Irritating Eagle Quirk

Comments

• Leon Posts: 7,620

  2008-06-26 10:40 edited 2008-06-26 10:40

  It was OK when I tried it. I don't use Eagle but I have a copy here so that I can import Eagle designs into the (much better) software I use.
  
  Leon
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
  Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
• TC Posts: 1,019

  2008-06-26 13:03 edited 2008-06-26 13:03

  william chan said...
  Every time I route a PCB track and connect it to a component lead, it creates an extra very short track segment that is hidden at the connection point itself.
  This very short track segment can only be seen if I move the track by dragging it away.
  
  Is there a way to avoid creating this short track segment or am I doing things the wrong way?
  
  Thanks.
  
  

  Check your grid. sounds like the your pins spacing is not matching with your grid. eagle will add the rest of a route if it too short.
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  We all make mistakes when we are young………That’s why paste is edible!
• Paul Baker Posts: 6,351

  2008-07-05 10:21 edited 2008-07-05 10:21

  This is common, with different metric systems used on different chips (plus the board's units in mils), you're bound to not be able to to get things to line on a single grid.
  
  The key to getting rid of the extra line is to not complete the line from one pin/pad to he other. Instead stop in the previous segment somewhere. Then start from the unconnected pad and complete the trace. This will lay a trace with no extraneous segments.
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  Paul Baker
  Propeller Applications Engineer
  
  Parallax, Inc.
• LoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537

  2008-07-06 10:26 edited 2008-07-06 10:26

  Yeah, I have had this problem and it seems to be something that beginner's inherently do because the grid size they are using is very fine and some things are not clearly seen. I need to think about, but it certainly would be nice for someone to write something so that beginners could get beyond this. It wastes a lot of time in clean up.
  
  It has been a while since I used my Eagle software, but I certainly did learn to avoid the problem. If my memory serves me right, I learned that by shutting off certain layers -·like the PADS layer - and turning on the little black circles; you could see very clearly when you are over-extending or missing reaching all the way to the desired point.
  
  The problem is worse if you are designing without first making a good schematic. My first boards were designed without a schematic file.·And the problem can just about completely·be avoided by getting the right layers displayed in your schematic as it may originate there.
  
  Since the pads usually cover the problem area, it often appears to make no difference in the quality of the image. But it certainly·may generate a 'no connection' error in the reports when it falls short.
  
  I really don't think another CAD product would be any better. Paul points to the real source of the problem - too many different component standards and sizes disallow making a courser pitch·useful·for automatic layout.
  
  So, the real solution is two fold. Learn to set up your view of layers both in schematic and board to make it easier to get it right the first time. And use the error reports to catch any problems you miss.
  
  I must say, my first error reports were a nightmare to understand as I had moved and relabled a lot without knowing I was going to have to understand them. But I did learn.
  
  It does help greatly to not overwork and heavily revise the schematic in one huge session·as it makes assumptions and creates a connection data base. At times, that can get too complex for the automation and the data base seems trashed with extra lables going no where or doubled connections.
  
  I am sure once you think about all this, you can master very quick and clean Eagle boards. It does take a bit of study though.
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  PLEASE CONSIDER the following:
  
  Do you want a quickly operational black box solution or the knowledge included therein?······
  

  ···················· Tropically,····· G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse]·黃鶴 ]·in Taiwan

  
  Post Edited (Kramer) : 7/6/2008 3:51:17 PM GMT
• Leon Posts: 7,620

  2008-07-06 13:38 edited 2008-07-06 13:38

  The Pulsonix software I use makes off-grid connections without any problems. It costs more than Eagle, though.
  
  Leon
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
  Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
• LoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537

  2008-07-06 15:43 edited 2008-07-06 15:43

  Eagle really can do the job fine, but one should learn to keep an eye on the error reports as one works and clear them frequently. Otherwise, one has to backtrack to get things cleaned up.
  
  Problems are much more easily recognized if you learn how to adjust the graphic image layers to the task you are doing.· You cannot merely expect the defaults to be efficient for all tasks.
  
  The documents for Eagle really don't point out the need to·these things.
  
  I am very happy with Eagle and I have been able to take files to a manufacturer in China and get excellent product on my first trial.
  
  The component library database is the hard part to learn as there are far more components that most of us have ever heard of.· But, all the CAD software packages have these huge libraries provided by the manufacturers.
  
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  PLEASE CONSIDER the following:
  
  Do you want a quickly operational black box solution or the knowledge included therein?······
  

  ···················· Tropically,····· G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse]·黃鶴 ]·in Taiwan

  
  Post Edited (Kramer) : 7/6/2008 3:53:56 PM GMT