Add "Add Package Variant" button to Library Edtor window, please?

[Anonymous]

The main window only has "new" button for adding packages, which tells me that I can't use that...

So I use HELP to find out that somewhere in the Control Panel window, there is such an option. After a while searching I can find it.

Then a little chaos on how to use it or what it does.

And after some time I have a part with 2 package variants.

And after another minute I have the library updated in the project! Woo-hoo!

But, could you make it easier, so that less intelligent people will know how to add packages?

[rachaelATWH4]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The main window only has "new" button for adding packages, which tells me that I can't use that...

---

"New" in this case just means add a new package (i.e. a variant) to the device.

You click on "New", select your alternative package and give it a name, map the pins, and it's done. Simple as that. No need for any different button. If you're feeling really clever you can even put a ? in your device name and it'll get populated with the package variant name so, when combined with * for the technology name you can (within reason) build up complete part numbers in your library then choose the appropriate one when you place a part.

Best Regards,

Rachael

[Anonymous]

Press "New", select package, get "Package variant already defined!", with no options, explanations or anything, it has been this way ever since I used Eagle for the first time in the last century.

It is only in 2017 I was actually able to edit anything in eagle library with the enclosed library editor.

But another problem, the package variant I can create: the package variant name actually transfers to the VALUE of that component?!

It isn't reasonable to expect that a 0402 package will be the value of all resistors and capacitors using it.

But back to the defaults of the original variant, that one is '', as in " ' ' ". When I right click, select "Rename", do nothing, just click around, and then press OK, guess what?

"Error: Package variant already defined!"

I just wonder how people ever used the Library editor without a right click?
The whole control system is very arbitrary. 8 years ago I couldn't add a component in there, I click on just about everything... I edited the library file in a text editor, was faster and more reliable, I learned how it worked by reading the syntax of an example library.

Apropo: mapping the pins: this is done blindly, so, I map the pins, save library, use it, place component and then verify if the pins are in the right places. Wash, rinse, repeat. Why? Because I combined a standard symbol from one library with a package from a different library. The pin-pad naming system has no universal standard.

[rachaelATWH4]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Press "New", select package, get "Package variant already defined!", 

---

You get that when you forget to type in a name in the "Variant Name" box of the add new package dialog. 

---

@Anonymous wrote:
with no options, explanations or anything, it has been this way ever since I used Eagle for the first time in the last century.

---

RTM.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

It is only in 2017 I was actually able to edit anything in eagle library with the enclosed library editor.

---

Why? The library editor has looked very much like it does now for all of v7 and I can't imagine it's that much different from v6 and earlier. There is nothing of any note that you can do in the library editor now that you couldn't do for the last several years.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

But another problem, the package variant I can create: the package variant name actually transfers to the VALUE of that component?!

It isn't reasonable to expect that a 0402 package will be the value of all resistors and capacitors using it.

---

You've done something else wrong as this is NOT what happens in my libraries.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

But back to the defaults of the original variant, that one is '', as in " ' ' ". When I right click, select "Rename", do nothing, just click around, and then press OK, guess what?

"Error: Package variant already defined!"

---

Oh yeah it does do that. It's a very minor bug to be fair as it has no negative consequences other than an error pop-up. If you click cancel it doesn't do that and usually when people want to rename something they will type in a different name. But they should fix that at some point I guess.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I just wonder how people ever used the Library editor without a right click?

---

Why would they use it without the right click? But if for some reason they had a one button mouse then I guess there is always the command line.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The whole control system is very arbitrary. 8 years ago I couldn't add a component in there, I click on just about everything... I edited the library file in a text editor, was faster and more reliable, I learned how it worked by reading the syntax of an example library.

---

It would seem that 8 years ago you hadn't read the manual and came up with a really hard way to do it and it seems you still haven't read the manual. Having created libraries in several other exceedingly expensive packages I can confirm that EAGLE is by far the simplest and most intuitive of any of them.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Apropo: mapping the pins: this is done blindly, so, I map the pins, save library, use it, place component and then verify if the pins are in the right places. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

How so? You can't see where you are clicking? There is nothing blind about it. Map the pins in the library, scroll through the list of assignments when you've done to check all is ok. Then press ok and save and it's all done.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Why? Because I combined a standard symbol from one library with a package from a different library. The pin-pad naming system has no universal standard.

---

This isn't an EAGLE problem, this is the entire electronics industry. You can't possibly be blaming EAGLE for this? FYI, you also don't have this issue if you just create your own parts. You name the package pins generically and the device pins as per the data sheet and map them. I've not come across as device that I can't create reliably and quickly yet. I can create new devices with hundreds of pins from scratch in a relatively short amount of time.

Best Regards,

Rachael

[rachaelATWH4]

---

@rachaelATWH4 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

But another problem, the package variant I can create: the package variant name actually transfers to the VALUE of that component?!

It isn't reasonable to expect that a 0402 package will be the value of all resistors and capacitors using it.

---

You've done something else wrong as this is NOT what happens in my libraries

---

If you specify a VALUE attribute in your library of say "TBD" then it'll come in with that as the value, otherwise if no VALUE attribute is specified then it'll take the default device name made up of the device, technology and package variant information.

The only down side is you need to specify this for every package variant and technology when you create your library, but you can probably automate this with ULP if you found it bothersome.

Best Regards,

Rachael

[rachaelATWH4]

---

@rachaelATWH4 wrote:

---

@rachaelATWH4 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

But another problem, the package variant I can create: the package variant name actually transfers to the VALUE of that component?!

It isn't reasonable to expect that a 0402 package will be the value of all resistors and capacitors using it.

---

You've done something else wrong as this is NOT what happens in my libraries

---

If you specify a VALUE attribute in your library of say "TBD" then it'll come in with that as the value, otherwise if no VALUE attribute is specified then it'll take the default device name made up of the device, technology and package variant information.

The only down side is you need to specify this for every package variant and technology when you create your library, but you can probably automate this with ULP if you found it bothersome.

Best Regards,

Rachael

---

So, backing up.... My passives library DOES do what you first said. My bad. If you do what I said above to stop that happening, when you change package or update the part it removes all values from all resistors of that package!

So on this one I agree, a better solution to not having it pop up that erroneous value is required.

Best Regards,

Rachael

[Anonymous]

Best illustrated with an imaginary discussion:

A: Hey, boss, I got this nice software for 100 USD?
B: And?
A: It will cost you 2000 USD to read the manual, which may or may not work or help.
B: Get out!

What you did not notice at all from what I said: THERE IS NO VISUAL VERIFICATION, which I need because the SYMBOLS and PACKAGES were imported, so there was no dialog of the kind that you mention.

Why am I reinventing the wheel, by making my own library for a component of which ON Semicon sells some 100000 pieces a month? Even worse with the 0402 resistor. It's like as if no one on this planet didn't need the proper pads with a proper symbol.

The heck, 10 years ago, my English was still rudimentary and in the 1990's it was very weak, and you expect me to read, comprehend and use MANUAL in English (with the occasional word in Deutch, ahem). You think the rest of the world is any better? Have you read the Bus manual before travelling by bus? Have you read the car handbook that comes with a new car, before sitting in it? May I note, that it is very important to study that handbook?! Information vital for your life, safety and comfort is there.

I'm not blaming some electronics library, but when I get libraries supplied with Eagle and I get 2 identical packages, or make it 3, and each one of them has pads named differently, and symbols which also have pins named not like the other one...

Or, that just now my NFM18PC stopped working? Why? It stopped connecting the second pin in the schematics, where I had two pins placed over each other. So I resigned and put the pins aside each other. Now the 3-pin capacitor has 4 pins. 🙂

[rachaelATWH4]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Best illustrated with an imaginary discussion:

A: Hey, boss, I got this nice software for 100 USD?
B: And?
A: It will cost you 2000 USD to read the manual, which may or may not work or help.
B: Get out!

---

In the first part, the cost of the tool is irrelevant. If it's something you need to use daily to do you job it doesn't matter if it costs $100 or $100k, if you don't know how to use it then it's useless.

Unless your boss is a total idiot then I suspect they would appreciate you actually knowing how to use the tools you need to do your job, would be happy for the time spent reading the tutorials and manuals and may even pay for a training course. You've been using EAGLE for decades and don't understand some basic methods of operation which make it easy to use. How much do you think that has cost your boss over the years in lost productivity? How do you think they'd react when you told them this? Do yourself a favour and just learn how to use the tools.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

What you did not notice at all from what I said: THERE IS NO VISUAL VERIFICATION, which I need because the SYMBOLS and PACKAGES were imported, so there was no dialog of the kind that you mention.

---

I noticed you said that but I don't know how you are mapping symbol pins to package pads without the dialog box which specifies the mapping?

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Why am I reinventing the wheel, by making my own library for a component of which ON Semicon sells some 100000 pieces a month? Even worse with the 0402 resistor. It's like as if no one on this planet didn't need the proper pads with a proper symbol.

---

Because you could potentially be spending tens of thousands on building a batch of boards and your boss would be very annoyed if the batch had to be scrapped because of a component error in a library you downloaded from the internet and didn't thoroughly check. It's far quicker to just do it from scratch in most cases. Plus if you create the parts yourself your symbols all follow a set style and your schematics don't end up looking like a dogs dinner and a far more readable and maintainable in the future.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The heck, 10 years ago, my English was still rudimentary and in the 1990's it was very weak, and you expect me to read, comprehend and use MANUAL in English (with the occasional word in Deutch, ahem). You think the rest of the world is any better? Have you read the Bus manual before travelling by bus? Have you read the car handbook that comes with a new car, before sitting in it? May I note, that it is very important to study that handbook?! Information vital for your life, safety and comfort is there.

I'm not blaming some electronics library, but when I get libraries supplied with Eagle and I get 2 identical packages, or make it 3, and each one of them has pads named differently, and symbols which also have pins named not like the other one...

Or, that just now my NFM18PC stopped working? Why? It stopped connecting the second pin in the schematics, where I had two pins placed over each other. So I resigned and put the pins aside each other. Now the 3-pin capacitor has 4 pins. 🙂

---

Yawn. I read manuals for tools I need to know how to understand. I don't read a manual for riding on a bus, I do read the basic operation of the important bits of my car. I pick and choose what I read to learn important information. To me, reading the manuals for the tools I need to do my job is learning important information and has paid the time back over and over again.

Best Regards,

Rachael

[C.Nicks]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
Best illustrated with an imaginary discussion:

A: Hey, boss, I got this nice software for 100 USD?
B: And?
A: It will cost you 2000 USD to read the manual, which may or may not work or help.
B: Get out!

---

Here's another imaginary discussion

A: Hey boss, I got this nice software for 100 for our project, but it will cost 2000 to get training

B: Ok, well this project has to be done right and we can't afford having problems.

If it costs 2000 to read the manual, it's going to cost 10000 NOT to read the manual.

ADresden,

Think about how much time can be saved by learning the tools you use. Now think about all the time wasted telling other people how you think it should work instead of figuring out how to work with it.

My company spent >$8000 on Altium, plus more on training. It ended up being so hard to work with that we switched back to Eagle. Even though we lost that money, we would've lost more if we continued to use it. If you cannot get things done with Eagle, find out what tool works best for you.

Don't try to impose your ideas for how it should work because you do not want to spend time learning how the rest of us use it.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

What you did not notice at all from what I said: THERE IS NO VISUAL VERIFICATION, which I need because the SYMBOLS and PACKAGES were imported, so there was no dialog of the kind that you mention.

---

There is visual verification and there is an add package variant button! Look at Eagle's library editor. Open a library, go to the device editor, then press the NEW button. Add the variant name, then select Connect to map the connections. If the new package variant has the same pinout there is a Copy From: drop down box.

Like Rachael said, Eagle is one of the easiest programs to create libraries in. And we both suggest to make your own libraries. In the long run you will save time and money avoiding problems, and you can control what everything looks like.

Make copies of the Eagle libraries you want to copy from, and move them into your own private location.If you want to see an example of how library technologies and variants are used to create a parts matrix, look at my RCL library HERE

Look at the capacitors and resistors. The base placeholder does not have the 'VALUE' attribute because that will overwrite others in a design with an update. The other parts define the 'Value' attribute. Use REPLACE to switch parts and all of the values and attributes get updated to reflect the changes. I designed this method of library management by fully understanding how Eagle handles attributes, technologies, and packages. It took me a long time to learn, but there will be so much more time saved in the future. I jump into  the files directly when I add new components, but I made sure everything is setup in Eagle first and then I just copy each deviceset.

There is a reason I don't ever use provided libraries. I have a much higher standard of quality and it translates to my designs. I would highly recommend listening to the experts here, especially if we repeat the same thing over and over. There is a reason for it and we don't want Eagle messing with our workflow because users are not willing to learn the tool.

[Anonymous]

My neck is hurting a bit, I have a slipped spinal disk... is that what you call it?

I do not see your point: use library downloaded from the fu---ing component manufacturer is now WRONG? No, it is not easy to draw very irregularly placed pads on the new SMDs. The drawings are insane.

Or libraries from EAGLE, using them should be wrong? You say it is hard to verify the downloaded component, which is what I said, that it can be made easy, I want to be the pins and pads highlighted, just like when you use board and schematics. I could even turn on/off airwires between those two. But you say it is easier to make one from scratch and connect things like P$36 to IN17AB, P$35 to REF16Z, P$34 to GND13, etc, etc in "the dialog box ofthe mappings" and not do a mistake rather than downloadig the original and verify that one...

The datasheets have usually very detailed visual representation of the pins/pads, with carefully placed pin numbers and labels on the depicted package variant. Make one in eagle and you can easily compare. Currently only way to compare is to actually place the part in the LAYOUT and connect it, which is how I discovered the mistake, I remembered the symmetrical connection which was not appearing in the layout...

The problem is: I want to use Eagle easily! I take Packages supplied with some components in Eagle, which are the right ones, I use symbols from another one, and I want to connect them VISUALLY, because I simply can't be sure about the numbering. Or: parts like NPN transistor having pins named xyz1, xyz2, xyz3. Which one of those is the EMITTER? Why can't I confirm or connect it visually? Heck, I could do almost identical task in a computer game made in 1994! They had less programmers than Cadsoft. It was in 3D.

I'm an independent contractor, time reading the manual is totally wasted and won't be compensated, my loss. A billion of chinese is in the same situaton. 😛

"I pick and choose what I read to learn important information."

So do I. But I keep forgetting the usage points that are so anti-intuitive that its impossible not to forget them. When I have the MOVE selected and I press Ctrl, does a Tooltip with "Right click to pick up and drag group" appear? In common software today, such features are common.

The thing with todays employment style is, that someone like me will be using Eagle very intensively for a few months and then stop for a year(s), busy with other tasks. Autodesk used to be actually famous that with a new version of Autocad, you needed a completely new training. Current fractured or multi-field work style needs tools that are useable intermittently by groups of untrained individuals, who will use it once, and then again in a few years. An electronics company that used to employ 3 to 5 thousand people currently employs ZERO people in product development, research, marketing. The two of us are independent contractors due to a variety of reasons, one of them is that the skeleton of a company no longer can afford employing people, but at least they are able to pay for results. I do the work of 5 people, and you want me to read the manuals that five people would read. I'd rather spend the time working on electron beam cathode and grid/focus system, then wood bandsaw, then my cars. It's 23:55, I had no real lunch or breakfast or dinner, no time for real human contact either. And instead of trying to put in some time into those areas, I should go and read the manual for Eagle? Nah, I have a lot of STM32 manual reading already. Currently, using it 90% efficiently with the knowledge I have beats the loss of time; there are still so many features which don't work correctly anyway...

In 3 years I forgot literally everything about Eurocircuits design rules, what it does, how it works, for example. Make that 2.5 years.

*All I want is a symbol wizard, then; pick up a package from a list, connect and visually confirm by highlighting pins/pads.*

*Eagle shall know and recognize several thousands cross-referenced package names. It needs to be done only once and verified once.*

Package names explanation: https://www.hobbielektronika.hu/forum/getfile.php?id=272088

Rachael, that is what I meant with "why keep reinventing the wheel".

How hard is that in 2017? KiCad users will buy Eagle licenses to use that functionality.

huh, by now, I not only see that Rachael is just another version of me, but actually a younger version of me. When did I get so old?

[Anonymous]

Where is the visual verification? Maybe it just doesn't work on unaccelerated displays? Of is there a package view that has pads with "signal" names on them, just like signals can be displayed on pads in Layout?

I can't place a pin at a 45-degree angle... which I need to do. Placing just a dot is not equivalent as the pin highlight won't be active anymore. I'm doing workarounds just to be able what a 1970's person could draw on paper. I want the 1970's drawing quality as standard in Eagle. I don't want a cheap digital replacement.

I used REPLACE to switch resistors. I had two options: to correct each one in layout or in schematics. I chose schematics: each one needed to be rotated 180 degrees. Plus, the ALIGN TO GRID is still missing from schematics, tell me to RTFM all you feel the need to.

[Anonymous]

The way things were configured in my Eagle, the "New" button threw some kind of an error, complaining that something already is or isn't defined, which is a bad strategy, that is what I have issue with.

[Anonymous]

We need to hold Eagle to high standards, because there are companies... let's say, for example, car ECU makers, who will use the libraries without a grain of salt. When a commercial company supplies you with a commercial content, another commercial company will assume it is for commercial usage. They employ common employees who aren't paid to worry, who are paid for ATTENDANCE. Those people will use the Eagle supplied libraries, which is one of the MANY reasons why I want the library situation to improve FAR ABOVE international standards.

[C.Nicks]

Ok, there is quite a bit I don't understand here but I will spend a little of my time trying to explain to you.

"No, it is not easy to draw very irregularly placed pads on the new SMDs."


It is for me, because I understand the tools I use and have even developed some of my own to make it even easier. You have not actually asked for any kind of suggestions for better workflow, and don't seem to want to get better. Only want Eagle to get "better" and a lot of your suggestions would mess up our workflow and make our jobs take longer.

I understand not using it very often, but the core of eagle has not changed very much in the last 7 years. The biggest changes I can remember are in the Library editor, which makes it easier to make parts.

There are many things I'd like to see changed in Eagle, but changing the entire core principle is not going to happen like you want. If you want it to act a certain way, there are a lot of ways to make programs for it.

The fact is, we are spending a lot of our personal time responding to your posts and it does not seem you are aware of that fact. I design boards for a living, which means I spend all day everyday in Eagle. This time I am spending responding to your "eagle should do this like 90's programs" is money I am not earning. Please respect that fact. That is why we want you to read the manual first before making your posts.
I suggest changing your attitude and tone. It is not constructive and does not invite others to help you out.

I would also suggest changing your computer. Invest in yourself and your business. It will pay off in the long run. It seems to give you a lot of problems you wouldn't have if you used a system more supported. Having the developers spend a lot of time fixing bugs for a single user does not help the rest of us, especially if you are not a current subscriber.

On to more of the specifics.

- "You say it is hard to verify the downloaded component"

NO, I did not say that. For a complicated device I will sometimes start with a provided part, make my modifications, and double check all connections.

- "Currently only way to compare is to actually place the part in the LAYOUT and connect it"

NO! Not at all! When you use the mapping dialog you match pins to pads. What's confusing about that?
You can also set the symbol pins to show the pad name/number right next to the pin. Those options are what 'VISIBLE' controls. Pad shows the pad name, pin shows the pin name, and both shows both. Very easy. You can see the changes as soon as you confirm the mapping dialog. See the below image.

-"The problem is: I want to use Eagle easily! I take Packages supplied with some components in Eagle, which are the right ones, I use symbols from another one, and I want to connect them VISUALLY"

What isn't visual about seeing pin 1 and mapping it to pin 2? The mappings dialog is visual. I don't get what your problem is with this. Post a screenshot or something of what you're missing. (if you say you can't take a screenshot, refer to my statement above about updating your computer)

-"I'm an independent contractor, time reading the manual is totally wasted and won't be compensated, my loss."

Again, you are going to loose so much more if you don't learn your tools. Mistakes cost money. And what about our time here?

-"When I have the MOVE selected and I press Ctrl, does a Tooltip with "Right click to pick up and drag group" appear?"

Have you tried looking at the status bar. As soon as I have MOVE selected, it says clearly 'Left-click to select object to move'
Also, I have mine set to automatically perform group operations with right-click (no ctrl). So for me it is very easy to remember right-click to perform tool operation on group. This is a CORE concept in Eagle. If you can't remember this, go use something else. One click! Not hard to remember!

-"In common software today, such features are common"

Have you used any popular software lately? Microsoft Excel is horrific. All open files share 1 undo history. I can't think of a single piece of modern software that has a good user interface. Please give me an example of something you think has a good interface.

-"In 3 years I forgot literally everything about Eurocircuits design rules"

What do Eurocircuit rules have to do about anything? Are you talking about DRC rule sets? I use my own design rules, and rarely ever change them. I make a copy of a project and make changes as necessary. The rules are stored directly in your board. If you open a board, you already have rules loaded. The concept of DRC rules are not specific to Eagle. Try setting up the DRC in Altium, that is a huge pain and would take you weeks.

-"All I want is a symbol wizard, then; pick up a package from a list, connect and visually confirm by highlighting pins/pads"

Have you actually LOOKED for a symbol wizard? I have a few that I found to be very useful. Have you looked in my ULP directories? There have been library wizards available since Eagle version 4, you just have to look (or at least ask).


    IPC-Wizard: https://github.com/loneFunction/Library/raw/master/ULP/eagle-tools-master/ulp/ipc-wizard.ulp

    LibIt: https://github.com/loneFunction/Library/raw/master/ULP/LIB/LibIt.ulp

    make-symbol-device-package-bsdl.ulp: This wizard is included with the default Eagle Ulps to generate a symbol, package, and device.

-"*Eagle shall know and recognize several thousands cross-referenced package names. It needs to be done only once and verified once.*

Have you tried looking in ref-packages-smd-ipc.lbr?
I started my own reference library, drawn to all of my styles and verified on physical boards. That is also available in my LBR section on the repository.
Maybe you should check out Snap EDA
There you can get a lot of part libraries and also request custom parts.

-"Where is the visual verification? Maybe it just doesn't work on unaccelerated displays? Of is there a package view that has pads with "signal" names on them, just like signals can be displayed on pads in Layout?"

See the screenshot above and look at the pin mapping dialog. It shows all of the schematic pin names mapped to the pads.
If you don't see this you're either using a really old version of Eagle or your computer needs updated.


-"I can't place a pin at a 45-degree angle... which I need to do."

This would be very, very bad practice to have on a schematic. Why do you need to do this?

If I was looking for a contractor and saw 45° pins on your schematics, I would not hire you.

-"Plus, the ALIGN TO GRID is still missing from schematics"

You should never have a pin that isn't on the 0.1" grid. NEVER go off grid. Eagle does have a snap to pin in version 8. This tells me you're using an old version.

This also tells me that you are not contributing to the future development of Eagle and therefore no suggestion you pose should be worked on because it will not be paid for.

Here this is a feature you are complaining about that actually has been fixed, but you won't get the fix until you pay for it.


-"The way things were configured in my Eagle, the "New" button threw some kind of an error, complaining that something already is or isn't defined, which is a bad strategy, that is what I have issue with. "

There are no duplicate variant names allowed. You have to define the package variant name. This is clearly stated in the manual.

-"We need to hold Eagle to high standards, because there are companies"

That is why I'm on this forum. I will be using, and paying for, Eagle for the foreseeable future. So I will continue to offer helpful suggestions and report bugs. That is also why I'm going to step in and try to keep them from making changes in the core that hinder my productivity.

-"let's say, for example, car ECU makers, who will use the libraries without a grain of salt"

Large companies have dedicated librarians that design and verify the parts they use. They invest a lot in their libraries and mistakes cost them a ton. They would never go out and use some user (adafruit) created part.

-"When a commercial company supplies you with a commercial content, another commercial company will assume it is for commercial usage"

Typically this is only true if they are paying a premium for it. Most of the time vendor supplied libraries are a value added service they do to be competitive. I've caught a lot of bad layout mistakes in reference designs, even ones supplied by Texas Instruments. They are just designs they've used to develop on and are not designed for your product in mind. And as you say "commercial usage" means that they are allowed to use it commercially. That has to deal with licensing, not quality.

-"I want the library situation to improve FAR ABOVE international standards"

This is expensive! Are you going to pay for it? There are library companies out there for this very reason. PCB Libraries and Snap EDA are just a few.

You can pay 100s of thousands of dollars for those huge internal standard design packages. Eagle is not one of them thankfully, and that is one of the areas that saves us money.  I don't want to spend a ton of money to have thousands of parts available that I'm never going to use.

---

I've spent entirely way too much time composing this reply, but I hope that there is some value in it for somebody.

Autodesk,
I think there should be some sort of designator in these forums to indicate current paying customers. Time and resources should be focused on those providing the funding for development.


Best Regards,

Cameron

[Anonymous]

I do hope somebody gains something from this, sorry for your loss of time as well.

Irregular pads: one of the pads extends to X-4.5mm on the left, on the right it is defined as 0.5 mmaway from the next one, and it is 3.3mm tall (Y), from the drawings I have to recalculate the real dimensions of the pad and calculate the center of the pad for eagle to use. And doing it over and over and over on a piece of paper. only 5 small pads are in a regular pitch and I'm not sure about their offset, that too needs to be added. I was able to get those via UL and a third computer.

SnapEDA, my statistics is: 1 hit, 1 miss, 1 gross error. They throw in random packages at you (just gessing when they don'y know) or have no clue what the component is at all, more interested in recommending you the supplier. WDFN3, for example, in the end I had to make my own, checking and comparing to the drawings. First own "package" in 12 years? From 5 critical IC components, they had ONE and only just because it has a very standard package. most of those have several pads under and a mix of pads around.
I'll lok about some of the others you posted.. look into the others you have posted.

On the business point:
Have you missed that Eagle has moved to the SUBSCRIPTION BUSINESS FOR SERVICES OFFERED? What else is offering proper libraries than a subscription service? Yes, I said maybe around SIX times that I am going to PAY for it and so will tens of thousands of other people. People complained how this subscription model is going to increase the cash flow to Eagle owners... why not use it to pay, say 2000 USD to access to the library companies? Why does each user have to do it individually? Or better yet, straight up buy UltraLibrarian...

"Large companies have dedicated librarians"
*should have --corrected. The things I have seen inside were of wildly varying quality. Talking resistors and capacitors here. Some of those 1990's Eagle. Best layouts from companies who didn't have librarians (talking 1990's)
***apropo, the IC companies don't have librarians? I'm SURE they do! And still we can't download those? Funny, also: packages and pads on the PCB are 2 different concepts! One package asks for several type of pads depending on the circumstances.

"no duplicates allowed"... let's not brag about Eagle having a 1-million person user base if it throws up an error as a standard procedure when you want to start a task by pressing the "New" button. (e14 forums, autodesk rep.) Why not giving me some options what to do. Or explained another way: were the instructional videos viewed some 2.5 million times? Because 2.5x is the average of one person interested in an educational subject. How many % of the claimed Eagle user base have actually used it?
Because ALL of the claimed user base have used Eagle, and if only 0.1% used the instructions, then your method of distributing those instructions is faulty. Doesn't anybody see that? Of those 1-million user base, how many will rather give up quickly and use something that works out of the box and how many work their way via trial-nad-error method? (Or download a library for example). Or, yet another number: do you (not personally) really want the 0.014% of the currently living human population dedicate their time to create libraries of the same component as in a preschool when the children have a task to draw the same thing? That is the impression I got from all the KiCAD intros. "Create your own NE555 !!!" How human species is not past this point by now?

Align to grid: you misunderstand, Align to grid is in the 8.2.1 PCB layout, and that's fine, but part of the schematics I have (a large block actually) has bits offset by 0.05 either horizontally or vertically or both. For some reason, I can't place anything on the ALT grid system. Availability of alignment in Schematics would be nice.

Returning back to your BOLD argument of "that is expensive!" So? It's an investment that pays off handsomely in dividends because you charge users PER ACCESS (per month, year) to the database, and you pay only ONCE for its creation. Currently each user pays each time he/she wants to use a part much more in his/her time. What Element14 Farnell did was to pay some cheap student in India to use UltraLibrarian to create some components, much of it made little sense, like making resistors individually instead of a class of resistors.

Angled connecting point to the GROUND, SUPPLY, or SIGNAL line signifies that a connection MUST be done at that point and not just anywhere on the schematics. You know the proper grounding, reference, sensing, etc. So I needed a symbol to connect different ground planes and lines and sensing traces at a specific spot. Or, does Eagle accept the angled connection to a pin as a special routing command? If not I have to use my own joint components.

I invested in the portable computer (february 2017?), but things I needed are no longer available... What I have works fine to play HD videos and much more, but Eagle QtWebEngine does not play along. In the web pages where eagle was presented, detailed description of its UI and rendering isn't presented, and it is only here that I got to read that it can actually crash a lot just because of the video drivers. Wow.

yeah, I'm also wasting my time here. Some of the help gotten here works, some of it worked great until program restart and some of it is still under bugs. I guess your situation is similar.

I don't want big changes, I just want things to work. I haven't used the library editor in... 12 years, so the changes since them must be a miracle since I'm able to create parts. But this whole thread started because: I press a "New" button in expectation of creating or adding a new variant and it throws an error. Everybody tells me to RTFM. I used the simplest way and wasn't given any options. shouldn't the error label then properly say "Error, RTFM." ? Or maybe a list of things to do, or offer me options on what needs to be done so that the "new" button does what it says?

Creating packages (a misnomer since Eagle actually uses pads to define a part, not a package and pads separately derived from that package!!!) works, but looking at the paper or switching window to the PDF back and forth, and using pencil, calculator, etc... eagle needs the center point dimension of the pad, and largest dimensions of the pad, drawing has its edge defined. Some pads do not have their dimensions defined in AxB at all. Calculator and pencil. Drawing can specify an offset here or there, which I have to recalculate into real position of a pad. Eagle layout does not support simple relative movement display or how long the current move/stroke is.

There is no need to change the core of the eagle, but there are a 100 of bugs easily. And the decision to run QtWebEngine is... Qt is widely known to be full of bugs, which only got sorted out in recent years, but issues remain.

True is, I have to thank you and others for your effort, but we'd need a standard platform for bug reporting, currently you need too many tools just to make a screenshot and a descriptions.

And, paraphrasing Jorge: 'Guys, keep it short and to the point', none of us can do that.

Rachael advises me against software of stuff just downloaded from the internet and now you tell me to use it. I'm confused. Also, do I need to be a wizard to use the ULPs? If it is so indispensible, why aren't those that are indispensible part of some standard menu? Actually, some of the supplied ULPs were so forgotten about that they shipped for years with show-stopping defects and only this week people noticed? Again, may I remind everyone of the 1-million user userbase?

"ref-packages-smd-ipc.lbr" I completely forgot about that one, last used in 2001? But I DID download and use all the libraries and used SEARCH function, which found NOTHING.
But the main issue of how IC companies successfully create DATA that represents the package, layout and everything, and use all that effort just to print it on the paper is insane. Are we in kindergarten? In better cases they offer you a download of UL data. But I suspect UL intentionally screws up some pins to force you for a paid access. This happens with regularity and people complained, even here, so it might not be a random error.


I'm sorry to hear about your woes in Excel, to make you feel better, people screwed up LibreOffice a lot and intentionally introduced design defects where they intentionally started carrying over attributes that should not be carried and thus made copy&paste do bad things.

"- "You say it is hard to verify the downloaded component"
NO, I did not say that"
...that was Rachael, I'm not sure if I or you mixed that up.

All I wanted was this simple feature:
Pins and Pads highlights after clicking on them and when I'm on the line in the list. it's all I need, and everybody else too. Make a viewing mode (like package edit) when pad numbers can be seen and pin names put over the pad numbers.

[rachaelATWH4]

I wont reply to everything now as it's too long and I have a conference call to be on shortly.....

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Align to grid: you misunderstand, Align to grid is in the 8.2.1 PCB layout, and that's fine, but part of the schematics I have (a large block actually) has bits offset by 0.05 either horizontally or vertically or both. For some reason, I can't place anything on the ALT grid system. Availability of alignment in Schematics would be nice.

---

Have you missed the actual ability to align a component or components which are off grid back onto the grid in any of the editors? Choose MOVE, hold Cmd (Ctrl on Win/Lin) and click on the part and it will pop itself right back there onto the grid. Just like it says in the help for the move command.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

"- "You say it is hard to verify the downloaded component"
NO, I did not say that"
...that was Rachael, I'm not sure if I or you mixed that up.

---

No I didn't say it was hard, what I said was it usually takes as much time to verify a component downloaded as it does to just do it from scratch. If there is a reasonably reliable library source such as Wurth who provide among the best manufacturer supplied libs I will sometimes just modify their components to create my own tidied up and verified versions, but in most cases I adapt something I have already or create from scratch if I don't have anything similar.

[jorge_garcia]

Hi @Anonymous,

Just a couple of things to cover here. The posts have gotten very long.

If the ALT grid isn't working, it's likely because your window manager is grabbing the ALT press. I've had this happen to me before on Linux systems and if memory serves you are working on Debian. Look at the Window Manager settings for whatever desktop environment you are currently using (KDE, GNOME, LXDE, etc.) and see what it uses the ALT key for. Reassign that function to some other unused key on your keyboard.

As far as the need for Wizards go, Cameron has given you some options but this is something we are looking to improve as well. Obviously we want to do it in a way that doesn't affect our power users. You should see something on this shortly.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Best Regards,

[Anonymous]

Will try ctrl-click tomorrow.

Burgling Wurth for your own components... just like me.

[Anonymous]

1) Yes.
Sorry, we got completely and utterly nerd-sniped here 😞

https://xkcd.com/356/

An engineer sees a problem and is automatically and exhaustively involved in it, whether it matters or not at all. Sorry Cameron!

The alt grid works, but not the placement, placement jumps to main grid.
I use several grids anyway, some mm, some inch, so I click on "mil", write 6.25, then click back on "mm" and use it for a while, then repeat the same process for 12.5mil in mm. That is why I sketched the window with quick selection of grids.

[rachaelATWH4]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The alt grid works, but not the placement, placement jumps to main grid.
I use several grids anyway, some mm, some inch, so I click on "mil", write 6.25, then click back on "mm" and use it for a while, then repeat the same process for 12.5mil in mm. That is why I sketched the window with quick selection of grids.

---

I've had this issue with not being able to place components using the alt grid on Linux. The strange thing is it works for making movements on grid finer but then when you click to place it doesn't work. So I guess Jorge may be right and something in the window manager is grabbing the Alt+click for something else maybe? I haven't investigated what's going on as I don't use EAGLE on Linux for my main work.

Best Regards,

Rachael