ID: | 714 |
From: | ge...@igor2.repo.hu |
Date: | Thu, 1 Jun 2017 19:28:23 +0200 (CEST) |
Subject: | Re: [pcb-rnd] common part format |
in-reply-to: | 713 from James Battat <jb...@gmail.com> |
Hi James, On Thu, 1 Jun 2017, James Battat wrote: > Igor2, all, > > Just came across this project -- EE Concierge -- a scheme to specify a > component (symbol, footprint and 3D model) in a way that is reliably > exportable to any user's desired format. These guys charge a fee for each > requested part (average of $34/part): > https://blog.upverter.com/2017/06/01/announcing-ee-concierge/ > > From that page: > "We store all of this parts data in a common format that we?ve been developing > over the years at Upverter. This common format is our second secret weapon. It > allows us to build intelligent export configuration and translation tools so > that the users of EE Concierge can configure their parts library to export in > exactly the same style as parts they make internally." Thanks, I know about upverter and side-projects. My analysis on these: 1. Format: we have tEDAx for interchange; the difference is that tEDAx is designed for easy implenetation so I hope I can get it spread a bit in smallish open source EDA tools. We could support upverter's format, we've already looked at it, but there's no active user demand behind it while we have a queue of other formats with active user support or even pending test cases. 2. "Tapping their database for footprints": this idea often comes up with open, free or semi-free databases. It sounds like a great idea frist, but if you think over the details, it's not as great as it first sounded. The problem is that different tools model the world differently. No matter how good your format is, no matter how good your library is, no matter how good anyone's import/export code is: at the end, if you import a footprint from "somehwere else" you will need to open the datasheet and manually check all relevant aspects. In a real complex case this includes: - mass production soldering consideration details, like how longer an smd pad exactly is or that you want round cap on one end and square cap on the other - tricky mask and paste patterns - sometimes even tricky silk pattern At the end you will spend almost as much time on making sure the imported footprint won't mess with your design than if you just draw it from scratch, deailng with exactly the same considerations. Of course this is somewhat relaxed on the low end, for hobbysts trying to build an arduino shiled with 1206 and to92 packages, 2 layers, hand soldered. But they are not our true target audience: for them, pcb-rnd and gEDA is just too complicated and they will probably land at KiCad or eagle. I don't say this means we shouldn't import or reuse footprints. I only say that the value of tapping a big database is often not as high as it first seems. 3. web service for sharing resources: we already have edakrill. 4. converting between formats: we have that already. Inventing yet another format from which conversion to everything else is "possible" or "easy" is not required for this. If your starting format is feature-rich enough, exporting to others will work well. Whether this format is a specifically designed for that or just happens to be a good format originally used natively by some EDA tool - doesn't really matter. So the "we have a magic format SO we can convert to anything" is rather just PR in my opinion. So I think we already have our version of this part of the service: pcb-rnd as a conversion tool and edakrill as a service that transparently does the conversion. 5. the "pay-for-service, get open source as result" model: those lucky bastards! Honestly, I would be happy if we could introduce this in pcb-rnd and side projects. Like someone wants a functionality that noone wants to implement or if it's on the TODO list but somewhere on the bottom and wouldn't happen this year or even next year. The user needs the feature so badly that he rather buys a developer's time to see it implemented ASAP. I'd happily jump on such offers - I would just take unpaid holiday at my daytime job, or reduce my workhours to 4 days a week. I am pretty sure some professional users would be surprised to see how cheap such dev time is, and how efficiently it is spent - or in other words, how cheap they can get their feature. (It's a funny world we live in; long story short, most of our users are on the "West side" of the world while for example I'm on the "East side". The economical gap, the gap in prices is huge. That $34, probably a meail at a moderate restaurant on that side of the world, ~9 hours of coding on this side, lol. But I am sure this could work with some of the other devs too, even without the financial gap, just because the given developer understands the given part of the code so that he can do the task in 20% time compared to anyone else - less time costs less). Unfortunately I see no sign of this happening around here. Our user base is too small, even those who are not donating money, "only" their time. So I don't see we could introduce such a service for code or footprints any time soon. Regards, Igor2
Reply subtree:
714 Re: [pcb-rnd] common part format from ge...@igor2.repo.hu