I agree, i don't consider full simulation of the circuits i make much
use. The models are by far not accurate enough to give me much
information (and i am not prepared to put in the time to make them
more accurate). What i would like to do is simulate parts of circuits
to test concepts and such. I generally much prefer bench testing, but
back when i had orcad the pspice simulation worked really well and was
nice for some things. Not having to use a different software for
simulation is something i would consider an advantage. Target has
simulation, but so far í'm not really friends with it and rarely use
it. Eagle: simulation, what's that? (Does he mean pretending to be a
windows app.?)
Yes Markus Eagle does come off a bit too bad. That's because i'm
p(§§ed off with it after having to use it all day and hating it's
guts. It would still not rank high in a subjective comparision, is my
opinion. I agree with all the points you made about it.
About Target, i promise one _can_ actually make a board with it ;-).
It is however very true that there is only one or two ways to do
things, not 5 or 10 ways like in Orcad (and eagle, if it can do it at
all). So you really need to find the right ways, the Help helps ;-). I
still firmly state that the Target UI is way, way more intuitive than
the Eagle thing, and the Library management is also very good since
you can work on parts right in and out of schematic/PCB while still
maintaining systematic order.
ST
On Nov 14, 2007 10:01 PM, Steve Wiseman <sjwiseman@...> wrote:
> Full simulation seems to be pissing in the wind.
>
> Steve
>