15 Apr
2008
15 Apr
'08
8:45 p.m.
Prompted by my latest project (a cable pinout sensor - just plug a
cable into it and you get the pinout), I want to look into the
possibility of having one-off PC boards made.
Everyone seems to want Gerbers, but without documenting exactly what
they are. I found a PDF describing "RS-274X", which appears to be most
of it, but there are lots of conventions it doesn't describe. I've
found indications that there exists some open-source software, but
extracting documentation from code is a mess.
I'm going to be asking various people whose addresses I've found in
various places. But you people are documentation packrats, so I'm
asking here as well: anyone have any such doc?
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
15 Apr
15 Apr
9:30 p.m.
der Mouse wrote:
Everyone seems to want Gerbers, but without
documenting exactly what
they are. I found a PDF describing "RS-274X", which appears to be most
of it, but there are lots of conventions it doesn't describe.
That's the spec. What is missing? The Wikipedia page has useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerber_File
You also need an Excellon drill file:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excellon
I've found indications that there exists some
open-source software, but
extracting documentation from code is a mess.
I dunno about extracting documentation, but gEDA is purportedly useful
for doing board layout.
I use Eagle (from CadSoft). It's not open source, but it's less
expensive than most commercial alternatives, and it seems to work
well. For nonprofit use, there's a "free" version that's limited
to 100x80 mm double-sided boards, or a US $125 version that can do
160x100 mm boards of up to four layers. Beyond that, there are two
levels of commercial versions.
10:27 p.m.
Everyone seems
to want Gerbers, but without documenting exactly what
they are. I found a PDF describing "RS-274X", which appears to be
most of it, but there are lots of conventions it doesn't describe.
That's
the spec. What is missing? The Wikipedia page has useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerber_File
You also need an Excellon drill file:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excellon
I'll have a look. Thank you. (Duh...I really should have thought of
Wikipedia myself.)
I've found
indications that there exists some open-source software,
but extracting documentation from code is a mess.
I dunno about extracting
documentation, but gEDA is purportedly
useful for doing board layout. I use Eagle (from CadSoft). It's not open source,
but it's less
expensive than most commercial alternatives, and it seems to work
well. For nonprofit use, there's a "free" version that's limited to
100x80 mm double-sided boards,
Even if I were willing to run code I don't have source to (I'm not; I'd
sooner throw some money to someone on the list to do it for me than run
something I don't have source to), it wouldn't be free even as in beer,
because (AIUI) Eagle is a Windows program, and Windows ain't cheap.
Is there anyone who'd be willing to exchange some files with me -
sample files for me to sanity-check my understanding, in one direction,
and tests to see if my generation is correct, in the other? I'd just
as soon not have a board made until I'm reasonably sure I've got the
board description right. :)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
11:22 p.m.
der Mouse wrote:
- How do I specfy which layer is which?
One Gerber file per layer. The file doesn't know which layer it is;
you have to either use some naming convention for the files, or supply
a human-readable file giving the designations.
- How do I specify soldermask?
It's just another layer.
- ...holes and vias?
Holes are in the Excellon drill file.
Vias consist of holes in the drill file and pads (etc.) in the
Gerber files for the appropriate layers.
- Is the PDF I have accurate and complete?
Heck if I know.
[gEDA] probably would be for me too, if it were to
build painlessly. That
is extremely unlikely.
I don't know. I last tried to use gEDA two or three years ago, and it
wasn't mature enough then, so I bought Eagle. gEDA is reported to be
much better now, but since I already have Eagle I'm not inclined to
try it.
Even if I were willing to run code I don't have
source to (I'm not; I'd
sooner throw some money to someone on the list to do it for me than run
something I don't have source to), it wouldn't be free even as in beer,
because (AIUI) Eagle is a Windows program, and Windows ain't cheap.
Actually Eagle is available for Linux. That was the main reason I
chose it. You still don't get source, though.
I generally won't run kernel code for which I don't have source, but I'm
more willing to run user-space code without source, since I can use
various tools to make sure it can't do things it shouldn't, e.g., a
chroot jail, and a library preload that prevents network access other
than to the local display.
Eric
16 Apr
16 Apr
12:02 a.m.
On Apr 15, 2008, at 11:22 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
If we're talking about doing PCB layout, the program you're
probably thinking of is (poorly) named "PCB", which is not part of
gEDA. They have been distributed together for the past few years
because there's significant overlap in the developer base. I use
these tools daily, so I'll blab about them a bit.
gEDA itself was pretty immature a few years ago...I played with it
a bit and dropped it back in 2004. Since then, however, a HUGE
amount of progress has been made. Right now I'd rate it as good as
or better than any commercial schematic capture package I've seen.
PCB is right up there too, but it has been there for a long time. It
got its start in the Amiga world many years ago, and has benefitted
[gEDA]
probably would be for me too, if it were to build
painlessly. That
is extremely unlikely.
I don't know. I last tried to use gEDA two or three years ago, and it
wasn't mature enough then, so I bought Eagle. gEDA is reported to be
much better now, but since I already have Eagle I'm not inclined to
try it. from very active development in the past 3-4 years in
particular.
Nowadays, both PCB and the gEDA suite are absolutely capable of
supporting commercial-level development. I know of a few people
(myself included) who have been doing real commercial design work
with them for some time.
I run these tools under both MacOS X on PPC and Solaris on
UltraSPARC, and the other engineer on my team them under Linux on
x86. They are reasonably portable and not difficult to build on a
modern system. I always build them from source.
Incidentally, the two most active developers of both gEDA and PCB
these days are DJ Delorie, of DJGPP fame, and Dan McMahill, a chip
designer at Maxim. This constitutes very serious developer
firepower, and it shows.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
2:07 a.m.
Right now I'd rate [gEDA] as good as or better
than any commercial
schematic capture package I've seen. PCB is right up there too, but
it has been there for a long time.
PCB looks promising. Its bar is set too high for me to try installing
it as-is (to name just the three major problems: (1) the GUI
interfaces; (2) ./configure; (3) all the GNU tools needed). But given
what the INSTALL file says about its architecture, it may well be close
enough that it's less work to adapt it than to create something new.
They are reasonably portable and not difficult to
build on a modern
system.
Only if "modern" means "with a pile of GNU tools installed, an ugly
bloated GUI library kicking around, and an installer who's willing to
accept low-to-medium security risks". I'm wondering if it's worth
setting up an isolated machine to see if I can stand to use PCB out of
the box. (Most popular programs with GUI interfaces have interfaces I
find somewhere between obnoxious and intolerable - this is whence the
"ugly" characterization - so my choice of wording should be taken as
being more about me than about PCB.)
This is very encouraging. I was expecting to be constructing the
Gerbers for this latest project manually; given the maturity you
describe in PCB, it probably is worth at least looking at adapting it
before falling back on manual construction.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
4:12 a.m.
At 10:07 PM 4/15/2008, you wrote:
If you need a program to "draw" a PCB, then Pentalogix has
ViewMasterEZ. Its not for Linux, but it is the best deal for what it
does. They dropped the price from $500 to $50, but with the addition
of a node locked licnese.
Its more of a WYSIWYG CAM/CAD program than a cad program. There are
no "parts". You can download the free version called ViewMate. Its
mostly the same thing but without the ability to save. Use it for
verifying the integrity of your gerber files before sending them out.
I haven't found a single program to do everything, and none of them
are compatible with each other. : (
Right now
I'd rate [gEDA] as good as or better than any commercial
schematic capture package I've seen. PCB is right up there too, but
it has been there for a long time.
PCB looks promising. Its bar is set too high for me to try installing
it as-is (to name just the three major problems: (1) the GUI
interfaces; (2) ./configure; (3) all the GNU tools needed). But given
what the INSTALL file says about its architecture, it may well be close
enough that it's less work to adapt it than to create something new.
They are reasonably portable and not difficult to
build on a modern
system.
Only if "modern" means "with a pile of GNU tools installed, an ugly
bloated GUI library kicking around, and an installer who's willing to
accept low-to-medium security risks". I'm wondering if it's worth
setting up an isolated machine to see if I can stand to use PCB out of
the box. (Most popular programs with GUI interfaces have interfaces I
find somewhere between obnoxious and intolerable - this is whence the
"ugly" characterization - so my choice of wording should be taken as
being more about me than about PCB.)
This is very encouraging. I was expecting to be constructing the
Gerbers for this latest project manually; given the maturity you
describe in PCB, it probably is worth at least looking at adapting it
before falling back on manual construction.
3:26 p.m.
I wrote:
I don't know. I last tried to use gEDA two or
three years ago, and it
wasn't mature enough then, so I bought Eagle. gEDA is reported to be
much better now, but since I already have Eagle I'm not inclined to
try it.
Dave wrote:
If we're talking about doing PCB layout, the
program you're
probably thinking of is (poorly) named "PCB", which is not part of
gEDA.
No, I was talking about gEDA. Pretty much all of the gEDA tools were
very crash-prone when I tried them, most notably gschem. I didn't
get far enough with those to even bother with PCB.
I fully expect that the gEDA tools are usable now, but at the time
they weren't, so I purchased Eagle.
Eric
5:04 p.m.
On Apr 16, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
Ahh ok. gEDA doesn't have another PCB layout tool.
I don't
know. I last tried to use gEDA two or three years ago,
and it
wasn't mature enough then, so I bought Eagle. gEDA is reported to be
much better now, but since I already have Eagle I'm not inclined to
try it.
Dave wrote:
If we're talking about doing PCB layout,
the program you're
probably thinking of is (poorly) named "PCB", which is not part of
gEDA.
No, I was talking about gEDA. Pretty much all of the gEDA tools were
very crash-prone when I tried them, most notably gschem. I didn't
get far enough with those to even bother with PCB.
Yes it was pretty bad back in those days. PCB was much more
stable at that time. Both are pretty much rock-solid now.
I fully expect that the gEDA tools are usable now, but
at the time
they weren't, so I purchased Eagle.
Sounds like a good thing to do.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
15 Apr
15 Apr
11:50 p.m.
On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:30 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
I missed the original post somehow, but I work with Gerber files
extensively and can probably help here.
FWIW, I generate Gerber files all the time using free software
under UNIX. I use gEDA for schematic capture and PCB for PCB layout
and gerber file generation. PCB is separate from gEDA, but it's
distributed with gEDA due to significant developer overlap. I use
this suite for personal stuff as well as commercial designs.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Everyone seems
to want Gerbers, but without documenting exactly what
they are. I found a PDF describing "RS-274X", which appears to be
most
of it, but there are lots of conventions it doesn't describe.
That's the spec. What is missing? The Wikipedia page has useful
links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerber_File
You also need an Excellon drill file:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excellon
I've found indications that there exists some
open-source
software, but
extracting documentation from code is a mess.
I dunno about extracting documentation, but gEDA is purportedly useful
for doing board layout. 
16 Apr
16 Apr
12:55 p.m.
I use Eagle (from CadSoft). It's not open source,
but it's less
expensive than most commercial alternatives, and it seems to work
well. For nonprofit use, there's a "free" version that's limited
to 100x80 mm double-sided boards, or a US $125 version that can do
160x100 mm boards of up to four layers.
I also like Eagle. Too bad they charge twice that amount here in Europe....
I could use an upgrade to Eurocard format.
Jos
5942
days inactive
5942
days old
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
eric＠brouhaha.com -
grant＠stockly.com -
jos.mar＠bluewin.ch -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA