Hi Alan K, !
I take your point! Better then nothing, I suppose. I like your "area ∗
complexity" algorithm. But I think they've been using this for what, 6+
years now? Must work for them.
I'm getting the hang of the library, I made two parts (PIC18F2520 and
MAX232) by copying parts and making the changes I wanted. Nice! One
more part to copy/paste, and I'll have all the power straightened out.
I seem to recall an "alias" function, must be for a different program.
A Yahoo list for Eagle would be nice!
Alan KM6VV
Alan King wrote:
> Alan Marconett wrote:
>
>
>>The board size is probably DESIGNED as a roadblock intentionally. BUT I
>>think it's really GOOD marketing to make at least one level of "full
>>product" available so that potential users can give it a good tryout. Also
>>
>>Yeah, it's a shame to have to "squash" a good design down into too small an
>>area, but it keeps one on one's toes!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> The fact is, it does unduly penalize those who would want relatively
> simple schematics but need larger unused areas. It'd be nice if you
> could design everything on the small board, but then break the rules and
> spread things out as needed, only after the area rule break you can't
> add new parts. Problem is then you could simply load up the small
> board, break the rules, then do what you want. Hard to figure a way
> where people can't cheat easily. Complexity limit as in others is just
> as bad, you also can't deeply test things without a lot of parts..
>
> But that leads to exactly what it needs, an area ∗ complexity limit.
> Stay below the bounds and you can do what you want, for larger size
> boards you are limited to a maximum complexity. That would allow the
> people with the $49 version to do exactly what is overly limited, making
> larger size boards that simply need spacing for large components but are
> still rediculously simple and should hardly qualify as needing the $200
> per module version. And if you had to choose at the outset for larger
> board or small board but no complexity limit, that should be easy enough
> to program in.
>
> Alan
>
> PS: Lately I sort of feel like I've gone straight from the round table
> to the Alan convention..
>