Homebrew PCBs

Hi Alan K, !

I take your point!  Better then nothing, I suppose.  I like your "area * 
complexity" algorithm. But I think they've been using this for what, 6+ 
years now?  Must work for them.

I'm getting the hang of the library, I made two parts (PIC18F2520 and 
MAX232) by copying parts and making the changes I wanted.  Nice!  One 
more part to copy/paste, and I'll have all the power straightened out. 
I seem to recall an "alias" function, must be for a different program.

A Yahoo list for Eagle would be nice!

Alan  KM6VV


Alan King wrote:
> Alan Marconett wrote:
> 
> 
>>The board size is probably DESIGNED as a roadblock intentionally.  BUT I
>>think it's really GOOD marketing to make at least one level of "full
>>product" available so that potential users can give it a good tryout.  Also
>>
>>Yeah, it's a shame to have to "squash" a good design down into too small an
>>area, but it keeps one on one's toes!
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> 
> 
>   The fact is, it does unduly penalize those who would want relatively 
> simple schematics but need larger unused areas.  It'd be nice if you 
> could design everything on the small board, but then break the rules and 
> spread things out as needed, only after the area rule break you can't 
> add new parts.  Problem is then you could simply load up the small 
> board, break the rules, then do what you want.  Hard to figure a way 
> where people can't cheat easily.  Complexity limit as in others is just 
> as bad, you also can't deeply test things without a lot of parts..
> 
>   But that leads to exactly what it needs, an area * complexity limit.  
> Stay below the bounds and you can do what you want, for larger size 
> boards you are limited to a maximum complexity.  That would allow the 
> people with the $49 version to do exactly what is overly limited, making 
> larger size boards that simply need spacing for large components but are 
> still rediculously simple and should hardly qualify as needing the $200 
> per module version.  And if you had to choose at the outset for larger 
> board or small board but no complexity limit, that should be easy enough 
> to program in.
> 
> Alan
> 
>   PS: Lately I sort of feel like I've gone straight from the round table 
> to the Alan convention..
>