Stefan,
Thanks for pointing out the "user error" issues...I had similar
difficulties at first, of course, with EAGLE, Photoshop and the list
goes on and on. Ted, RTFI (read the ∗freaking∗ instructions!).
:)
Ted
--- In
Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Trethan"
<stefan_trethan@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:41:48 +0100, Ted Bruce KX4OM <kilocycles@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Stefan,
> > Yes, I have my own custom libraries, first in EAGLE and then imported
> > seamlessly into DipTrace. In Target, I could get Properties to come
> > up, but editing the component value didn't seem to "stick". The value
> > remained unchanged on the schematic layout editor. There are a lot of
> > check box items in Properties, but I left those at default, because I
> > really hadn't been able to get concise direction as to what the do.
> > EAGLE is pretty inscrutable like that as well, compared to DipTrace,
> > which explains most everything very clearly in the tutorial. With
> > EAGLE, I've essentially had to start writing my own tutorials, based
> > on information gleaned from various sites (and this group, it goes
> > without saying).
> >
>
> Well, what can i say, it's definitely you. I have no trouble changing
> component values.
> Just doubleclick on the x-shaped handle, then it will "stick".
> The checkbox in front of each field will select itself automatically
if
> you edit the field. The reason is simple, select and change several
> components, and they may have many parameters different. But this
way you
> can change one parameter for all, while leaving the other parameters
as
> different as they were.
>
>
> > The making of a new part from "something similar" is exactly where I
> > got hung up in Target, an experience I'd yet to have in any of the
> > other software suites. It ∗has∗ to be something basic that I'm not
> > understanding, even after reading your response on that topic. Maybe
> > it is the lack of the "a" with an umlaut key in English.
>
> It's not only the ä key, you can go via the menu (something like
> edit/change), or use @ instead of ä.
> It probably says the right key to use in the english menu. I don't
have an
> english version installed.
>
> >
> > One interesting thing I noticed is, unlike EAGLE, where Packages for a
> > TO-92, for example, have TO92-BCE, TO92-EBC and TO92-CEB for example,
> > the view of the component in the library shows 1-2-3 for the pins, as
> > does EAGLE, on the symbol. When making a component from scratch,
> > obviously these have to be correlated in EAGLE or any software. It
> > was reassuring to see the Target 3001! components being downloaded and
> > showing up with the correct 1-2-3 pin assignments (correct, that is,
> > after putting them on the schematic and observing and verifying the
> > corresponding EBC pins).
>
> All packages should use standard pin counting, or things will get
> complicated. There is no need to make several footprints with ECB BCE
> etc.. You just edit the pin numbers for the schematic symbol, and
stick to
> the conventional counting for the pins, like used in datasheets. Yes
you
> must correlate it for every part, and it is always dangerous to use
> pre-made lib parts, check it to be safe. (i had that trip me up even
in
> orcad, where they provided errorous library parts).
>
> >
> > Since I've workd with EAGLE for quite awhile, I've not been too hung
> > up on the three part, Symbol-Package-Device creation process, even
> > though with DipTrace it's a 2-part process. I like DipTrace's method
> > of auto-generating the sequence of rows of pads for IC's, which you
> > predefine, whereas in EAGLE, I believe you have to run a ULP to do
that.
>
> You can do that in target, there's a helper where you can make like "5
> pads 100mil apart round shape 2mm diameter starting at x/y" etc. I
rarely
> use it though because i'm faster just editing them on the drawing sheet.
>
> >
> > I agree that double-clicking for property assignments is much better
> > than EAGLE's Icon menu, optional text menu, drop-down menu, or command
> > line for most work. But then, some folks run Photoshop practically
> > mouseless. I'll play with the program a bit more, and see what I can
> > discover, based on your comments.
>
> Just do the tutorial or something, or read the help. From your
coments i
> can see not even the most basic things work out for you, which i can
> assure you is a usage problem.
>
> ST
>