kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 8, 2013 3:26 AM, "Simon Huwyler" <simon.huwyler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> uh, another thing, I think this has also been mentioned before: It
should be an absolute must to be able to define net classes in eeschema. I
think, from the technical >>point of view, this should be easy.
>>
>>
>> At least netnames without polluting the sheet with label should be the
>> minimum. Netname to netname association would be useful but not truly
>> essential. It's more or less shifting the dialog from pcbnew to eeschema
>> and extending the netlist, anyway.
>
>
> What about (I'm just brain-storming now) some graphical way? For example
right click on a wire, then "add to net class...", "remove from
netclass..." - something like that?
>

Alfons, in munich, worked for zucken (spelling), an eda company, for 15
years, well bfore writing freerouter.  His UI includes netclass features.
It is not obvious that they merely mimic the specctra spec.  If not, is
this his experience being injected to trump something he thought was
imperfect?

Kicad  evolves based on individual need.  Try and stay close to your
individual use cases, else you may end up creating something few will use.
Einstein: as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Building some credibility here will take some time.  But quality
develooment skills are easily recognized by a quality developer.
Pushing to your own branch early, before investing too much, may be the
best way to avoid wasting your efforts.

>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Lorenzo Marcantonio
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:17 AM
> To: Kicad Developers
>
> Subject: Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:37:53AM +0200, Simon Huwyler wrote:
>>
>> Now, still another thing: It’s been a while when I was working with
Protel (now Altium designer), but I mean to remember that there you could
enter three different widths: A minimal, a maximal and “standard”. This
seems to be a good thing to me, because it is normally a bad idea to always
stress the constraints to the limit, because of the yield.
>
>
> For impedance matching too... however checking 'maximum' distance would
> be a little complex/expensive. Maybe only if explicity requested.
>
>> I just think that now that There will be the push-n-shove router, KiCad
becomes even more sophisticated, and I think the constraint possibilities
become too limited compared to the overall project features.
>
>
> Layer constraint *could* be useful for some applications; the
> 'programmable' constraint interface could also be considered (either in
> table or in python call form).
>
>> uh, another thing, I think this has also been mentioned before: It
should be an absolute must to be able to define net classes in eeschema. I
think, from the technical point of view, this should be easy.
>
>
> At least netnames without polluting the sheet with label should be the
> minimum. Netname to netname association would be useful but not truly
> essential. It's more or less shifting the dialog from pcbnew to eeschema
> and extending the netlist, anyway.
>
> --
> Lorenzo Marcantonio
> Logos Srl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp