I'm still waiting for the file from Parallax. They may not release them. I not happy that you template are on a .005. I can not work with that do do a layout in a timely manner. .025 would be better. I do not have my boards and calipers to take measurements.
At a 0.025" grid alignment, the 16 pin header will be off by 0.010". If that is what you want, I would be more than happy to push the 16 pin header for you.
The only time that you need the 0.005 grid is when you connect to the I/O pins of the Propeller. Besides that, you can do all of your other work in any grid size you want.
EDIT: And that is just for final attachment. The I/O pins break on a 0.10 grid vertically, it is just that last connection horizontally.
Let me look at something.... I have been referring to the board the last few comments
The only time that you need the 0.005 grid is when you connect to the I/O pins of the Propeller. Besides that, you can do all of your other work in any grid size you want.
EDIT: And that is just for final attachment. The I/O pins break on a 0.10 grid vertically, it is just that last connection horizontally.
Or...... You could push the 16 pin header towards the 13 pin headers to where it lines up on a 0.10 grid, do your work, and then when you are all done, before sending off the design files, push it back where it needs to be
It certainly would have been much easier with overlays, if they had pushed the 16 header away from the 13 pin headers another 0.035 (in.). However I am sure they did not foresee this thread. They wanted it to look nice
As I have said many, many times, I am not an electrical genius, and I am very sure that this schematic is very far from looking professional, but it looks pretty decent to me
I do believe that I am starting to get a handle on the EAGLE again, or at least the schematic editor. I will be designing the board very shortly
As I have said many, many times, I am not an electrical genius, and I am very sure that this schematic is very far from looking professional, but it looks pretty decent to me
I do believe that I am starting to get a handle on the EAGLE again, or at least the schematic editor. I will be designing the board very shortly
A schematic does not have to be a work of genius or a work of art. It needs to be uncluttered and clearly show how the components are connected. Yours does that very well. Back when microprocessors were starting to be used in instruments they typically had a motherboard and several daughter boards. at that time my favorite style of schematic was one where the signals were grouped by function (address, data, control, misc, etc) and represented by a bold or colored line. That removed a lot of clutter from the schematic, and with the inclusion of a netlist in the manual made troubleshooting a system with a dozen or more boards and 400 - 500 chips feasible. That style of schematic isn't really needed as much with small Micro-controller boards since they generally have a small number of components, but it would make for a less cluttered and easier to follow schematic.
Over the last several days, I have been going back and forth over three different schematics, two of them were single drawing schematics, and the other had the schematic broken up by significant portions. I think I actually prefer the single drawing schematics, because it seems easier for me to comprehend the overall view, but I can understand where it might be highly beneficial to someone with a strong electronics background.
Anyhow, here is the finished schematic. Time to see how well I can do with the board editor.
The only time that you need the 0.005 grid is when you connect to the I/O pins of the Propeller. Besides that, you can do all of your other work in any grid size you want.
EDIT: And that is just for final attachment. The I/O pins break on a 0.10 grid vertically, it is just that last connection horizontally.
Now that I have started working on my board, I can clearly see that was a misconception Of, course I will make that a true statement in the end, but for now, it is false I lied
To allow snapping on a 0.10" grid, except for final connection to the I/O pin of the Propeller, I will have to increase the board size for the overlays. I am starting to look into this now
It's wise to use a metric grid when dealing with such fine QFP pitch.
I could be wrong and I most likely am, but I do not foresee it as a major ordeal. Worst case scenario as I see it, the connection of the trace to the pin may be off by 0.0005~0.001 in., and having a little offset. However, I do agree it would be cleaner and more accurate in metric.
Comments
I can create a special program for you. Let me take another look.
EDIT: And that is just for final attachment. The I/O pins break on a 0.10 grid vertically, it is just that last connection horizontally.
Let me look at something.... I have been referring to the board the last few comments
Let me see if the schematic is set on 0.005.
I disagree...... Why move two headers, when moving one will accomplish the same task.
If you move the 16 pin header in either direction by 0.005, it will allow a 0.010 grid.
PS cross posted.
Just attach the files you want, EAGLE or DipTrace, and I will make them easy access for you.
I do believe that I am starting to get a handle on the EAGLE again, or at least the schematic editor. I will be designing the board very shortly
A schematic does not have to be a work of genius or a work of art. It needs to be uncluttered and clearly show how the components are connected. Yours does that very well. Back when microprocessors were starting to be used in instruments they typically had a motherboard and several daughter boards. at that time my favorite style of schematic was one where the signals were grouped by function (address, data, control, misc, etc) and represented by a bold or colored line. That removed a lot of clutter from the schematic, and with the inclusion of a netlist in the manual made troubleshooting a system with a dozen or more boards and 400 - 500 chips feasible. That style of schematic isn't really needed as much with small Micro-controller boards since they generally have a small number of components, but it would make for a less cluttered and easier to follow schematic.
Over the last several days, I have been going back and forth over three different schematics, two of them were single drawing schematics, and the other had the schematic broken up by significant portions. I think I actually prefer the single drawing schematics, because it seems easier for me to comprehend the overall view, but I can understand where it might be highly beneficial to someone with a strong electronics background.
Anyhow, here is the finished schematic. Time to see how well I can do with the board editor.
Now that I have started working on my board, I can clearly see that was a misconception
To allow snapping on a 0.10" grid, except for final connection to the I/O pin of the Propeller, I will have to increase the board size for the overlays. I am starting to look into this now
NEW BOARD DIMENSIONS
2.3 X 1.6
NEW HEADER CENTERS
JP2 - X 0.9 Y 2.15
JP1 - X 0.115 Y 1.15
JP3 - X 0.9 Y 0.15
I am sure you are correct, but I am still learning the hard way
I will know soon enough, because my components are placed
I could be wrong and I most likely am, but I do not foresee it as a major ordeal. Worst case scenario as I see it, the connection of the trace to the pin may be off by 0.0005~0.001 in., and having a little offset. However, I do agree it would be cleaner and more accurate in metric.