On Apr 6, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Levente Kovacs wrote: > On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:41:37 -0700 > Anthony Shanks <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In my opinion it's worth spending an hour going over the footprint >> file format and just making your footprints in an ASCII editor. Once >> you know the file format it's very fast (< 10 min per footprint on >> average) and you get the exact dimensions you need specified by the >> datasheet. Making footprints with this method in my opinion is easier >> and faster than most closed source tools I have used. >> >> With that said, I still think pcb has many shortcomings, but >> footprints aren't one of them. > > Is there any non-interactive footprint editor around? Like a perl script which > can set mask and clearence. It would be nice for example run it through your > library, and it would set the mask offset to x.
Yes, well, some of DJ's footprint generators are on the geda symbols website as interactive web pages. And I have written a couple of quick generator programs that I've yet to make public -- first excuse being that until I fabbed some boards with the footprints I didn't think that wise, (excuse no longer applicable), second excuse being that they aren't really in a form where I'm not embarrassed to have other people read my code :( I've just never cleaned them up. Of course, you are asking about something different it seems, not a generator, but a parametric tweaker "all masks shall now have offset X" -- which is suppose could be handy, but I just regenerate the footprint with different parameters. -dave > > It would also be nice to do this on a footprint in *.pcb file. > > Thanks. > > Levente > > P.S.: If no one have such thing... I warm up my editor to write it. :-) > >> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:35 AM, John Doty >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:25 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> I am just getting started and may say things that sound stupid. >>>> >>>> Even something you think sounds stupid gives us some insight into >>>> how new users perceive our software :-) >>> >>> One of the problems here is that the gschem GUI channels new users >>> in a dysfunctional direction. Referencing library symbols is more >>> often than not the wrong way to go. Embedding, sometimes given as >>> an alternative, scales poorly, so it's only applicable to the >>> smallest projects. >>> >>> A better way is to import every symbol you're using into your >>> *project* (not just the schematic page you happen to be working >>> on). One you have a project-local copy, the needed customizations >>> are easy through Hierarchy->Down Symbol. >>> >>> I keep a shell window open for this purpose. Use gschem to browse >>> for a symbol similar to what I need, go to shell window and copy to >>> project, hit the #...@% refresh button on the symbol browser, then >>> pick it up from the project symbol directory. This isn't at all >>> time consuming, and in the end saves a *lot* of time, but it sure >>> isn't obvious to the beginner. >>> >>>> >>>>> I guess this leaves me with a question... Is geda meant for the >>>>> non-lazy high end user that roll's his/her own footprints? >>>> >>>> It's a mix of both. We *do* have libraries of symbols and >>>> footprints for many of the commonly needed parts. People *still* >>>> often have to "roll their own" because we just don't have *every* >>>> part in our library. >>> >>> Not just that: the symbols in the library are inevitably wrong in >>> some way in light of the needs of a particular project flow. >>> >>>> >>>> Yes, we'd like our library to be more complete, but we've been >>>> discussing this problem for YEARS and have yet to come up with a >>>> workable solution. >>>> >>>>> If so then if I paid for a few more then it would not really help >>>>> as this is not the intended direction. >>>> >>>> Hmmm... no, that's not right. Intent has nothing to do with it, >>>> it's just not practical for us to have every part in our libraries. >>> >>> Every part in every manufacturer's variant for every customer's >>> documentation requirements using every design flow and every >>> manufacturing flow... >>> >>> A trillion symbols would not be sufficient. >>> >>>> >>>>> If the project does need more footprints then would it not be good >>>>> to come up with a viable solution to create them? >>>> >>>> Sure. Go ahead :-) >>>> >>>>> For instance could someone sell a support package, i.e includes 50 >>>>> footprints for X amount of money. These footprints would then >>>>> become open source and available to all, free as in beer. Would >>>>> this approach not bring more people to the project? or would it >>>>> bring the wrong kind of people? >>>> >>>> I think this would be a great idea, if (1) you could find people >>>> willing to do that, (2) you could find people willing to pay for >>>> it, and (3) they could agree on a price. >>>> >>>> But this has nothing to do with *our* desires, it's a free market - >>>> all it needs is two people willing to deal. We already have >>>> gedasymbols.org where people can put freely usable symbols and >>>> footprints, I don't think anyone would have a problem with someone >>>> promoting their own services and rates on their gedasymbols page. >>>> >>>> Perhaps what we need is a bounty system? Someone posts an URL for >>>> a part's spec sheet and how much they're willing to pay. >>>> Contenders post screenshots of the symbols and footprints they >>>> come up with, and one is chosen to get the bounty and submit their >>>> data files to the community. >>> >>> The single most important thing is to fix gschem so that it doesn't >>> lead users into the unproductive trap of referencing unmodified >>> library symbols in designs. Then maybe we can escape from the >>> delusion that what's primarily needed is a bigger library. >>> >>> Don't get me wrong: I think publishing symbols is great. >>> gedasymbols.org is a great resource, and indeed I have thrown a >>> bunch of symbols into the pot there over the last few days. >>> Starting with a symbol that's as close to what you need as possible >>> is always best. But publishing symbols cannot solve the fundamental >>> problem: "as close as possible" rarely means "exactly". >>> >>> John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. >>> http://www.noqsi.com/ >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> geda-user mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> geda-user mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user >> > > > -- > Levente Kovacs > http://logonex.eu > > > _______________________________________________ > geda-user mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
