X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=/DmkfUuy6hG5FU9fpkReG+ehsq2rpRTZQu3FP5cW8CA=;
	b=w647ASqtg6BJs/kg7J54UHW+SjnbVwtyUu+ya2XFWkqyAGxOWl25kYzrRCC6sNjkaG
	vjRIdxqo7SSDO3lHzz4p186ni+KDwWzgod4SfWqwr30HjfbFDCH4qijmhWbd7R62hUgu
	8yV46zA7h6eG6IIAAM2qRXQsVuA057qvrzZ1mLi6ufOSEHqgYJXVjRw+a+Aq2AmXSHds
	5H2MjWSg7kG5SduDrPFzB6OCdl2CvlTw5gokNA/MBSEAkxq6G7h1ikuTUosm9PBHKmPp
	GoK6HZrRrELRqLFQyJ3R1MLCxKNcHunDObMUHF4cb6uwS0A4I+2k+oAVdhz/QqDmWKP7
	x3aA==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.112.171.68 with SMTP id as4mr7430370lbc.64.1433991121340;
	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<1467655833.733018.1433990059994.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References:	<CAC4O8c_GDcNGCfxOK0aokCAnhS5u8APhABcm0xxA1ptiTh7tMQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<1467655833 DOT 733018 DOT 1433990059994 DOT JavaMail DOT yahoo AT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 2015 02:52:01 +0000
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhT-BRk1pg9nM7+RzjyJzQ5K1OO5UN5JtE64QgC0fooAug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Interchange formats
From:	"Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com)" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Thanks that fills in some question marks I had about STEP.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Cirilo Bernardo
(cirilo_bernardo AT yahoo DOT com) <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> STEP is a different beast altogether and historically the effort
> was in IGES and driven by US government contracts and an effort
> to unify design and manufacturing files and ultimately reduce
> manufacturing costs by having a standard interchange format for
> Computer Aided Manufacturing. There was such a large global
> interest in this that groups from many countries were involved
> early in the process (in fact a lot of early MCAD algorithms
> were developed in the Scandinavian countries).
>
> That's the historical background, and STEP was created to
> overcome many of the deficiencies in IGES, but the primary
> purpose remains largely the same: to provide CAM users with
> One True Format to work with and CAD users some hope of
> being able to convey shape information to other CAD users.
> Since the early days STEP has evolved to include electronics
> documentation and testing etc. and for a long time it's had
> the dubious distinction of being the world's most complex
> standard.
>
> Having said all that, no MCAD on the planet uses STEP as its
> native format and I don't even know if STEP can provide that
> feature, so it remains little more than an interchange format.
>
> With the big changes in manufacturing in the 1990s IDF
> attempted to modernize with IDFv4 and failed miserably;
> around the same time the Pro-STEP consortium formed to work
> on an IDF replacement based on STEP. Roughly 20 years later
> the results are mixed and although there has been some level
> of adoption by the likes of Boeing and Airbus (among other
> big players). However, Pro-STEP has always been intended for
> MCAD-ECAD collaboration and not ECAD-ECAD exchange.
>
> I think for ECAD you'll be lucky to get people to agree on
> a format for representing information in schematic symbols,
> PCB footprints, and associated mechanical models; I don't
> believe you'll ever convince commercial operations to agree
> to a universal schematic/artwork definition file since that
> kills their lock-in by severely reducing the cost of changing
> software. I suspect it is possible to develop a common
> symbol/etc format though and convince vendors to adopt it,
> but you need to get the big ECAD vendors on side early on
> and expect this to take a few years. While STEP was created
> to serve manufacturing and demanded by governments as well
> as many corporate users, a common ECAD data exchange format
> would really be mostly useful for vendors to provide users
> with reference models for their ECAD work; you've got to
> ask yourself how a vendor like Altium, Mentor, or Cadence
> will benefit because if there isn't money in it for them
> (save on their own cost or give them a product to sell)
> they won't be interested.
>
> - Cirilo
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com)" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
>> To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 8:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [geda-user] Interchange formats
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com)
>>
>> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>>  For those of us who are not as well versed in our history of this
>>>  subject. I would like to know why so many common EDA formats have
>>>  failed?
>>
>> I don't see how the folks selling $100k EDA tools with a bunch of locked-in
>> customers would benefit from implementing them, and without them on board such
>> efforts are probably doomed.  Big outfits have large design silos that they
>> aren't going to throw out.  Who forced the mechanical design tool vendors
>> to support STEP?
>>
>> Britton
>>



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/

- Raw text -