kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Bernhard Stegmaier <stegmaier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Nick,

hmm… seems to be reported for Windows/Linux.

I was quite busy with other things, but I’ll try to clean up everything so that I can post my patch tomorrow, maybe monday.
I don’t know if (or, think that) it will help for this report, though.

My patch primarily addresses some problems on OSX, because wxWidgets on OSX doesn’t support XOR-drawing (which is used on Windows/Linux). 
As a consequence, with current code relying on XOR-drawing at some places stuff got drawn but not removed (e.g., when doing a rotate during a move)… leading to visual artifacts.
I did some OSX/WX_OVERLAY specific changes and therefore needed to cleanup drawing code in a way that XOR-drawing is only used when an item should be removed, otherwise the default (non-XOR) mode is used (this idea is already implemented at many spots, but not consistent all over the place).

The artifacts I fixed with these changes on OSX are quite different… they are always complete items that just not were removed. 
The screenshot in the bug looks more like XOR-ing (i.e., trying to remove) an item with a just slightly different image, so that only the slightly different parts stay visible.
A first idea when I saw this screenshot was that maybe anti-aliasing could cause such a problem (maybe rendering items a little bit different due to various reasons). But, at second look you can see that no anti-aliasing is used.

However, maybe it’s worth a try to see if my changes also fix that issue…


Regards,
Bernhard

On 08.11.2014, at 20:57, Nick Østergaard <oe.nick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Bernhard
> 
> What is your status on this drawing issue?
> 
> I am thinking linking this to the bug in
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1381864
> 
> Nick
> 
> 2014-10-30 22:44 GMT+01:00 Bernhard Stegmaier <stegmaier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> 
>> On 30.10.2014, at 22:40, Nick Østergaard <oe.nick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hmm, ok, but what I see on my side was tested with 5217 and wx 3.0.2.
>> Should my build be newer?
>> 
>> 
>> No, thanks… No relevant changes in that area I guess. I have seen those
>> things already some months back when I tried my changes initially.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Bernhard