Eagle Pro can do tight track routing for dense PCBs?

[treez]

Hello,
The attached is a view of the signal track routing layer of a PCB...the tracks in the busses are 0.2mm thickness with 0.2mm separation.....is Eagle Pro capable of doing this kind of tight/neat routing?...the attached was done in Easy PC.

The PCB dimensions are 57.9mm by 112.5mm.

 

[FvM]

It's the engineer that must be capable of designing higher densitiy PCBs. Why do you think that Eagle can't do it? Do you see a lower limit for routing grid or track width?

0.2 mm is a good standard if you don't need highest interconnect density, not particularly demanding.

 

[treez]

thanks, that attachment in the top post must have been done with "bus routing", can eagle pro do bus routing?

 

[FvM]

You didn't ask for autorouting features.

In my eyes, the board doesn't look like being autorouted or with automated bus routing support. And I believe that setting up the autorouter rules for this almost simple design would take longer than routing it manually. It's no big thing to draw a few traces with equal distance, just setup the working grid respectively.

Better don't start to discuss the artwork finish of this board.

 

[Mattylad]

I see nothing in that pcb that is bus routing, its all manually routed and bog standard routing.

An engineer could do that in Eagle easily, heck if it was done in Easy PC then Eagle can do it too.

IMO it needs some tidying up too

 

[treez]

I see your point...I think they have exchanged all the pin functions of the micro so that none of the tracks from the micro cross over other tracks...I mean.....they have got all the routing on one layer, without needing any vias.
So you think Eagle is better than Easy PC?

 

[ZASto]

Every EDA package is as good as you are willing to learn it (with all it's culprits). Also, @treez, it's silly to ask a question about "betterness" of a particular EDA package.

BTW the .pdf that you posted, I mean the board, can be routed MUCH better. Something that I don't like are 90 degrees angles in tracks.

 

[treez]

I don't think its silly at all.
None of these packages has a spec sheet of its features, so how is an engineering manager going to decide which one to use.
Eagle is by a long way the easiest to learn due to its simplicity...the GUI is simple and if you want extra functionality you add it in with ULP....why aren't they all like that?

if eagle can do it, then use eagle, and if that means you need a different package for your motherboards, then just use 2 packages, it will be easier.....just ask the Germans..its their defacto package

 

[marce]

I see your point...I think they have exchanged all the pin functions of the micro so that none of the tracks from the micro cross over other tracks...I mean.....they have got all the routing on one layer, without needing any vias.
So you think Eagle is better than Easy PC?

There are vias for signals on this board it is not single layer routing for signals, never mind power layers. Some interesting pad exits and a mixture of 90 and 45 degree corners...
Eagle is not a de-facto package in any country actually by a long way...As to anyone actually agreeing on PCB packages, its a no no hence the ban on this package is better than that...they are all as good and they are all as bad, what makes the difference is the dedication and skill of the user.

 

[ads-ee]

TSome interesting pad exits and a mixture of 90 and 45 degree corners...

The 90 corners will result in impedance discontinuities in the traces, which will result in reflections in the transmission lines. Also running multiple parallel tracks for long distances can result in aggressors causing runt pulse to appear on victims. This board routing job wouldn't pass a design review or a DRC check anywhere I've worked.

It's almost always better to have ugly random looking routing than to have "pretty" parallel lines all over a PCB.

Regards