(My experience of other CAD tools has been similar).īrief tire-kicking of converting EAGLE-to-other formats was not very impressive, so I’d probably not recommend that. Some of its crapness is down to how little it’s changed over the years, but some of it is down to the fact that it’s a CAD tool, not a graphics tool.
So: I’ll be honest and say I have a fair amount of Stockholm syndrome when it comes to EAGLE: the learning curve was hell, and now I’m through it… I kinda understand the way it is like it is, and actually appreciate a lot of its decisions. The Mutable layouts are an incredible resource, and I still look back at Buchla circuits to learn. The software/hardware thing adds a whole layer of extra complexity do you complete the code before designing the panel, or make some decisions and stick to them? The most interesting part of the process for me is deciding how much you can leave out it’s easy to think ‘I could do x, and y, and z, and p, and q’, for me the hard bit is deciding that just q and y will make something useful and musical - that’s often the breakthrough. At the moment I have a nice, useful, compact module I’m working on but I just can’t get the panel to feel right. Sometimes it starts in code - a mockup in puredata or as a Radio Music firmware.įurther on, I usually have a real-looking panel layout in illustrator, and flip between the two - if I change the controls in illustrator I have to map them back into Eagle and vice versa.
Sometimes I start in eagle, to note down the schematic and see how big the circuit might be. DEC9C8D4-D18D-4267-88CB-7E31B94B465E.JPG 1936×1936 1.38 MB I use quite a chaotic process sometimes I’ll start on breadboard (this was the Turing machine breadboard), to see if something sounds good.
0 kommentar(er)
