Ok... i am almost far enough to throw my PC out of the f.. window...
This is now the third time i try to build a SIMPLE shield in EAGLE, but after i deleted one Wire in the schematics the whole boards gets either fu...ed up or inconsistency errors occur which seem unresolvable, even with redoing the last steps to a point which was known to work.
I know that eagle is one of the worst softwares ever designed - as far as intuitive usability is concearned - but sometimes i just want to abandon that for something different which i dont even know if it exists or not.
There MUST be a way to make 'wires' between pads that dont screw up everything, but unfortunately even tutorials show me no better way than what i already do...
Seriously? I love eagle.... I mean there are some issues, but overall its easy and doesn't get in my way... and I'm new to it too, so it's not like I've been using it for years or anything. Perhaps you have an old, glitchy version or something?
5.6.0... seems as glitchy as every version i used since 4.x...
so WHAT is the easiest way to make wires?
I either put wire between pads in the schematics directly or add a small wire to each pad and give it a name, so do i for the place of connection on the other pad...
after i deleted one Wire in the schematics the whole boards gets either fu...ed up or inconsistency errors occur which seem unresolvable, even with redoing the last steps to a point which was known to work.
It's hard to say what's going on without looking over your shoulder, but I've never had the sorts of problems you are describing. Even when I've managed to get a schematic/board to be 'inconsistent', I've always been able to fix it, either via undo, via fixing the individual problems listed in the ERC, or (if desparate) via the automatically made backup files.
Here are a couple hints, though:
ALWAYS edit with both the board and schematic windows open.
NEVER use "wire"; signals in the schematics should be added with "net", and traces on the board should be added with "route" (and deleted with "ripup")
don't add wires or signals in the board (if you have the schematics open, it shouldn't let you.)
I dunno, I couldn't get into Eagle.... there's a really awesome program to make circuit boards, but I only know of 1 company that produces the PCB's from the program.. http://www.pcb123.com/
(if you're just making a few boards, check their website for pricing, pricing in program is based on purchasing alot of boards)
Has nifty 3d version just with a click, can control drag around the whole PCB. Much easier to use than Eagle in my opinion, but not as widely accepted.
It's not as widely accepted because it's tied to one board house. If you make designs in their software, you're locked into buying from them, and the PCBs aren't cheap at all. You can buy Gerbers from them, but for hobbyists this is terrible, it's $50 if you add a Gerber CD with PCBs, and unspecified money if you buy without PCBs. You won't be able to throw some Gerbers at BatchPCB or Seeedstudio and get good prototypes for under $30.
Eagle is worth the time investment to learn. Lots of hobby projects fit within the free size limitation, and it outputs standard Gerber files. If you want to start selling your projects, you can buy that same version for $50 and use it as much as you want. If you need larger PCBs or more copper layers, yeah it'll cost you a few hundred bucks. The autorouter is next to useless, so I only bought the professional layout and schematic modules for about $1k total.
Why is the autorouter useless? I am new to eagle, so my view is biased, leaning towards what the introduction course over at sparkfun taught me, but the autorouter seems good to me. I don't even know the "manual" way... which reminds me... what's the manual way?
The autorouter just doesn't work that well. Mainly it makes some really ugly choices from both a design and aesthetics perspective.
The manual way involves a few hours with no risk of interruption, and a case of soda or other favorite beverage. Arrange the components in a logical way and then route the important wires (power, high speed, etc) first. It's like a big puzzle! At least for me...for others it might be the worst drudgery. Naturally it's not a very practical approach for something really complicated like a motherboard. You need much more expensive tools that can handle things like trace length matching.
Nacht... definitely use nets... stay away from "wires".
I have to agree with macegr. Eagle's autorouter, while very handy for simple layouts, actually causes headaches in more complicated layouts. Regardless, 9 times out of 10, I will just hand route an entire board. The reason is that even if you think that it may be faster to let the autorouter do the first run and go and clean up after, you will find that you will spend more time than if you actually just hand route the entire thing in the first place.
FWIW, Farnell bought CadSoft recently. Hopefully Eagle Light will still be $49.
Thanks for starting this thread. I'm a new Eagle user, somewhat frustrated (though I'm attibuting my problems to my newbie-ness), and very happy to see good simple advice from those of you who know it well.
When you say that you never use wires, do you really mean never? That you attach everything through nets, even when it's just one connection from one pin to another?
And (I haven't tried this yet), if I put a collection of parts in the schematic window, connect a few, and open the board window, I'll see the traces on the board appear as I make connections on the schematic? And I can make "routes" on the board and have them appear on the schematic as well? Am I getting myself into trouble yet with these assumptions? :-?
I've not used eagle all that much, so I'm a newbie, too.
But, a net can have just two things connected to it. The software seems to handle nets better than wires, terminating them when a connection is selected, and joining them when an existing net is selected to end the wire.
Wires can be used, but ending the wire and joining it to others to form a net are not automatic. Simpler to just use nets.
If you have both the schematic and board windows open, and you connect to connections together, you will not get a trace in the board window. You will get an air wire. Air wires get converted to traces using the Auto-route command or manual trace layout techniques.
Traces on the board are not reflected on the schematic. You need to create something to trace (in the schematic) first.
I see. Wow, it's a LOT easier using nets. I'm making far more progress today than I was when I was trying to wire things together. I'm starting to think I might have a usable board ready to order inside of the week.
Thanks. I did once order a couple of boards that someone else designed, and it turned out that there was a flaw in that design, but the tech over there fixed it and sent me working boards. I was impressed.
I'm designing a very simple board (a couple of traces connecting headers, some standoffs, no components at all) that will nonetheless do something I need done. That should teach me a bit in the process before I move up to trying something slightly more complicated. If I manage to screw up something this simple, I know I'll need to put much more time into it.
Okay, my "simple board" is turning out to be complicated. I'm trying to add a 2-terminal screw terminal from the Sparkfun library to it, and Eagle is saying "no". Or more accurately, it's saying "do it in the schematic", but in the schematic it's saying "there is no such part".
Any idea how to add that part to my schematic? When I click "add" in the schematic window, there are no screw terminals at all in the Sparkfun library. When I click "add" in the board window, I can get to the terminal I want in that library, but when I click to add it, I get a window saying that I can't do that in the board view, and that I need to do it in the schmatic.
I've also tried just opening up the library in the Eagle control panel, but the terminals don't appear in that list either.
This is the point at which one wants to throw Eagle out the window.
Edit:
Apparently it only allows me to add certain parts if I have a board window open, except that it doesn't allow me to add them to the board. If I try to do it with from a schematic window, those parts do not appear in the list. If I try to do it from the library in the control panel window, those parts only appear in the list if a board window is also open, and then it tries to add them to the board, but says that it cannot "back annotate" so I need to do it in the schematic - but there's nothing about how to add the part in the schematic. Classic Catch-22.
Okay, it seems to distinguish between "devices" and "packages". I can add "devices" to the schematic, but not "packages". Packages can't be added to anything. What am I missing?
Edit: Aargh. This is utterly insane. Is there some magic hidden key that I need to press? Do have I have to click the mouse button while standing on my right foot?
Surely the terminal exists in the library so that it can be added to a board design, right? Or am I completely missing the point somewhere?
I'll keep ranting here while I'm clicking and dragging and dropping and ESC'ing everything in sight.
I just tried this, and got the same error you are getting, with both views open.
I closed the schematic view, and then add allowed me to drag the outline onto the board. Dropping it is not allowed, though. Another pop-up that says that you can't do that in the light version.
When I try it with the board window closed, the screw terminals do not appear in the list of parts.
Maybe I should try to add it to the schematic with ONLY the board window open? That makes no sense, but it's becoming clear that "making sense" isn't going to work here.
Edit: Okay, that allowed me to add it to the board (bizarrely enough...). However, when I opened the schematic window, it was not magically there - the schematic didn't change, although the little warnings window said that the board and the schematic were consistent.
It's hard to shake the nagging feeling that this is a bug. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what this stuff is supposed to be doing, it simply shouldn't be acting this way.
