Eagle is horrible software

[WarSim]

Adding further to this.
One guy had an array of buttons hooked up to his MCU. He drew a button with a pulldown resistor and copied it four times for four buttons.
The small trace between the pulldown and the switch had the same NAME property... and so all his switches were shorted together. 

Well I just tried to reproduce this using v6.4:
- I grouped: a net from a powersupply to a resistor, the resistor, a universal net (named N$2) from the resistor to a led, the led,  and a gnd net from the led to the gnd.
- I copied the group using the copy button and CTRl-right mouse clik
- and the result was that the universal net between the new resistor and the new led is named uniquely to the next open possible value in my case N$8. So NO PROBLEM here

So when does this go wrong? Probably if you (re)name the specific net with some personal or reserved value other then the eagle generic netname.
In that case it might go wrong because eagle assumes that the user specifically WANTS this net to be the same why did he otherwise rename it from the eagle generic netname in the first place?

So if you really want to blame I would suggest differently:
1) the teacher that should supervise the process with students that do this for the first time and do not know better then to screw up , but hey that is called learning, if you never make mistakes what can you learn?
2) the person between the chair and the keyboard.

If something is copied there needs to be some indication of intent.  If something needs to extend a net give it a unique name.  If it is a new instance of a net then use a serialized sequence name, the default net names are serialized sequence.  No program can read your mind, you need to tell it. 
The cut and paste "solution" relied on the effect that naming associations are broken when removed from the schematic by the cut precess. 
Just another RTFM problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[WarSim]

A small user report here.

I needed to quickly get a PCB made for testing something at the hospital lab. I downloaded DipTrace and within 3 work days I had added a 80pin Samtec QSE connector and a 96pin DIN 41612 connector to the library, done the schematic (~400 pins), routed the 200x80mm 4 layer board by hand, created the Gerbers and sent of to production.

I had to refer to the DipTrace manual / google search about 3-4 times during the process. The DipTrace UI is just really intuitive. I've used Mentor BoardStation and Zuken CR-5000 before, which are industrial grade packages, so I'm fairly au fait with the PCB design process. 

In the meantime - Eagle, which I have been experimenting with for a couple of weeks, requires me to look things up for nearly every operation. I believe Eagle is more powerful than DipTrace, but the Eagle UI is just obtuse and many of the translations don't conform to any of the vocabulary used in the PCB industry (again, I'm looking at this from Mentor / Zuken). Eagle is hard to use, because it's poorly designed and dripping with legacy.

The Eagle autorouter is better than the Diptrace one, but the only reason I use the autorouter in Eagle is because the manual routing UI is just awful (can't move traces whilst maintaining 90, 45deg angles, etc). By contrast the manual routing in DipTrace is pretty good. Not as good as CR-5000 with real DRC and push-aside routing, but much better than Eagle.

I'm seriously considering buying DipTrace license instead of Eagle, especially as Eagle require the Auto-router module to get online DRC during manual routing. I don't want to pay for the autorouter which I'll never use anyway.

To maintain an angle while moving move the midpoint not an end point.  How can this not be intuitive?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[larry42]

To maintain an angle while moving move the midpoint not an end point.  How can this not be intuitive?

When I select a routed segment (routed with 45deg corners) and try to adjust the position up or down, the 45degree angles of the adjoining segments move to arb angles. This is not expected or desired (Cadstar, CR-5000,  Mentor Boardstation and DipTrace don't do this). It's necessary for trace tidying.

It seems I'm not the only one that wonders about this - and it doesnt seem to be possible in Eagle support board from another user:
"> how do you move a segment of wire 45 degrée aligned ?
> when I use move and click on a 45 segement all the wire move ?

If I understand your question, you'll need to rip up the affected
segments and re-route them with the 45 degree wire bend selected.

- Chuck"

IMO this is a deal-breaker. Trace tidying is vital in achieving good quality analog designs, not to mention aesthetics. I really wanted to standardise on Eagle for my designs, as I believe that it's very powerful due to the scripting possibilities, but the UI and the learning curve just aren't worth it in my case, when there are alternatives. PS I use an RPN style calculator.

[WarSim]

Any program has two choices when a joining node is moved from the joining segment axis.  Break the connection and for an air wire or drag the node.  Eagle has elected to drag the node which I prefer.  I prefer not to look for hundreds if tiny air-wires. 
Because they know that moving a node off access maybe required they have supplied the trace modify tool to reform the bend.  Rip-up is not required, learn about the tool that looks like a bow. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kjelt]

Just another RTFM problem

Tell that to the OP who had the problem, not me i have no problem with eagle.

[rob77]

my 2 cents...

not a single software is perfect... and actually Eagle does the job for me.
i learned to tolerate the annoying parts of it and learned to workaround the bugs (e.g. disconnect the part before rotating or mirroring, delete & re-invoke if gate swap doesn't work...etc.)

but at the end of the day... Eagle is a usable tool which does the job, and i kind of like it for my hobby projects.

[WarSim]

Just another RTFM problem

Tell that to the OP who had the problem, not me i have no problem with eagle.

Just expanding you explanation.  Defiantly not correcting you. 
I just assumed the op would read the post even though he/she wasn't quoted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DerekG]

I needed to quickly get a PCB made for testing something at the hospital lab. I downloaded DipTrace and within 3 work days I had added a 80pin Samtec QSE connector and a 96pin DIN 41612 connector to the library, done the schematic (~400 pins), routed the 200x80mm 4 layer board by hand, created the Gerbers and sent of to production. I had to refer to the DipTrace manual / google search about 3-4 times during the process. The DipTrace UI is just really intuitive. I've used Mentor BoardStation and Z:u:k:e:n before, which are industrial grade packages, so I'm fairly au fait with the PCB design process. 

Yes, I agree the DipTrace user interface is pretty logical - alongside of Circad for menu simplicity. I do however wish there were more shortcut keys (like in Altium) as these are faster than mouse clicking the menus.

The Eagle autorouter is better than the Diptrace one

I've actually found the DipTrace one to be quite reasonable if you spend the time setting it up.

Another (even better) autorouter that can interface with any Electra/Specctra supported interface (as DipTrace does) is the f_r_e_e--:--r_o_u_t_i_n_g one. I see from their website that Z_u_:k:_e_n has now taken them to task for so alleged copyright infringement ............. so it must be good

This was open source since 2008 & the programmer used to work for that big company but claims the end result was from his own personal work. Locate the forum by doing a Google search for more info.

Send me a message too 

Of course you can also add the Electra autorouter which I think is at least 95% as good as the one supplied with Altium for EU495 (for 2 layer) & EU695 (for 4 layer).

By contrast the manual routing in DipTrace is pretty good. Not as good as Z:u:k:e:n with real DRC and push-aside routing, but much better than Eagle.

DipTrace will do real-time DRC. Select "Verification" then "Design Rules" then tick the box "Enable Real-time DRC" (RHS near the bottom of the pop up box).

I often use DipTrace even though I own Altium. One of my biggest gripes is that it is not easy to open up the bottom solder mask so that the wave soldering process can thicken specific copper tracks for extra current carrying capabilities. For this, I need to export from DipTrace (via the P-Cad export filter), then import into Altium to complete that task.

[larry42]

Yes, I agree the DipTrace user interface is pretty logical - alongside of Circad for menu simplicity. I do however wish there were more shortcut keys (like in Altium) as these are faster than mouse clicking the menus.

Good point, the lack of configurable shortcut keys on DipTrace almost kills the productivity (by contrast, that's the one thing that gives Eagle a huge edge is being able to define keys, so that you don't have to look at the meaningless icons, coupled with the Germano-English translations ('wire' when they mean 'line', 'smash' etc).

I hope DT adds configurable shortcuts soon - which has got to be programmatically trivial...

DipTrace will do real-time DRC. Select "Verification" then "Design Rules" then tick the box "Enable Real-time DRC" (RHS near the bottom of the pop up box).

I know, but it's not the same as the big boys handle it (where you're prevented from laying the trace until you're out of DRC violation, and can do things like push a bundle of tracks to be at min. clearance, or equi-spaced etc)

I often use DipTrace even though I own Altium. One of my biggest gripes is that it is not easy to open up the bottom solder mask so that the wave soldering process can thicken specific copper tracks for extra current carrying capabilities. For this, I need to export from DipTrace (via the P-Cad export filter), then import into Altium to complete that task.

Seems you can do the cutout pretty easily as follows (added filled rectangle, set properties to Top/Bottom Mask):
http://www.diptrace.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&p=6994

[DerekG]

I hope DT adds configurable shortcuts soon - which has got to be programmatically trivial...

Me too. I would set up many/most of the shortcuts to replicate those used by Altium (actually with a few changes as some of the Altium shortcuts are a bit cryptic).

I know, but it's (Real-time DRC) not the same as the big boys handle it (where you're prevented from laying the trace until you're out of DRC violation, and can do things like push a bundle of tracks to be at min. clearance, or equi-spaced etc)

Quite true.

Seems you can do the cutout pretty easily as follows (added filled rectangle, set properties to Top/Bottom Mask):
http://www.diptrace.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&p=6994

Yes, but it is very cumbersome having to do it track by track (one at a time or as a polygon fill). Once imported into Altium I can simply follow the multitude of bottom copper layer tracks on the bottom solder mask having set the mask track width just the once.

[PedroDaGr8]

Yes, I agree the DipTrace user interface is pretty logical - alongside of Circad for menu simplicity. I do however wish there were more shortcut keys (like in Altium) as these are faster than mouse clicking the menus.

Good point, the lack of configurable shortcut keys on DipTrace almost kills the productivity (by contrast, that's the one thing that gives Eagle a huge edge is being able to define keys, so that you don't have to look at the meaningless icons, coupled with the Germano-English translations ('wire' when they mean 'line', 'smash' etc).

I hope DT adds configurable shortcuts soon - which has got to be programmatically trivial...

I have posted this as a feature request on the DipTrace forum here:

http://www.diptrace.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9986

Chime in if you are actually interested because the more people that support this, the quicker they will add it.

[djacobow]

PS I use an RPN style calculator.

Ha! Me, too. When HP stopped making them, I actually bought some spares because I could not imagine adapting back to infix in the future. But they are back making calculators with RPN modes again, so I guess we're set.

But is this an example of your willingness to accept a difficult but productive UI or an example of being unwilling to learn a new thing?

I think for me, RPN is a little of both. I put the time in to make it 2nd nature, and now it is and I don't want to put the time in again to switch back.

[idpromnut]

Since this thread is about Eagle, it is the perfect place to comment on Kicad    For a little context, my background is total newbie, only been playing around with electronics for just over a year and a bit now. I have designed, laid out and had manufactured a number of boards now (although nothing terribly complicated, and only 2-layers).

That said, I had the same issue of which PCB suite to learn to use. I tried Eagle (since this is the software that a colleague of mine at work has used forever) and then I tried Kicad.  By no stretch is Kicad better than Eagle (in completeness, stability and general maturity level of the software), but it is very useable for a hobbyist such as myself. The work flow seems relatively straight-forward for me (although I think not being able to add a component to the PCB layout and be able to back port it back into the schematic would be a handy feature).

While I haven't had to do any panelization, I can see that doing this manually will not be fun (I really really liked the panelization feature in Altium that Dave was showing in his DFM series on the uCurrent).

[texaspyro]

I dont think so, as I said, I'm using Eagle just fine, but ponying up 1600$ to scale up outside the 6x4" pcb limitation makes me think,

Well,  there is an alternative you can do if you are a real cheapskate.  Build (or convert) your libraries to something like 1/4 or 1/10th scale.   Do your layout using the shrunk parts (1/10 scale makes life easier... just remember to shift measurements a digit).  Then upscale your Gerbers back to the proper size.  There are programs out there that can do those tasks... 

Yep,  takes some work,  can be error prone,  is a pain the ass...  but voila... you can now make 1000x1600 mm boards with the semi-freeware version of Eagle.

[djacobow]

I dont think so, as I said, I'm using Eagle just fine, but ponying up 1600$ to scale up outside the 6x4" pcb limitation makes me think,

Well,  there is an alternative you can do if you are a real cheapskate.  Build (or convert) your libraries to something like 1/4 or 1/10th scale. 

Does it bother anybody else that you can't even WORK in Eagle over the size limit for your license? I'm not talking about exporting gerbers, I'm just talking about moving components around while you're getting sorted. When I start a board, I like to spread components around in useful groups as I start my placement: a blob of PSU-like stuff over here, a grid of buttons over there, etc. As I have the local-placement as I like it, I start to bring the blobs together. This works nicely in DipTrace but in EAGLE it's impossible.

The size limitation is the most user-unfriendly restriction ever. Ugh. What were they thinking?

[DerekG]

Well,  there is an alternative you can do if you are a real cheapskate.

Yes. Move over to DipTrace.

It will add years to your life due to a significant reduction in your stress levels. I own Altium 6.9 & use Altium 13 & 14 for work, but I'm using DipTrace more & more, simply because I like it & it gets the job done without stress.

[texaspyro]

It would be nice if Eagle's limit was area based instead of dimension based...

[smackaay]

The biggest killing feature for Eagle is the size limitation. a 1-user standard license is $820 with 6" x 4" footprint. For some stuff that's ok but $820 for crippleware is ridiculous. Not only that, it's clumsy and difficult to use, though if it's true that it's German software, then I fully understand why.

The Germans can make beautiful cars, machines and various other things but their software is perhaps the worst I've ever seen, in many cases they are even beat by the Chinese in terms of software stability and usability. I've used various industrial machines and software packages from Germany over the last 20 years and while the machine builds are great, the software is only barely usable. It's almost as though they design the software to require outside training in order to use it or that it's an afterthought. Unfortunate really.

[texaspyro]

The biggest killing feature for Eagle is the size limitation. a 1-user standard license is $820 with 6" x 4" footprint.

Their 4x6" non-commercial license is around $200.

As far as crapitude goes,  I have used a LOT of different CAD packages over the last 40 years,  and guess what?  They ALL suck.  They suck to the left.  The suck to the right.  They suck up.  They suck down.  They all worked (OK, somewhat).  They all have their quirks.  Find one that works for you.  Learn to use it.  Get over its' quirks.  Quit griping about it.  Gripe like hell about it.  Whatever works for you...

[rx8pilot]

I have used $100k software that is just as quirky. I have been in the motion picture business for a little over 20 years which is built on expensive specialty software and they all have major annoyances. My present normal day is split between SolidWorks, Eagle, and Atmel Studio. While Eagle is definitely the weirdest, just focus on the task and learn the workarounds. I have done some complex designs in Eagle and have learned it well enough to like it. I friend of mine got so upset with the various software stupidity at his company that he could not get anything done. He spent all of his time calling for support and complaining on forums - he went out of business. I will throw in my $.02, but I will not let quirks slow me down. There are SO many people making high quality PCB's with Eagle every day, if you are having issues it's your fault for not learning it.

When I can actually commit a ton of time to learning a new tool, I would not hesitate to move up. For now, I am getting PCB's done and have had ZERO failures, very few crashes and the ULP library continues to add great features. The user community is huge and very helpful as well.

[Wilksey]

Very very well put rx8pilot!

[DerekG]

Eagle is horrible.

Well, it is not likely to get better anytime soon.

Newark Corporation (who own CadSoft) have advised that that they must financially stand on their own two feet. Story is now that staff cuts are on the way.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/altium/altium-circuit-studio/msg618742/#msg618742

[rx8pilot]

For the time being, I am able to work with Eagle to get some very dense PCB's with 6 layers. i did, however, get more information on Altium and will likely go that route when the business can cover it. I feel like it will speed me up enough to pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time just like Eagle did.

I won't defend any of the Eagle quirks, but it is definitely a way to make money just like I did. Eagle has been a great way for me to start a business without the financial burden of Altium. Like I said earlier, focus on your design goals, not the tool and you will get PCB's done.

[AndyC_772]

I feel compelled to point out that you can rent Orcad PCB Designer annually for no more than the cost of maintenance. I pay about £600/yr to keep my copy up-to-date, including unlimited technical support.

You don't need to spend thousands on Altium, unless you have your heart set on that particular package. Learn PCB Designer and you've learned Allegro... you may never need to learn another PCB tool.

[DerekG]

For the time being, I am able to work with Eagle to get some very dense PCB's with 6 layers. I did, however, get more information on Altium and will likely go that route when the business can cover it.

Eagle has been a great way for me to start a business without the financial burden of Altium.

There are plenty of lower cost alternatives. As the poster above says, take a look at Orcad PCB Designer.

Also take a look at Proteus & DipTrace. If you are laying out larger boards, both of these work out to be better value than EAGLE.