle?

emanuel stiebler wrote:
> 
> Lewin A.R.W. Edwards wrote:
> 
>   > New software always feels this way, and CAD software is never going to
> > be as instant-gratification as, say, MS-Word.
> 
> You forgot the smiley here ;-)
> 
> > If you used Visio to
> > draw a PCB layout then you clearly have the tenacity and masochism
> > required to accomplish almost anything, so persevere and I'm sure
> > you'll get accustomed to EAGLE :)
> >
> >>Anyone know of other sources of info on how to use this tool?  The
> >>manuals just don't cut it.
> 
> Yup, could be better, but the online help is a good thing, if you know
> what you're looking for ;-)
> 
> > Peer support is the best way to get running with EAGLE. I never even
> > read the manuals (they're in my attic somewhere), although I do
> > frequently refer to the on-line help.
> 
> And don't forget the pretty active newsgroup for EAGLE. Got a lot of
> (sometimes) stupid question solved there. And a lot of the EAGLE
> developers hang out there too, so if you need a nice trick, you probably
> get it there.

Oh, I didn't realize.  What is the newsgroup name?

In article <3FF11B94.93E2A3E5@yahoo.com>, noone@yahoo.com says...
> But now that I have tried to use Eagle, I do not find it an easy to use
> tool.  One of the first tasks I have is to make a foot print for a
> TSSOP20 package.  I can find various commands to add the SMD pads, but
> it is *extremely* tedious since I have to calculate the X,Y of every pad
> and then go though a process of creating each one and moving it to the
> right location using the mouse.  Since the X,Y coordinate shown depends
> on where the pad is picked up using the mouse, I have to use the info
> command to find the current location, make sure I pick it up by that
> location and then move it to the correct location.  I tired using typed
> commands for this, but the editor complains saying the move command can
> only be used on "boards".  
The commands to place pads for packages will take coordinates from the 
keyboard (I prefer that to the mouse for this kind of work anyway).  You 
can also script this.

Definitely peruse Cadsoft's support newsgroups.  This kind of question is 
dealt with nicely there.  Be sure to read older postings since these 
kinds of questions have often been addressed before.

> 
> I can't seem to find a way to pour copper on this part, which it needs
> to create a large pad under the body for heat conduction.  I suppose I
> could add an extra pin to the schematic and use the SMD command, but
> that seems like an odd way to do it.  
See polygon.

Robert
-- 
" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,
be they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to
chew a radio signal. "

                        Kelvin Throop, III

Ralph Malph wrote:
> emanuel stiebler wrote:
> > And don't forget the pretty active newsgroup for
> > EAGLE. Got a lot of (sometimes) stupid question
> > solved there. And a lot of the EAGLE developers
> > hang out there too, so if you need a nice trick,
> > you probably get it there.
> 
> Oh, I didn't realize.  What is the newsgroup name?

From my prior posting...

Cadsoft hosts newsgroups for product support, and I've been pleased with
the user community as well.  Before I bought, I scoured both to look for
the chronic complaints and found there were no serious issues, and a lot
of compliments - a nice side-effect of an open support forum.  Here are
their English newsgroups:
news://news.cadsoft.de/eagle.userchat.eng
news://news.cadsoft.de/eagle.support.eng


It does take quite a bit of patience to get familiar with Eagle, but it
pays off.  Once I got a complete board (incl. new devices) through the
process, I began to appreciate its features much more.  (They could do a
lot to help the learning curve, not the least of which is better
tutorials.)

For precision package layout, check out the export feature - it's
excellent for this purpose.  Create the package, export it (to a text
script format), edit the coordinates to give the exact precision you
require, then run it as a script to import the revised package.

Also, there is a tutorial specifically on creating devices, IIRC.  If
you haven't found it already, it's very enlightening.

I just wanted to let people know where I ended up.  As I posted before,
many of these packages are limited enough that I was not going to spend
time to evaluate them without being able to do useful work.  So the only
package I actually tried is Eagle from Cadsoft.  I am finding that it is
very hard to learn, at least compared to what I expected.  I can
normally pick up tools very easily, but I find Eagle to be very, very
counter intuitive and the "tutorial" is very limited.  

On the other hand, I have been getting some work done with this tool.  I
am finding that even though this is a very tiny board (.5" x .6")
perhaps this was not such a simple task.  The board is double sided with
a very high component density.  I also need to provide as much ground
plane as possible to help spread the heat to use what little board area
there is.  So I am having to learn how to cover areas of the board with
copper fill.  In fact that is where I am currently stuck.  

The support newsgroups for this tool seem pretty good.  One actually has
Cadsoft people posting.  So by reading what others have had trouble with
and using a lot of patience, I expect I will get this design done after
a while.  

Thanks to all who posted.  If anyone knows of a tool that is more
intuative, please let me know.  Since board layout will be an occasional
task for me, I expect I will have to relearn some of the tricker aspects
of Eagle every time I use it.  :)

Ralph Malph wrote:
> I just wanted to let people know where I ended up.  As I posted before,
> many of these packages are limited enough that I was not going to spend
> time to evaluate them without being able to do useful work.  So the only
> package I actually tried is Eagle from Cadsoft.  I am finding that it is
> very hard to learn, at least compared to what I expected.  I can
> normally pick up tools very easily, but I find Eagle to be very, very
> counter intuitive and the "tutorial" is very limited.  
> 
> On the other hand, I have been getting some work done with this tool.  I
> am finding that even though this is a very tiny board (.5" x .6")
> perhaps this was not such a simple task.  The board is double sided with
> a very high component density.  I also need to provide as much ground
> plane as possible to help spread the heat to use what little board area
> there is.  So I am having to learn how to cover areas of the board with
> copper fill.  In fact that is where I am currently stuck.  
> 
> The support newsgroups for this tool seem pretty good.  One actually has
> Cadsoft people posting.  So by reading what others have had trouble with
> and using a lot of patience, I expect I will get this design done after
> a while.  
> 
> Thanks to all who posted.  If anyone knows of a tool that is more
> intuative, please let me know.  Since board layout will be an occasional
> task for me, I expect I will have to relearn some of the tricker aspects
> of Eagle every time I use it.  :)

EasyPC is *very* much easier to use than Eagle (it's a proper Windows 
application), has fewer bugs and is cheaper. Pulsonix (out of the same 
stable) is better for professional work.

Leon
-- 
Leon Heller, G1HSM
Email: aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com
My low-cost Philips LPC210x ARM development system:
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller/lpc2104.html

Leon Heller <aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com> writes:

> EasyPC is *very* much easier to use than Eagle (it's a proper Windows
> application), has fewer bugs and is cheaper.

I've been using Eagle for several medium-complexity designs
(two layers, TQFP/MLF chips, around 100 components), and have
not found many bugs. There were some GUI crashes (not data-corrupting)
in earlier versions, but haven't seen them in 4.11.

Eagle is not perfect. But it seems that it gets most jobs done.
There are a few complaints I have:

- making new components is clumsy, as copy&pasting from
  one library to another requires opening the libraries several
  times. Separating the component layouts and symbols to different
  places would simplify the process significantly.

- the cut&paste method works is different from the "standard"
  cut&paste.

- only the vector font can be used on silkscreen layers. Not a
  very beautiful one.

- the tutorial is not a good one. Most of the learning process
  needs to be done through trial and error, especially with
  libraries.

Other than these, I have been rather satisfied.

- Ville

-- 
Ville Voipio, Dr.Tech., M.Sc. (EE)

Ville Voipio wrote:
> Leon Heller <aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>EasyPC is *very* much easier to use than Eagle (it's a proper Windows
>>application), has fewer bugs and is cheaper.
> 
> 
> I've been using Eagle for several medium-complexity designs
> (two layers, TQFP/MLF chips, around 100 components), and have
> not found many bugs. There were some GUI crashes (not data-corrupting)
> in earlier versions, but haven't seen them in 4.11.
> 
> Eagle is not perfect. But it seems that it gets most jobs done.
> There are a few complaints I have:
> 
> - making new components is clumsy, as copy&pasting from
>   one library to another requires opening the libraries several
>   times. Separating the component layouts and symbols to different
>   places would simplify the process significantly.

Very easy and intuitive in EasyPC and Pulsonix.

> 
> - the cut&paste method works is different from the "standard"
>   cut&paste.


Very easy and intuitive in EasyPC and Pulsonix.

> 
> - only the vector font can be used on silkscreen layers. Not a
>   very beautiful one.

EasyPC and Pulsonix can use any Windows fonts.

> 
> - the tutorial is not a good one. Most of the learning process
>   needs to be done through trial and error, especially with
>   libraries.

EasyPC and Pulsonix are so easy to use that a tutorial isn't really needed.

Leon
-- 
Leon Heller, G1HSM
Email: aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com
My low-cost Philips LPC210x ARM development system:
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller/lpc2104.html

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:13:40 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I just wanted to let people know where I ended up.  As I posted before,
>many of these packages are limited enough that I was not going to spend
>time to evaluate them without being able to do useful work.  So the only
>package I actually tried is Eagle from Cadsoft.  I am finding that it is
>very hard to learn, at least compared to what I expected.  I can
>normally pick up tools very easily, but I find Eagle to be very, very
>counter intuitive and the "tutorial" is very limited.  
>
>On the other hand, I have been getting some work done with this tool.  I
>am finding that even though this is a very tiny board (.5" x .6")
>perhaps this was not such a simple task.  The board is double sided with
>a very high component density.  I also need to provide as much ground
>plane as possible to help spread the heat to use what little board area
>there is.  So I am having to learn how to cover areas of the board with
>copper fill.  In fact that is where I am currently stuck.  
>
>The support newsgroups for this tool seem pretty good.  One actually has
>Cadsoft people posting.  So by reading what others have had trouble with
>and using a lot of patience, I expect I will get this design done after
>a while.  
>
>Thanks to all who posted.  If anyone knows of a tool that is more
>intuative, please let me know.  Since board layout will be an occasional
>task for me, I expect I will have to relearn some of the tricker aspects
>of Eagle every time I use it.  :)

Ralph,
I tried to email you but it bounced. Please contact me at:
ahorne1 AT comcast dot net.  Or call me at (909) 461-8373.  I can help
you with Eagle.  I was a beta tester for the OS2 version.

In article <3FF63364.2268660D@yahoo.com>, Ralph Malph  <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I also need to provide as much ground
>plane as possible to help spread the heat to use what little board area
>there is.  So I am having to learn how to cover areas of the board with
>copper fill.  In fact that is where I am currently stuck.  

You have to make polygons in the board layers.  You could change the
trace widths of the net classes but that will apply everywhere, not just
where there's extra space.  As of the latest version the autorouter seems
smart enough to avoid manually placed items in the copper planes (eg as
a test I re-routed a board that already had some text).  The README even
claimed you could assign these things to nets and have them used properly.

-- 
Ben Jackson
<ben@ben.com>
http://www.ben.com/

Leon Heller wrote:
> 
> Ville Voipio wrote:
> > Leon Heller <aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>EasyPC is *very* much easier to use than Eagle (it's a proper Windows
> >>application), has fewer bugs and is cheaper.
> >
> >
> > I've been using Eagle for several medium-complexity designs
> > (two layers, TQFP/MLF chips, around 100 components), and have
> > not found many bugs. There were some GUI crashes (not data-corrupting)
> > in earlier versions, but haven't seen them in 4.11.
> >
> > Eagle is not perfect. But it seems that it gets most jobs done.
> > There are a few complaints I have:
> >
> > - making new components is clumsy, as copy&pasting from
> >   one library to another requires opening the libraries several
> >   times. Separating the component layouts and symbols to different
> >   places would simplify the process significantly.
> 
> Very easy and intuitive in EasyPC and Pulsonix.
> 
> >
> > - the cut&paste method works is different from the "standard"
> >   cut&paste.
> 
> Very easy and intuitive in EasyPC and Pulsonix.
> 
> >
> > - only the vector font can be used on silkscreen layers. Not a
> >   very beautiful one.
> 
> EasyPC and Pulsonix can use any Windows fonts.
> 
> >
> > - the tutorial is not a good one. Most of the learning process
> >   needs to be done through trial and error, especially with
> >   libraries.
> 
> EasyPC and Pulsonix are so easy to use that a tutorial isn't really needed.

That would all be great if I knew that the entire program was easy to
use and to do all the things I need.  But their eval program is useless
for doing even the simplest job or even for evaluation since you can't
save any work.  That means you have to start from scratch every time you
run the program.  I have tried to evaluate similar tools before and
found this limitation to be impossible to work with, not to mention that
I would have to take time away from real work to evaluate the tool.  At
least with Eagle I can get work done while I learn the tool.  I think
they have an *excellent* evaluation process even if the tool is not easy
to learn.  This way I can see for myself just how easy or hard it is to
use.  With EasyPC I have to take the word of others.

Ben Jackson wrote:
> 
> In article <3FF63364.2268660D@yahoo.com>, Ralph Malph  <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I also need to provide as much ground
> >plane as possible to help spread the heat to use what little board area
> >there is.  So I am having to learn how to cover areas of the board with
> >copper fill.  In fact that is where I am currently stuck.
> 
> You have to make polygons in the board layers.  You could change the
> trace widths of the net classes but that will apply everywhere, not just
> where there's extra space.  As of the latest version the autorouter seems
> smart enough to avoid manually placed items in the copper planes (eg as
> a test I re-routed a board that already had some text).  The README even
> claimed you could assign these things to nets and have them used properly.

Thanks for the advice.  My problem is not the basic issue of making a
copper area.  But I have a part with a heat sink pad on the bottom which
needs to be soldered to a plane like a very large SMD.  I was able to
add that.  This plane needs to be as large as possible so it needs to
fill the open areas.  I also figured that out.  But there need to be
vias to a similar area on the bottom of the board and these vias need to
not be exposed, rather then need to have solder mask over them.  That is
what I can't figure out.  When I add a via, it connects ok and in the
SMD area it works just fine.  But on the back of the board and in the
non-pad area, I can't figure out how to get the via to not show in the
solder mask plane.  It appears that the solder mask is made from the
VIAs/PADs/SMDs based on the rules I provide.  I can't find a way to turn
this off for specific vias.  

I posted this question to the support newsgroup, but it seems there is
not much activity there over the weekend.  :)  I'll see if I get an
answer Monday.  

Once I get this resolved, I think my next lesson will be in generating
the outputs for getting the board made.

Ralph Malph wrote:
> Leon Heller wrote:
> 
>>Ville Voipio wrote:
>>
>>>Leon Heller <aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>EasyPC is *very* much easier to use than Eagle (it's a proper Windows
>>>>application), has fewer bugs and is cheaper.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've been using Eagle for several medium-complexity designs
>>>(two layers, TQFP/MLF chips, around 100 components), and have
>>>not found many bugs. There were some GUI crashes (not data-corrupting)
>>>in earlier versions, but haven't seen them in 4.11.
>>>
>>>Eagle is not perfect. But it seems that it gets most jobs done.
>>>There are a few complaints I have:
>>>
>>>- making new components is clumsy, as copy&pasting from
>>>  one library to another requires opening the libraries several
>>>  times. Separating the component layouts and symbols to different
>>>  places would simplify the process significantly.
>>
>>Very easy and intuitive in EasyPC and Pulsonix.
>>
>>
>>>- the cut&paste method works is different from the "standard"
>>>  cut&paste.
>>
>>Very easy and intuitive in EasyPC and Pulsonix.
>>
>>
>>>- only the vector font can be used on silkscreen layers. Not a
>>>  very beautiful one.
>>
>>EasyPC and Pulsonix can use any Windows fonts.
>>
>>
>>>- the tutorial is not a good one. Most of the learning process
>>>  needs to be done through trial and error, especially with
>>>  libraries.
>>
>>EasyPC and Pulsonix are so easy to use that a tutorial isn't really needed.
> 
> 
> That would all be great if I knew that the entire program was easy to
> use and to do all the things I need.  But their eval program is useless
> for doing even the simplest job or even for evaluation since you can't
> save any work.  That means you have to start from scratch every time you
> run the program.  I have tried to evaluate similar tools before and
> found this limitation to be impossible to work with, not to mention that
> I would have to take time away from real work to evaluate the tool.  At
> least with Eagle I can get work done while I learn the tool.  I think
> they have an *excellent* evaluation process even if the tool is not easy
> to learn.  This way I can see for myself just how easy or hard it is to
> use.  With EasyPC I have to take the word of others.

The Pulsonix demo (100 pins limit) lets you save files. Pulsonix will 
give you a month's unlimited evaluation if you ask them nicely.

Leon
-- 
Leon Heller, G1HSM
Email: aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com
My low-cost Philips LPC210x ARM development system:
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller/lpc2104.html

In order to get the via solder masked on the bottom you'll have to create the
via in a part library for it. read the appnote for creating libraries, pretty
trivial really...  ftp://ftp.cadsoft.de/pub/userfiles/doc/eagapp3.zip

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 01:57:42 -0500, Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Ben Jackson wrote:
>> 
>> In article <3FF63364.2268660D@yahoo.com>, Ralph Malph  <noone@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I also need to provide as much ground
>> >plane as possible to help spread the heat to use what little board area
>> >there is.  So I am having to learn how to cover areas of the board with
>> >copper fill.  In fact that is where I am currently stuck.
>> 
>> You have to make polygons in the board layers.  You could change the
>> trace widths of the net classes but that will apply everywhere, not just
>> where there's extra space.  As of the latest version the autorouter seems
>> smart enough to avoid manually placed items in the copper planes (eg as
>> a test I re-routed a board that already had some text).  The README even
>> claimed you could assign these things to nets and have them used properly.
>
>Thanks for the advice.  My problem is not the basic issue of making a
>copper area.  But I have a part with a heat sink pad on the bottom which
>needs to be soldered to a plane like a very large SMD.  I was able to
>add that.  This plane needs to be as large as possible so it needs to
>fill the open areas.  I also figured that out.  But there need to be
>vias to a similar area on the bottom of the board and these vias need to
>not be exposed, rather then need to have solder mask over them.  That is
>what I can't figure out.  When I add a via, it connects ok and in the
>SMD area it works just fine.  But on the back of the board and in the
>non-pad area, I can't figure out how to get the via to not show in the
>solder mask plane.  It appears that the solder mask is made from the
>VIAs/PADs/SMDs based on the rules I provide.  I can't find a way to turn
>this off for specific vias.  
>
>I posted this question to the support newsgroup, but it seems there is
>not much activity there over the weekend.  :)  I'll see if I get an
>answer Monday.  
>
>Once I get this resolved, I think my next lesson will be in generating
>the outputs for getting the board made.


Remove "HeadFromButt", before replying by email.

maxfoo wrote:
> 
> In order to get the via solder masked on the bottom you'll have to create the
> via in a part library for it. read the appnote for creating libraries, pretty
> trivial really...  ftp://ftp.cadsoft.de/pub/userfiles/doc/eagapp3.zip

Hmmm...  I am familiar with creating parts, I have created every part on
the board.  But I don't see how that can help with this problem.  If I
am creating a part, I can use PADs and HOLEs, I don't think VIAs are
even available in parts.  But even if they were, how would a VIA or PAD
inside a part be any different in terms of the solder mask?  There would
still be the outline in the STOP layer.  As far as I can tell, there is
no way to edit the tSTOP layer on a part.

Ralph Malph <noone@yahoo.com> writes:

> Hmmm...  I am familiar with creating parts, I have created every part on
> the board.  But I don't see how that can help with this problem.  If I
> am creating a part, I can use PADs and HOLEs, I don't think VIAs are
> even available in parts.  But even if they were, how would a VIA or PAD
> inside a part be any different in terms of the solder mask?  There would
> still be the outline in the STOP layer.  As far as I can tell, there is
> no way to edit the tSTOP layer on a part.

The stop layer on vias can be adjusted in the DRC settings. There
is a general setting which gives the minimum size above which the
stop mask is created (= solder mask is not covering the pad/via). 
If this minimum is set to, say, 32 mils/thou, all vias smaller 
than 32 thou will be without stop mask (i.e. covered in the final 
design). 

Beware, this setting might possibly spoil some THD pads, if their 
diameter is smaller than the setting. I've never tested this,
and I use very few THD components, but if the system works as its
documentation claims, this may happen.

There is a way to override the setting via-by-via. However, the
override works only one way, the wrong way. It is possible to 
force the creation of the stop mask (remove the solder mask). 
There does not seem to be any way to force the removal of the 
stop mask, for some reason.

This override setting can be set in the part editor, as it is a
property (NOSTOP) of a pad, as well. But, again, it cannot be
set the other way round (i.e. to force a covered pad/via).
There may be some clever way to build a covered via by using
holes, copper rectangles, hand-drawn solder stops, etc., but
that would not be very robust.

An, as usual, Everything above is written under the strong AFAIK 
field.
 
- Ville

-- 
Ville Voipio, Dr.Tech., M.Sc. (EE)

Ralph Malph wrote:

> I am looking for low cost PCB layout software.  My designs are not
> overly complex, and are on small boards, but I will be using very small
> parts and features ~0.4mm/0.016" pitch, .006"/.006" trace/space.  I have
> looked at a couple of web sites that list free software and have found
> two types of packages; the no strings attached open source packages that
> are not very mature or run on xNIX (and not windows) or the PCB fab
> house supplied packages that tie you to getting your boards from them.  

<SNIP>

Try Rimu PCB from Hutson Systems in New Zealand. Price is only $US65.
I have started (but not finished) a design with a TQFP144 Xilinx CPLD. 
It is one of the most intutitive layout packages I've tried. Eval 
version is available, but save is disabled. You can find this software at:

http://www.hutson.co.nz/rimupcb.htm


GOOD LUCK

Urb


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
               <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>