| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| tswelectronics |
Posted - 06 Aug 2011 : 08:34:30
I have been thinking a bit about the library files and the fact that Eagle has loads of library files users have updated. If Number One do not have the resources or the want to produce a web page where we could upload library files, maybe I could generate a website for this?
Does anyone think this is a good idea or would have library files they are willing to share? Is there much call for this?
Trev |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| tswelectronics |
Posted - 11 Aug 2011 : 09:29:25
I just had a thought. It is horrible but trying to figure out if it would make any difference.
There is a sort of open library. The eagle converter converts eagle libraries into intermediate easypc based stuff. Does anyone have an understanding of this? This would make for an open platform wouldnt it?
EasyPC understands the library but I think the output generated is in EasyPC format.
Where it gets interesting is that there is also one to convert a Eagle PCB file into a form EasyPC can understand. So in theory you can script something in the intermediate format and EasyPC will understand it?
Any thoughts?
Trev
|
| Benno |
Posted - 10 Aug 2011 : 13:25:47
Trev,
I fully agree with you.
The way Eagle users share info, parts and macro's had put me a couple of times in doubt if I would switch to Eagle. Probably Eagle has it's problem's too, but I like the way their community shares things.
Regarding closed formats of EasyPC, I also do not like that. One of my wishes would be that Numberone opens easyPC via an API or some form of scripting. If the scripting or API is capable to interact with the design objects within EasyPC it gives opportunities to add powerfull external tools. It is just a matter of time until there are a number of these enhancing EasyPC, both commercial and free.
Since parts are copied into designs (both SCH and PCB), I can not understand why it is hard to add functionality where a users app can simply say "here use this as a symbol / component".
|
| tswelectronics |
Posted - 10 Aug 2011 : 11:06:45
Has there ever been any information on how the library files are constructed? I suppose this information is on a 'need to know' basis. It is a shame we cant figure something out for the libraries as I am sure it would bring so much more value to the cad package if there was a proper central repository that people could work from. I wonder how many people are creating the same parts out there.
I wonder if the RS version shares the same library stuff. Maybe RS would be interested in creating some form of universal library
Trev |
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 08 Aug 2011 : 09:59:11
I find the IPCSM library excellent
Iain |
| tswelectronics |
Posted - 06 Aug 2011 : 17:39:20
Yes, this is the current problem with the library. So maybe managing a general library would actually require people to use the same library parts to create libraries.
Iain, currently you use the IPCSM library. Does this work for most of the parts you require that are surface mount? Is there a similar library for through hole? Maybe if people started building from a set of generic parts then a free library could be produced?
I suppose the problem is how to integrate new parts into the library without corrupting current parts?
Trev |
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 06 Aug 2011 : 10:29:07
This could be dangerous with the way the libraries are structured .... as I keep banging on about ... a component is not an integral unit but links to schematic and footprint symbol names that exist in other libraries.
What this means is user A may have generated a SOT23 component using his pinning convention, and user B generates a different SOT23 device with his (different) pinning convention. If both these user libraries are loaded and any particular SOT23 component is to be loaded int a design (doesn't even need to be the ones in these two users libs), the FIRST SOT23 found in the enabled libraries folders will be selected, and that could use the wrong pinning convention for the device to be loaded !! ... make board, doesn't work !!!!
I use multiple libraries and this has always been the problem .... Introducing other users libraries will simply compound the problem unless you manage them very very very carefully
Iain
|
