On 10/11/2012 05:27 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
Hi Guys,
Would it be beneficial if I changed KicadWinbuilder to build with the
new nanometer units?
It should get more people testing the nanometer support and provide
some feedback. I think quite a few people use Winbuilder to get access
to the latest versions, but don't change anything in the setup. This
way it will gradually get you some more nanometer beta testers and
feedback.
Let me know as I will only take a few minutes to change.
Best Regards, Brian.
I am using the nanometer build without issue.
(My only suspicion is with respect to grabbing zone borders with the mouse
pointer. I
have felt for some time that the hit testing there should use pixels to
measure acceptable
distance, not IU which are subject to variances on zoom factor. Pixels
are not subject to
zoom factor. Its in the TODO.txt file. It is painfully hard to select a
zone boarder
reliably in the nanometer build.)
I like the idea of forcing folks to smoke out problems. Because it has to
happen
sometime. There are no beta testers on some kind of payroll.
Pcbnew files (even legacy format files) created from that point forward
are not compatible
with the deci-mils build. So it is a bridge which is difficult to
traverse backwards across.
I've found that the Eagle plugin needs the nanometer build to avoid
rounding errors,
because coming from metric to deci-mils is and has been a problem
regardless of plugin.
This was the whole impetus to move to nanometers as a means of avoiding
rounding errors
even within legacy files in the first place.
The fork in the road looks like this:
a) change now, generate a bunch of new mm based footprint libraries and mm
based legacy
board files, which are not compatible with deci-mil builds.
b) wait until the *.kicad_pcb files and s-expression footprints are fully
supported, those
will only ever be in mm, meaning this is mandatorily the nanometer build.
Legacy files
generated from this build are also not compatible with deci-meter builds.
a) and b) both have the same disadvantage.
I have personally chosen to go the a) route, because I can get more
accurate footprints
and boards in play now. I never have to use an older version of the
software anyway.
I cannot speak for other users, only for myself, and for the benefits to
the project.
Mostly we might be speaking about new users being affected by your change
to your script.
For them I might be inclined to lean towards a) also.
If there was a pause point in the script's execution, or a way you can
explain how to
change from the default of nanometers to rebuild, that might be enough to
make everyone
minimally grumpy.
On balance, I find your suggestion more positive than negative.
