delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/01/26/16:08:42

X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 207.224.51.38
X-Authenticated-UID: jpd AT noqsi DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [geda-user] The nature of gEDA users
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4O8c-ZyNnCzCDHXkYYabSD4fG8vf+CKmhMycNJujGMPKzQDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:08:24 -0700
Message-Id: <A229C5C5-72FE-4536-9B6A-7DF734FD2D98@noqsi.com>
References: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1601180756390 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1601260416150 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <56A751EC DOT 8030402 AT iae DOT nl> <20160126124701 DOT 0d061912c7e078ced9d4e6cb AT gmail DOT com> <CANEvwqgs3YFnt7m8mA1DN6X2KdWbyr4zpXCVH321vDo1f7CyxA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <201601261804 DOT u0QI4KEQ009550 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <E7D351BF-5BBB-41AC-B996-D5E27079A82C AT noqsi DOT com> <CAC4O8c-ZyNnCzCDHXkYYabSD4fG8vf+CKmhMycNJujGMPKzQDQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
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

--Apple-Mail=_6ABF950E-EFC9-402F-9D65-3DF082840AA3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252


On Jan 26, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) =
[via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:53 AM, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote:
>>=20
>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:04 AM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> In this day and age to say blind/buried vias are not needed is =
ridiculous.
>>>> The fact is ANY design that requires even one FPGA, custom ASIC or
>>>> medium to large BGA needs blind/buried vias.
>>>>=20
>>>> This is factual and is easy vetted.
>>>=20
>>> If you can afford a custom ASIC, you can afford a top-end EDA =
package,
>>> and a FAB that supports high-end features.
>>=20
>> Not true. In my world, I have to do much of the EDA work in the the =
proposal and feasibility study phases. Shoestring budgets, or no budget =
at all. A big company covers this by having lots going at once, but =
Noqsi Aerospace is a tiny company (3 people at the moment, the largest =
we=92ve ever been). For our current biggest project, we went through two =
years of doing a lot of work for zero pay (but now it=92s paying off). =
We couldn=92t have afforded a top-end package during those years. We =
worked with a board designer who used Osmond PCB: not high-end, but it =
has blind and buried vias. He was much faster and more accurate than the =
big-$$ contractors who use the high-end software.
>>=20
>>=20
>>> Frankly, PCB is not a
>>> high-end package and custom ASIC users are not our target audience.
>>=20
>> But gschem can do schematic capture for ASIC even though that=92s not =
its target. The difference is that gschem doesn=92t limit what you can =
draw. It=92s quirky and limits *how* you can express what you need, but =
I=92ve never found it incapable of expressing a circuit. It gives you a =
few crude primitives and a few ways to compose more complex objects from =
simple objects. A few layers of that, and you have a 6000 component =
mixed-signal ASIC.
>>=20
>> Pcb says to the user =93my way or the highway=94. Gschem says =93live =
with my quirks, and I=92ll help you do anything=94.
>=20
> Not true, I've just gone through the entire format carefully and pcb
> actually has very little per-part or per-feature overhead.  It's about
> as close to a paint program as it can be.  It can do lots of stuff,
> though admittedly often in quirky ways, just like gschem.  Your major
> gripe seems to be that you can't "draw" 3D or inter-layer features,
> because their implementation is bolted onto the fundamentally layer
> oriented design in a hard-wired way.

But it=92s not fundamentally layer-oriented. What it calls a =93layer=94 =
does not have a 1-1 correspondence to the actual physical layers.

>  It's a true complaint but not
> very useful, because adding 3D CAD would require a total rewrite with
> buckets of additional complexity.

I=92m not talking about full 3D. But, it would be nice to have *every* =
layer modeled, and things that aren=92t layers like =93outline=94 given =
a different category.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com



--Apple-Mail=_6ABF950E-EFC9-402F-9D65-3DF082840AA3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=MqFi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_6ABF950E-EFC9-402F-9D65-3DF082840AA3--

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019