No apologies, please! Your effort is very much appreciated. KiCad appeals to DIYers because it’s an OSS project. Laen is in a good place to monitor the shift in tool use.
Looks like there is an Eagle to KiCad ULP. Anyone know of a script that goes the other way?
Ah, the joys of the shield form factor:
http://mcukits.com/2009/04/06/arduino-ethernet-shield-mega-hack/
If GHI came out with a new Gadgeeter mainboard where in a particular standard socket was repurposed and had different pin usage.
Would the problem with Gadgeteers or GHI?
The intro said that the Mega apparently didn’t fully conform to the pin spec.
From the intro of that article:
But I don’t disagree that at times the format has issues.
Though I think Bec a Fuel (and the countless others that have used shield form factor over the years) would disagree 
Someone’s ringing me ? :whistle:
Of course I disagree ! 8)
No, I’m kidding, don’t worry. Though I have to admit that I prefer the shield form factor.
The pin header spacing is not a problem anymore since we can find many existing layouts to start with.
The relative small size of such design also helps keeping the overall thing small, I think. Also, boards like Liquidware ExtenderShields may help in getting a good-looking design if more than one shield is needed.
A board like the Panda II is extremely versatile in this regard, I think, because it combines the best of both worlds : Arduino compatible pins for shields and custom pins for extended features.
In fact, when I read that Gus’ wife has seen a board that “looked like Arduino”, I immediately thought at a Panda II on steroids. Hence my deception when I saw the Cerberus.
But while I was crying silently in the dark, GHI suddenly offered the Cerb40 board, with a DIP40 pinout 
This will lead me to make “shields” (boards in fact) like Panda II with another processor, in fact.
And here, no Arduino form factor anymore 
Freedom design !
I dunno, it seems to me more like if GHI released a Spider 2.0 and moved some sockets around.
The shield form factor has obviously been very successful for the Arduino people, but it’s not optimal for various reasons.
We never said we are done did we 
So stay tuned and keep your shields… oh god I said too much again!
ZOMG NO! GUS!
Panda III incoming?
So I know what OMG is, but what is ZOMG NO?
ZOMG is even more OMG, it’s OMG with more emphasis.
Because seriously, they’re going to tie Gus to a chair over at GHI HQ, and not let him near any computers 
Zombies OMG
Zeus OMG
Zebras on my grass
Here’s the history of zOMG!
I think shields are great as long as you can limit your project to one shield and you’re careful to bring all your buttons on top… Beyond one shield and I much prefer Gadgeteer. Although I’ll probably only buy buy Gadgeteer & Cerb40’s in the future, today I’m working on a new Panda project that will have a single shield…
Did someone say Zombies? Stay tuned…
You will end up like this, Gus… But I would still be happy, despite your forced silence :-[
Cerb40 would fit my needs at the moment (once its firmware gets done, though) but if there’s “the same” processor on a Panda II design or like, then I would definitely take one or two !
Except that the Gadgeteer spec doesn’t say – unless I am wrong – what sockets go in what place.
**
But from where I am sitting, it’s just what a matter of preference; with each style having it’s own limitations.
The difference being that Gadgeteer is brand new, and companies, like GHI, are working hard to address those.
Gus, I’m going to assume you can say absolutely nothing, but if you can, is it safe to assume that there will be a Cerberus derivative with onboard MicroSD, and (crosses fingers) integrated ENC28J60 ethernet? Maybe even USB host and device?
You could call it the FEZ CerbominoPlus!
Internet of things FTW!!
…and more!
OK, so now, having looked at the Cerberus schematic, there are only two sockets that could be brought out completely, socket 2 and socket 6. Others are missing at least one signal, which may or may not be an issue.
The boards, produced by DorkbotPDX, run about $10 (unpopulated) as currently designed. Is it worth spending extra space on incomplete sockets?
nope, but remember i’m in the anti-socket crowd for this board. i’m also in the crowd that would prefer one continuous line of headers on each side… BUT… that’s the beauty of the small run fab services. we can each try our own variations on a theme.
can we get a peek at the final board layout, or is it the same as the one you already posted?
busy with eagle and kicad lately, eh? is the kicad UI more intuitive to use?
Sockets do not require to have every function but I am surprised signals are missing!
There are things about each I like. I like in KiCad the ability to move traces without changing any slopes, and I like that traces are labelled. In the end, though, Eagle wins out (for me), but KiCad is making pretty rapid progress.
It changed a bit, but not in any very interesting ways. I’m a little worried about the ZIF socket fitting, and SparkFun doesn’t have a datasheet for the one they carry :o
Not every pin on the MCU is brought out to the headers (there’s only four of them, after all). Pins in ( ) are missing:
X1 HI (PB13) PB15 PB6 PB14 (PB2) PB7
X2* AIKUY PA6 PA3 PA0 PB6 PA2 PA1 PB7
X3 AOPY PC0 PA4 PC6 PC7 PC1 (PC5) PA7
X4 AOPY PC2 PA5 PA8 (PB1) PC3 (PC13) (PB0)
X5 PCSY (PC14) PB8 PB5 PB3 PB9 (PC15) PB4
X6* PSUY PA14 PB11 PB5 PB3 PB10 PA13 PB4
X7 FY (PA15) PC9 PC10 PC12 PC8 PD2 PC11
X8 DZ (PA9) (USB_DP) (PA10) LOADER (USB_DM) (PB12) VBAT