#CAD
27 messages in this thread
Barry – Since you might not hear from Aegis over the weekend, I'll answer your
question (accurately, I think).
Draw and Draw+ will talk to virtually any pen plotter that can hook up to the
Amiga. Draw assumes only that the plotter understands some kind of ASCII
character string that do the functions of "pick up pen and move to coordinate
X,Y" and "put down pen and draw to coordinate X,Y". If you have a plotter that
does not have a driver file on the Aegis-supplied disks, then you simply write
your own driver file, using a text editor and the instructions in the Aegis
manual. This driver file tells the program what the correct ASCII strings are
for the pen move/draw commands, the reset command, the pen change command (if
applicable), and a few other fairly generic commands. It also describes the
coordinate system that your plotter understands.
Again, compatiblity with most plotters is assured because the program does its
own circles, text, etc. without trying to call any "high-level" plotter
functions.
Some HP-GL plotters are already on the Aegis disks, as well as some that are
"close" to HP-GL and some that are quite different.
Finally, if you want to see an example of a plotter driver file, I uploaded an
Apple plotter driver/help file several months back to the "Amiga at Work" Data
Library section. The Apple driver file supplied by Aegis didn't do everything
I needed (and contained a small scaling error), but it was quite easy to
customize it to my own needs.
Joel
Joel,
Thanks for the info. I want to ask a few questions though. Your message
indicates that you have both an Apple plotter and a one of the Aegis programs.
If you have the plotter what do you think of it? I`ve heard both that
its great and its junk. If you recommend it do you know where to get one for
a good price?
Which Aegis program are you using? How do you like that?
Thanks again.
Barry
Barry – I am using Draw Plus. I like it very much, though I really need a
program that has a few more features, both general-purpose and
electronics-specific. I'd recommend it highly for most CAD drawing purposes –
if you have some extra memory.
The Apple plotter is basically a good quality device, and its biggest
advantages are that it's cheap (if you can still find it), and it does B size
drawings.
The biggest disadvantages are that it's fairly slow and it uses weird pens
that are not available from very many places (and are becoming less available).
Personally, I think the Apple was a bargain for me, though I certainly would
rather have an HP7475 or similar. I paid $99 for the plotter, about $20 for
the accessory kit, and then bought a whole bunch of pens from various sources.
I wish that I could get rollerball or technical pens instead of felt tip, and
that the plotter were lots faster. But neither of those wishes is true, so I
get along.
I noticed that you got at least two different responses from Aegis about
plotters. One person was anxious for you to use Roland. They are good
plotters to be sure, but I think it's wrong to say that the inexpensive
plotters are junk. That just isn't true, and some of us are not purchasing our
personal equipment on corporate budgets. By the way, the original retail on the
Apple 410 was $999.00, which is similar to the Rolands – it wasn't intended as
a plaything.
Joel
Joel,
Has the Apple plotter been discontinued? I just heard that the Epson was.
Do you know of any of the "inexpensive" plotters that are still made? Thanks
again.
Barry
Yes, the Apple plotter was discontinued some time age (an Apple owner told me
that there really wasn't any good software for it until _after_ Apple decided
the sales were too low and yanked it). For a long time, the plotter was
advertised at about $150 by California Digital, in the back pages of Byte. I
got mine from a different place for even less, but they are definitely out of
them. So, getting pens is also a problem if you don't have a big stash.
I think that there just isn't enough interest in plotters at the "low end" to
make them a good marketing proposition. The Epson plotter might have been
relatively popular as plotters go, but probably had miniscule sales in
comparison to most any Epson dot matrix printer.
If you can find a good used HP plotter, you might be better off in terms of
support and pens – but that will still run you over $500 unless you find a real
bargain.
The future of A to C size pen plotters is in real doubt, as they will likely
be replaced by raster printers with specialized vector-to-raster conversion
routines. A good example of this is a printer/plotter made by JDL, which
emulates HPGL plotters and does FAST plots up to C size. I'd like one of those
maybe even more that an HP pen plotter, but it costs over $2K.
Good luck finding a solution!
Joel
Joel — you might try dynamic cad… that's a general purpose package that has
some electronics features…. it's not nearly as 'nice' as draw is, from an
'intuitionized' standpoint, but it does fit the description of what you were
looking for. –Ben–
Ben,
I just noticed that you suggested Dynamic Cad to Joel Helbert. Why not
one of the SoftCircuit packages?
One other thing, I now have a way of downloading for my Amiga-but it is
rather funky and I am limited to a 360K size. What are the sizes of the
disabled SoftCircuit softwar that you uploaded? Thanks.
Barry
Barry, none of that stuff is near 360k, and you should not have a problem
getting it. I reccomended Dcad because Joel has already seen a very early
version of PCLO, and said it would not address his needs adequitly… He then
mentioned in a message just before that that he was using a general purpose
package, and it was draw or draw+ I forget which. So DCAD is a good suggestion
for him. It's a general purpose cad package with some electronics features —
exactly what he said he wanted. As far as our stuff goes, personally, I think
that neither the drawplus nor the dcad packages even comes close, but that's an
opinion… and a biased one at that. I'm not sure if Joel is aware of Scheme at
this point, but I dislike beating dead horses, and I do like to help if I can.
That's the story, Barry! –Ben–
Thanks, Ben. Talk about a speedy reply! Took you about 5 minutes.
Barry
Ben, you are remembering correctly about my PCLO comments. However, you may
never have read the message(s) in which I completely dismembered the
performance of DCAD. Admittedly, the DCAD I looked at was also one of the
earlier releases – but it had a LONG way to go.
I have indeed looked at your SCHEME upload (was there more that one?). I
thought it was pretty good, though I had some trouble figuring out a few of the
functions – I don't think the
ARC file included any particular documentation. The file requester was
interesting, but didn't seem to work in several respects. I run with VD0:,
could that hose things up even when using the requester for dfx:?
Anyway, I am considering Scheme, though I do a lot of drawing stuff as well
as schematic capture. I have heard a few things about X-CAD, which is not out
yet. It sounds good too, though DCAD sounded excellent before I saw it.
Just because I'm not buying PCLO doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider
Scheme, or any other software you do! On the other hand, it doesn't mean I
would buy it with no second thoughts either… I use these things a lot, but
I'm still running on my own budget. Things would be different (and maybe will
be) if I cajole the "corporation" into buying me an Amiga at work. I'm very
glad you are writing EE CAD tools, and I'm not going to hold it against you
that they aren't always _exactly_ what I need at the price. Our work often has
unusual requirements, which are not easily addressed by the widely-selling
programs on the market. My plotter comments to Barry illustrate my position
also – I understand what I could do with the better stuff, but I've got to keep
my budget under control too.
Joel
Joel; Perhaps it would be to both of our advantadge — and others here — if
you were to run those points by me again. First of all, PCLO has matured
considerably; Scheme has been changing (for the better one hopes) almost daily,
even since it's release. And thanks for the positive words on our goals not
being congruent with yours… Some people get quite annoyed that I didn't read
their mind before writing the program. <grin>. I remember those messages (sort
of) now that you've reminded me of them… mostly I remember that it was you
and another fellow at some part of Motorola, wasn't it, that took a look _very_
early on at PCLO. Regards (as Larry says… I kind of like that signoff —
Larry, you mind?) –Ben–
Not at all Ben.
Regards, Larry.
In responce to your comments on Scheme; The file requester in the demo should
have no problems _except_ with the ram disk. In the earlier versions of the
requester, when the system returned the volume name "RAM Disk" I accepted it
and used it. Which would cause the system to phreak out whenever an acces was
made to that path. "RAM Disk:blah/foobar.draw", for instance. After I spotted
it, I replaced the RAM Disk with simply "RAM" if it came up in the device list.
That's the only bug I know of to do with ram handling. It works fine with VD0:,
as a matter of fact, that's how I usually use it myself… and I use it a
_lot_, as I'm still working on it. As far as figuring it out, well, sorry, but
the demo was done in somewhat of a hurry — there was no example documentation
available, and currently the only example dox are in the manual. Next time I
upload a demo (perhaps 1-2 weeks) I'll stick some examples in. Currently, the
version of Scheme (1.6) that is shipping contains some significant enhancements
over the demo. There will also be a "SchemePlus" to complement the PCLOplus
program. –Ben–
Joel — wuz thinking about what you said about Scheme's file requester; could
you be more specific about the "several respects" that it didn't work in? I'd
be _very_ interested to hear… –Ben–
Ben, I'll see if I can drag it out and try it again. It's possible that it was
something specific with my configuration, though I wouldn't think so (all I
have is 2Meg ext. expansion, nothing really unusual). Until I tell you the
specifics, don't get excited – the ball is in my court now (how's that for
modern business jargon?) to repeat the problem.
Joel
Ben, I found the Scheme demo and tried it again, briefly. The file requester
seemed to work fine, and I remember now that it was working for me previously.
However, it definitely did not work the first time or two. A friend also had
difficulty with it, so I'm not dreaming. I am now _thinking_ that this copy
might be your second upload of the program. Is that possible? If there were
in fact two uploads, then maybe the first one had problems, but I think I
erased it. If there was only one upload, then I'm not sure what is happening.
I'll certainly let you know if it happens again. The symptom was simply
inaction – click on all the gadgets and fields and nothing happens. Don't worry
about it until/unless I can repeat it.
By the way, can you list some of the present and/or planned improvements you
alluded to (both in Scheme and the future Scheme+)? Also, does Scheme use its
own netlisting format, or is it compatible with anything else? On the last
digital chip I did, I could have used a capture program that listed in HILO3
format – that's what the other company's software used, though I really don't
know how universally understood it is. Any possibility of getting Scheme to
write Spice (analog simulator) input file format (maybe with modification
ability to support different versions or enhancements)? Just exploring some
possibilities.
As far as helping me understand the Scheme demo… Don't laugh, but I'd like
you to explain precisely how to locate and/or define the "grab point" of a
device. I am able to move things around, but haven't yet picked up the system
correctly, because the objects often move somewhere different than I had
planned. Perhaps others don't have these problems with your demos, but I must
say that some quick docs would help me (even more than a bunch of sample
drawings) – and I'm usually pretty good at picking up such things. You write
lots of impromptu messages on CIS, so it should be cake for you to whip up an
explanation of something you _really_ understand (grin).
Lastly, see my reply to message 91885 – any comments?
Joel
Grab point is where ever you click and drag an object… I'm not sure if the
demo allowed draggin an object for moves, but that's the way it's done now. if
you point and click, then the upper left corner of the object is it's cartesian
x"y base, and that's going to be moved to the point you clicked at. Netlisting
will be supported in SchemePlus. Scheme is a tool for generating schematics
only… not for producing intermediate files of any type. SchemePlus will do
that and some CAE as well… that's why Scheme is priced as low as it is. Will
look at 91885 now… –Ben–
Thanks again, Joel. Just one more question (I hope). What are the media sizes
of the various plotters? (A size, B size, etc.)
Barry
Apple is up to B size, Epson as far as I know is only 8.5" wide though maybe
can do longer that 11". The B size capability is one reason I went for the
Apple.
Joel
Joel,
I`m not that familiar with plotters. What is the maximum size of a "B"
size plotter? It sounds like I could get by with an "A" size since I have
never designed a PCB wider than 8.5" (untill after I buy an "A" size probably).
Barry
Barry, "A" size paper is 8.5" x 11", and "B" size is 11" x 17". However – this
is important to you – the maximum allowable plotting area is almost always
smaller than the edges of the paper. For example, the maximum plot size for
the Apple 410 is 6.9" x 9.4" in "A" size mode and 9.4" x 15.4" in "B" size
mode. I suspect that any plotter you buy that is limited to "A" size will also
be limited to a drawing area that is less than 8.5" wide. Besides that, most
PCB houses like to use 2x artwork, not 1x, so the larger your plotter is, the
larger the 2x and/or 1x drawings you can do.
Joel
Questions about DRAW and DRAW+ — Do they allow you to 'draw' on things
other than plotters (a laser printer, for instance)?
David Masterson
David,
Draw will dump its screen to any printer (as long as it has an Amiga graphics
driver), but that doesn't produce very satisfactory output quality. Draw Plus
has a much more sophisticated printer output routine, which gives much better
quality output, though still not as good as a pen plotter. I think that the
output to a laser printer will still be limited to the resolution of the Draw
Plus output routines – around 72 dots per inch, if I remember correctly. There
are a few laser printers that understand HPGL plotter language directly –
those, of course, would be used in place of a plotter and deliver probably
excellent quality.
Joel
I actually did recommend buying a Apple plotter. I think the Roland message
was a responce to someone asking my opinon of the Roland plotters…
Better said than I could. There can be problems with getting some plotters and
the Amiga to handshake properly. Surprisingly this happens with HP Plotters
most of the time, but is fixable via. special commands you can send the HP
Plotter to XON/XOFF handshake.