Bill Gatliff wrote: > On the pdhobbs board, the toprouted output shows a failed net at the > top-left corner of the board that seems like a trivial case. Funny that > it would miss that one--- and if it had found it, I think it could have > completed at least one more net as well.
Ahh yes.. I know why that happened. Since taking that shot, the algorithms have changed and the board no longer looks like that.. So next time I see that problem crop up I'll take care of it. > I'd be curious to see how the total track lengths compare between your > toporouter output and the geometric autorouter's, and what the > statistical variation in lengths is between the individual tracks of the > two boards. Does your output tend to find shorter paths but with > occasional outliers, for example? The answers might be interesting to > the RF and power guys, and might also help you automate the tests to see > if toporouter changes improve the test case outputs. I've put up a new page (http://wand.net.nz/~amb33/toporouter/detour.html) showing some results of a simple adjustment to the detour optimizations, which includes wiring lengths for comparisons. A few boards such as LED and Meggy Jr have a few inches less wiring now. All boards I tried have improved wiring, and sometimes route more nets. The one exception was the laminator board which now fails 6 nets because early optimizations prevent some of the huge detours needed to finish with only 2 failures. Cheers, Anthony _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user