Everything in hardware has to be spec'd to the teeth since re-spin of HW/Masks can easily run into the 7-figures. I think it largely boils down to a couple factors:ġ. Did a bunch of research and found similar things. I'm not sure what they've done to it since then to garner such animosity.)īack when was re-evaluating where I wanted to go with my career(post-gamedev burnout) I briefly considered getting an BS in EE and getting a hardware job since it's an area that interests me. (For comparison, I used EAGLE back in 2004 or so, and I thought it was pretty good. Once you get your workflow going and you've pushed past the worst of the confusion, it works just well enough that it's easier to put up with the pain for now and allow your resentment to simmer than it is to figure out how to build the damn thing so you can fix it yourself. You also can't back-annotate any changes at the PCB level back to the schematic (or at least, it's a royal pain to do so.) These programs communicate via export/import functions instead of being properly integrated so the process to add a component to a circuit board involves five different programs and four export steps. the layout area) which again have different interface conventions, and additionally some features are only available in some canvases and will simply fail to work if another canvas is selected. To make it even better, the PCB layout program has three different options for the "canvas" (ie. There are four different graphical editors (schematic part, schematic, pcb footprint, pcb layout) which look somewhat similar but have notably different user interface conventions for selecting, moving, copying and deleting objects, making it frustrating to switch between them. Just to expand on this, KiCad is an abomination stitched together from the corpses of about six different programs. The schematic symbol library manager and footprint library manager have similar GUIs but behave quite differently.
0 kommentar(er)
