12 replies to this topic

[Caustic]

Does a community Eagle device library exist, or of more use, a footprint library?

[ANV]

What particular parts are you looking for?

CC PCB was made with Altium, not Eagle.
If you only need for precise components/connectors/mounting holes location, you can download CC PCB from git and Altium viewer from their official site. Viewer is free to download.

[Caustic]

I am aware that CC was made using Altium/Protel, which is odd for an open project. Most use Eagle for the 2 layer free license or the 99 layer hobby license.

I always end up making new footprints like the 6SON-210x210x80 I had to create lastnight, if there was a community footprint library I would toss it in.

[dankers]

Eagle is closed source as well, so it is equally an odd choice for an open project. In fact it is worse as there is no way to view 4 layer boards without buying it, hence much less suitable to an open project like us. Also we very open with out hardware, we release everything, not just throw the Eagle files out there, we genuinely help people with gerbers, BOM, assembly sheet and *everything* we use to make the boards.

We have used gEDA for somethings as it is OSS and we try to support that, but it is not as capable as we need, so we have a choice of closed and hobby grade or closed and very good. I tried Eagle, I am sure it can make some complex designs but it would not be anywhere near as smooth or as powerful as Altium which of course is Eagle is low cost and it is aimed at the hobby market.

Sparkfun has a community Lib but does Eagle not have a IPC footprint wizard? Footprints in Altium are really simple to create and very quick, however it includes extensive libs as well. I guess Eagle is not like that hence why people want libs all the time.

[Caustic]

Well, Eagle is now owned by Newark/Farnell (about a year ago) and they are working on providing footprints for every component in their catalog. As for viewing those files, Pentalogix ViewMate handles them just fine and is free for basic.

I am guessing Altium has changed since I was last forced to use it, the lowest level license they had was $1200.00. At $165 for the Eagle hobby license, I have always thought it was reasonable. gEDA still has many shortcomings, KEDA is alright IF you happen to run KDE.

I suspect the main attraction to Eagle is that it runs in Windows, BSD (including OSX), and linux. Not being tied to an OS is nice and one of the reasons I have it for general stuff, the only other reason is that most boardhouses accept the files.

[dankers]

What I said is a closed source app that is cheaper is not anymore open than a closed source than costs more. I don't get the logic of using a poor tool just because it is a bit cheaper. I am not someone who has used one tool for a while and clings to it, I evaluated both before starting the hardware and Altium is just more powerful and easier to work with. I started with Eagle and out of frustration I tried Altium and stayed with it as they are leagues apart.

Be aware that the Eagle hobbyist license had some heavy restrictions to it last I looked and needed you to sign a waiver that you would not produce things for sale.

Everyone is going to like their own tools, I have seen this over and over, we had a guy here that was an Eagle diehard in the past, but he had never used Altium beyond the very basics. I simply don't get the xbox Vs playstation mentality as they are just tools to do a job. I will always be pragmatic and use the best tool that produces the best results.

If Eagle suddenly becomes Free software then it offers an advantage so we would likely reevaluate and possibly put up with it's lack of features. However, you can't even do basics like panelisation without messing about with copy and paste and even then it is not straight forward, it lacks any form of CAM tool, basic things like teardrops are add on scripts and important tools like board insight just don't even exist. Let alone all the awesome BOM tools with online price look up and searching.

Saying Eagle is good is like saying your local amateur football team are good, in their own league they are, however if you start comparing your local amateur side with Manchester United, then you are going to get laughed at.

Quote

the only other reason is that most boardhouses accept the files.

Oh good grief, no. Who would send a board house Eagle files? You want to produce gerbers and then do your own checking and DRC in a CAM tool.

Use what you want, but saying that selecting one closed source tool over another closed source tool is wrong for an open project doesn't make sense and the fact that Eagle is now owned by Farnell puts me off further.

[Caustic]

I truly am not trying to advocate nor saying it is wrong, professionally I use a different EDA, it is just a cost of access issue. Could have suggested diptrace as well, but that seems to be used more in europe, than anywhere near me.

Some EDA store their files in wonky formats, databases, or strange character sets. Actually now that I think on it, I had those problems between version changes in the last two protel and the first altium version that required complete project rebuilds since they were not compatible.

It is the same issue with compilers, gcc is used a lot due to cost of access. It does not do the best job or create the most efficient code, but it does not have the same monetary implementation costs for general users to use, and the code still runs how it should.

I guess the short answer to my original question for this thread is:
"We do not have an Eagle library for OpenPilot. Currently Eagle is not supported, we are using Altium XX.X."

[jakestew]

Eagle does currently support 4+ layer boards.  You just can't edit any of them except top and bottom in the free version.  You can delete, but not add traces on the inner layers IIRC.

When I last tried Altium I couldn't make heads or tails of it.  They installed dozens of icons and didn't associate with any file types, at least not to open them properly.  I probably should have read the instructions more, but I wanted to actually get some work done that day.

Has anyone tried KiCAD?  Looks like it might be pretty decent and comparable to Eagle.  I haven't used it much because it doesn't have much in the way of libraries or support from anyone else.

I think it's total BS that all the open/free/reasonably priced tools are such crap.  Also BS that none of the various file formats can be interchanged.


-Jake

[Caustic]

Altium is a mid-grade EDA, Eagle has recently achieved that status. None of the open projects are at the mid-grade level yet and are acceptable for mainly basic or hobby work.

It surprises me, now that I thought about it for a few days, that Altium was chosen since it may not be acceptable for avionics work in industry. There are certain standards and certifications for EDA to be certified in certain areas (Avionics, Military, Space, High Frequency RF, High Power, Nuclear, and a couple others). When I last used Altium they had not achieved the requirements.

File formats can be interchanged by most decent EDA.

Development costs time and money, EDA development beyond basic CAD is very difficult and labor intensive. If you have ever used a high-end EDA, the differences even between mid and high are night and day. Simulation and modeling of materials, components, performance, EMI/EMC, are extremely useful and not found in, low->mid level EDA. They are well justified in their licence costs for business as the amount they save the business is vastly more than they cost.

Unfortunately that means it is not very accessible for personal use, but then, most do not require those capabilities or have the training use them.

If the open source EDA projects disappoint your expectations, I am sure they would appreciate any programming contributions to help advance.

[jakestew]

Tell me more about these high-end ECAD tools.  I'm not personally familiar with anything besides Eagle and KiCAD, with a quick look at Altium.

I can't speak much to Altium, but from what I've seen the tools I've seen lack even basic functionality. Cut-and-paste doesn't even work in Eagle without a cumbersome workaround.  The component search feature is essentially broken (doesn't pull up parts it should). You can't type in an industry standard package and have it lay down a part or footprint.  Doing almost anything in the editors is extremely clumsy and awkward.

I mean this stuff is basic, basic functionality issues.  If this was a senior programming project the best grade I could give it is a D+.  It really doesn't matter if some advanced features work OK when you have such basic, in your face problems.

I use Eagle because at the moment I have to.  In almost every respect I can think of it's complete crap.


-Jake

[peabody124]

gEDA fan here!  Although I had to drop it for ESC because of possibility of blind via (didn't use in the end).

[Caustic]

It is interesting to note that your problems with Eagle stem from both their cross-platform compatibility implementation and some misgivings about how an EDA should work.

Cadence, Mentor and Pulsonix all provide high end EDA solutions and run in the range of $5k-$40k/seat licensing based on capabilities. Each have their own strengths in certain areas.

I do not know what the current placement status of AutoCAD's EDA package is, but based on where I hear about it being used I would guess mid.

[Caustic]

I wish gEDA would move a lot faster, it has promise and I try it once in a while. If I were interested in gui programming, I would try and help them. But I prefer hardware.