Which is why i bought Target, which has a pin limit.
I can make boards as large as i like, but the number of pins is limited.
Has disadvantages also, but i prefer it over size limit.
ST
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:18:26 +0100, Alan King <alan@...> wrote:
>
>
> 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