kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[hauptmech <hauptmech@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Orson,

I do agree that a single solution does not satisfy everyone, nor does it 
have to.

I was just adding my voice to Heikki's that the PNS router does not 
quite handle some of the basic tasks that I am needing to do, that the 
legacy interface does handle. The details are complex, partially rooted 
in the fact that net class based clearances are not a good approach for 
my current situation where I need to use mixed trace/space technology on 
the same nets. Meanwhile I'm dropping back to the legacy interface 
occasionally to make progress and that fact is significant in itself.

Dragging track nodes, including dragging the free end of a track that is 
in progress but also in the way of the track I'm laying, is the 
difference that causes me to drop back the most.

The assumption in the PNS that I want 45degree angles when dragging a 
track and that the free end of a track should be fixed, don't work for 
me. (However these are things I'd tweak to suit myself if others had no 
need)

The ability to delete a segment (or walkaround chain) is something from 
the legacy that I would bring over to my own branch if the core team did 
not.

The frequent mouse click drops I have not had time to understand enough 
to file a bug report. Whether it is PNS event handling or the load put 
on the system by PNS plus kicad or WX, I don't know.


On 20/07/17 23:41, Maciej Sumiński wrote:
> Hi hauptmech,
>
> On 07/20/2017 12:31 PM, hauptmech wrote:
> > I'm with Heikki. I've been using the GAL canvas for a complex project. I
> > don't really have time to learn the nuances of the interactive router; I
> > found that highlight collisions kept it from doing stuff I did not want
> > in tight layouts and I fall back to legacy for things like tweaking
> > track nodes and when I get tired of dropped mouse clicks.
> Is there any related bug report so we could investigate the problem?
>
> We realize that *any* change will have its opponents, therefore PNS
> offers the highlight collision mode which is meant to work as the legacy
> router. What is the difference in your opinion?
>
> > It's hard to articulate well, but I get the feeling that the interactive
> > router is either based on a single companies layout culture, or, with
> > the utmost respect for all the awesome hard work that's gone into it,
> > the authors are copying features in other software rather than working
> > with the needs and user stories of users that they are in contact with.
> Do you agree it is very hard to satisfy everyone with a single solution?
> KiCad offers multiple options to adjust it to your needs. We would love
> to hear your story, but please keep in mind that we are simply unable to
> fulfill all requests.
>
> Regards,
> Orson
<SNIP>
> _______________________________________________
> 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