On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> The other caveat: Don't choose an overly ambitious project,
> even if it is as cool as liquid nitrogen. Ask Anthony Blake for the
> reason...
Well if you want to do an ambitious project, you have to commit long
term to the
_______
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@moria.seul.org
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>
>
--
Anthony Blake
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:46 AM, al davis wrote:
> One point I disagree with you on, which indicates there is still
> hope The silent majority do want progress. The "vocal
> majority" you refer to is really a "vocal minority".
Ahh yeah, thats what I meant sorry.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM, timecop wrote:
> Anyway tl;dr version: RS sucks, DesignSpark sucks, Eagle sucks, buying
> a EDA suite to pimp to your customers as the only benefit of your
> shitty stock/price practice = stupid.
>
> Also any designer too lazy to make symbols/footprints for a new p
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Justyn Butler
wrote:
> On 10 December 2010 00:09, Stephen Ecob
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM, wrote:
>>> How about a Kickstarter project for the toporouter? Let Anthony make
>>> a proposal and put it on www.kickstarter.com, and then gEDA users ca
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Stephen Ecob
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Peter Brett wrote:
>>> 1. Would any of the existing maintainers be able to devote more time
>>> to gEDA if they had financial support to do so ?
>>
>> In my case: yes. :-/
>>
>> Peter
>
> OK, so that's
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Steven Michalske wrote:
> I look forward to your hard work, it is very impressive, and reminds
> me of the layouts from years ago, where they were taped out and
> pretty. None of this manhattan grid.
Yeah, I love the curvilinear hand layouts in old hardware like
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> I must have missed a lot of that postings?
See pcjc2's thread on a futuristic interface.
> You may be disappointed that no other people have continued working on
> your great router -- I guess the reason is that many of us feel that we
>
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:03 AM, kai-martin knaak wrote:
> Anthony Blake wrote:
>
>>> Any chance, this is going to change?
>>>
>>
>> I'm busy with school work at the moment.. I'll get to it eventually,
>> if someone else doesn't do it fir
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Armin Faltl wrote:
> Anthony Blake wrote:
>>
>> Yes, if you were having difficulty with the END_LOOP macro, I can
>> understand why you didn't venture any deeper into the code.
>>
>
> I had no difficulty finding or unde
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:40 AM, timecop wrote:
>> Yes, if you were having difficulty with the END_LOOP macro, I can
>> understand why you didn't venture any deeper into the code.
> I just saw the rest of the crap in the header file containing "#define
> END_LOOP }}"
> and I'm with Armin on that on
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Armin Faltl wrote:
> There are blackboards for freelance engineers, to make a defined feature in
> opensource software. This seems a good model of payment to me. The problem
> to me in our case is atm:
> - the writer of a certain feature is not required to understa
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak
wrote:
> Anthony Blake wrote:
>
>> It was probably an impossible problem to solve without vias, and vias
>> aren't implemented yet.
>
> Any chance, this is going to change?
>
I'm busy with school work at the m
Cool.. yeah I've always thought the future is in sketching topology
and defining constraints.. sounds awesome! I remember talking about
basically the same thing a couple of times over the last few years.. I
was referring to it as semi-automatic routing where you sketch the
topology of a net with th
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Stefan Dröge wrote:
> Is my design just too complicated, or are there some dubious settings
> that prevent the toporouter from beeing faster?
It was probably an impossible problem to solve without vias, and vias
aren't implemented yet.
Regards,
Anthony
The most relevant of those can be found with a google search. Good luck!
--
Anthony Blake
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Stephen Ecob
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM, timecop wrote:
>> With TopoR having a freeware version for 2 layers and up to 256 nets
>> (or some other fairly high for 'hobby' use limitation), there's not
>> really any point on bothering improving built
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:09 AM, timecop wrote:
> With TopoR having a freeware version for 2 layers and up to 256 nets
> (or some other fairly high for 'hobby' use limitation), there's not
> really any point on bothering improving built in autorouter...
> Does PCB have Specctra DSN/SES export/imp
to do only selected rats.
You are probably thinking of the existing traces bug, which has been
problematic on SMT boards.
--
Anthony Blake
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
ut I would love to be proven wrong =)
Let me know how it goes..
--
Anthony Blake
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
led bug reports (with .pcb file demonstrating bug) would be the
way to help.
> By the way, haven't read the code yet, but is there any recommended
> place to study the theory of this tool?
At the top of toporouter.c there is a list of references to g
Steven Michalske wrote:
On Mar 20, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Anthony Blake wrote:
Ethan Swint wrote:
On 03/20/2010 04:06 PM, Anthony Blake wrote:
kai-martin knaak wrote:
What is the metric of small in this regard?
The number of connections to be auto routed? The size of the
netlist includes
Steven Michalske wrote:
On Mar 20, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Anthony Blake wrote:
Ethan Swint wrote:
On 03/20/2010 04:06 PM, Anthony Blake wrote:
kai-martin knaak wrote:
What is the metric of small in this regard?
The number of connections to be auto routed? The size of the
netlist includes
Ethan Swint wrote:
On 03/20/2010 04:06 PM, Anthony Blake wrote:
kai-martin knaak wrote:
What is the metric of small in this regard?
The number of connections to be auto routed? The size of the netlist
includes connections ignored by the auto router The physical size of
the board?
The
kai-martin knaak wrote:
Anthony Blake wrote:
And DJ's Linksys board routed with vias:
http://anthonix.resnet.scms.waikato.ac.nz/linksys_with_vias.png
The layout surely looks special :-)
So you helped the router with a few vias connected to pads with short
tracks, right?
Yup. I ra
kai-martin knaak wrote:
What is the metric of small in this regard?
The number of connections to be auto routed?
The size of the netlist includes connections ignored by the auto router
The physical size of the board?
The number of constraint edges.
Where would I download and how would I inst
And DJ's Linksys board routed with vias:
http://anthonix.resnet.scms.waikato.ac.nz/linksys_with_vias.png
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
It is now possible to add a few vias and their stubs, and autoroute the
rest, as in the following screenshot:
http://anthonix.resnet.scms.waikato.ac.nz/existing_lines.png
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin
I've just pushed an update to the toporouter which enables existing line
traces (no arcs or planes yet). At the moment the CDT is being rebuilt
*alot*, because of GTS's lack of constraint deletion.. This means it can
only be used on small boards. If anyone finds any bugs, please send a
small bo
Stefan Salewski wrote:
Feel free to try my DSO board (fully routed) from
http://www.ssalewski.de/DAD.html.en
-- maybe a too big challenge? That took me about 500 hours for manually
routing, some day your router will manage it in a few minutes. Would be
great!
Thanks.. thats a nice layout =) P
John Griessen wrote:
kai-martin knaak wrote:
Anthony Blake wrote:
greenlight <---
I'd strongly suggest to invent a new word rather than take an existing
buzzword. The term "greenlight" currently yields 1.5 Mio google hits.
A greenlight router
Hi,
If you have boards containing a mix of routed and unrouted nets, and
they currently don't work with the toporouter, could you please send
them to me to use as tests (privately is OK, if you don't want them
public)?
I've just started working on the code to handle existing traces and
plan
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:33 PM, kai-martin knaak wrote:
> Anthony Blake wrote:
>
>> The toporouter will already route a selection of nets if some nets are
>> selected when the toporouter is invoked.
>
> Nice!
Also, it will only route on the currently visible la
solved, even the router would already be valuable as an abbreviation
> during manual routing.
The toporouter will already route a selection of nets if some nets are
selected when the toporouter is invoked. But yes, if this worked with
existing geometry it would be useful.
Cheer
.. There is even one accepted organization that
seems like more of a feel good social club than an open source
project.. I've been facepalming all morning.
--
Anthony Blake
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
outer seems like a
great option. On the other hand, there are a lot of other developers
contributing code, and I'm not sure it would be fair if I received
funding..
--
Anthony Blake
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Harry Eaton wrote:
I'm not going to stop working on the toporouter (greenlight?) just
because Google didn't fund us. If people keep hassling me, I'll
probably
find the time for small commits here and there.. e.g., most of my
work
last year was an answer to some scath
Harry Eaton wrote:
Can you guys keep this on the geda-dev list in future.. it is always
fun
to see how things are progressing.
Certainly, if Anthony and I discuss anything now that GSoc is not to
be.
I'm not going to stop working on the toporouter (greenlight?) just
becau
Peter Clifton wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 11:14 -0500, John Griessen wrote:
Anthony Blake wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
Also, can anyone think of a new name for the toporouter? There is
already a commercial tool called the 'toporouter', which I
John Griessen wrote:
I guess the last thing the CAD companies want is a straight comparison.
We might be able to setup a system where people can anonymously post
results generated with commercial tools, sort of like how deepchip.com
works.
Who's going to "mentor" you for GSOC purposes?
S
that they prohibit you from using it to compare results with other
tools.. wtf..
> Honestly, optimization beyond what's already there would be great for a
> future version, but I'm so craving just what I've seen so far.
Thanks for your support!
--
Anthony Blake
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:24 PM, kai-martin knaak wrote:
> Anthony Blake wrote:
>
>> btw, if there are other little projects or features you would like to
>> add..
>
> Last time I checked, there were some real show-stoppers. E.g, the topo
> router would choke on preexis
router? :D
Haha nice.. "I used to route boards by hand, but then I became
awesome instead. True story."
--
Anthony Blake
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:10:29 -0500, Ethan Swint wrote:
>
>> On 02/23/2010 06:46 PM, Anthony Blake wrote:
>>>> Ok, then. Can you compile a list of tasks that need to be accomplished
>>>> before the
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:16:45 +1300, Anthony Blake wrote:
I don't get a lot of time atm.. please jump in =)
Ok, then. Can you compile a list of tasks that need to be accomplished
before the topo router is ready for general use? The smaler the
individual tasks
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Larry Battraw wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Anthony Blake <[1]tony...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ethan Swint wrote:
>
> The last update on the toporouter looks like it was last June. Any
> news since then, or i
Ethan Swint wrote:
The last update on the toporouter looks like it was last June. Any news
since then, or is it waiting for me to jump in to the code? ;) It looks
fantastic.
I don't get a lot of time atm.. please jump in =)
FWIW - I think a better metric of router performance (instead of to
; to autoroute that way. Do you know where the latest code for it can
> be found?
The toporouter is contained in toporouter.c and DJ's puller is
puller.c I believe.
--
Anthony Blake
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Mark Rages wrote:
So I guess I need to change the Arc object to store the angles in
floating-point and bump the file format version.
Any objections? It looks like a fair amount of work, including the
dark and foreboding "puller.c".
I'd be interested in how this pans out.. some time ago I was
DJ Delorie wrote:
>> I was under impression it needed a board with no nets to start?
>
> I think this is still the case. I told Tony I'd add the needed
> functionality to one of the underlying libraries that he needs to
> pre-fill for existing traces, haven't had a chance to do it yet.
Yes that
Stefan Salewski wrote:
> Is option --enable-toporouter-output only for debugging -- needs cairo,
> what does it?
Huh? That is only referring to the debugging output.. if that option is
not enabled, the router will still try and exported geometry back to PCB.
> I tried :toporouter(), but have see
Ineiev wrote:
> On 11/21/09, Stefan Salewski wrote:
>> The new topological autorouter is available too, if compiled with
>> --enable-toporouter option.
>
> Actually, it is enabled by default, but to tell the truth, I could never make
> it
> do any real work --- just pictures that I could not und
Stefan Salewski wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 18:32 +0100, myken wrote:
>> I was just wondering, is there any documentation on how the autorouter
>> of PCB is implemented? Restrictions, strategy, information used, hooks,
>> alternatives, etc.
> For latest PCB snapshot 20091103 the "old" autorou
Anthony Blake wrote:
> John Griessen wrote:
>>> Hmm.. for example, if there is some EMC consideration which might
>>> lead a human to make a geometric constraint, wouldn't it be possible
>>> to define those EMC constraints so that the toporouter can make th
John Griessen wrote:
>> Hmm.. for example, if there is some EMC consideration which might lead a
>> human to make a geometric constraint, wouldn't it be possible to define
>> those EMC constraints so that the toporouter can make the same decisions
>> the human did, with the aid of in-layout simu
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:52:11 -0500, John Griessen wrote:
>
>> These kinds of topo constraint criteria sound good.
>
> I'd prefer to see the current usability issues fixed first. Most
> importantly: Let the toporouter cope with existing tracks and a way to do
> do only
Ethan Swint wrote:
I would prefer to implement this sort of functionality with topological
directives or constraints, and avoid geometric constraints if possible.
>> Yes, you've just described geometric constraints in great detail. :P As I
>> understand it, topological constraint
Bob Paddock wrote:
> I think Harry may have implemented part of A* in the existing
> auto router.
Yes, and I have used A* with two different toporouters. The difference
is in the data structure which A* is used to find a path through. I've
used RBS (rubberband sketch) and TCS (triangulation cros
John Griessen wrote:
> Seems like the force-field approach
>> just tweaks his "better" definition based on user input and not just the
>> board geometrics.
> Right. To move in one direction from a point that repels is one way to code
> such a function.
> Another would be a straight line, and e
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
Hi All,
Thanks to everyone who sent me boards to play with. The Meggy Jr board
helped reveal a rather tricky problem that I've only seen once before.
I've updated the website (http://wand.net.nz/~amb33/toporouter/) with
boards from Kai-Martin Knaak, Ben Jackson, and Windell Oskay.
After fixing
Hi,
John Griessen wrote:
> Your router is looking great. Even without the vias it's really doing well,
> you must have spent some deep thought on making
> heuristics to decide what to do in jams!
Thanks. At the moment, it isn't that smart about it.. it is a
combination of two greedy algorithm
Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Amazing! Very, very exciting work.
Thanks.
> I have a very small, mixed through-hole and smt design that I'd be happy
> to throw at you. About 70 components, the board is pretty sparse at
> 4"x1.8"--- but a much denser version is in the works. :)
Sure, send them throug
Eric Brombaugh wrote:
> BTW - I like the formatting of your web page. Something feels very
> familiar about it. ;)
I just added a credits section to the page =)
Peter Clifton is also credited for the PCB colour scheme. I think it
comes from him..
-Anthony
Eric Brombaugh wrote:
> BTW - I like the formatting of your web page. Something feels very
> familiar about it. ;)
Well spotted =) Yes I had your cheap graphic LCD project page open when
I decided to write up the toporouter stuff. I hope you don't mind!
By the way, the LCD project was very cool
Stefan Salewski wrote:
> One (maybe silly) question: It was my impression that Gerber format
> supports only line segments for traces, but your router use arbitrary
> shapes. If we use multiple line segments in the gerbers to build the
> traces then the file size should be very, very large?
I just
Hi Everyone,
I've recently updated the toporouter website with some screenshots
showing the recent changes.
http://www.wand.net.nz/~amb33/toporouter
By the way, I could do with some more small to mid sized boards for
testing if anyone wants to send one through.
Cheers,
Anthony
_
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> That is, in its present state, the toporouter can only deal with boards
> from scratch. This is indeed a major constraint in terms of usefulness.
At this point I'm not really worried about usefulness.
> BTW, what does "CDT" stand for?
Constrained Delaunay Triangulatio
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:20:40 +1200, Anthony Blake wrote:
>
>> That hasn't been implemented yet. It requires the ability to insert and
>> delete vertices in the CDT, while properly managing the data on the
>> edges (without having to rebuild
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> I noticed, that the router did not introduce any via. Is this a missing
> feature, or do I have to through some switch?
That hasn't been implemented yet. It requires the ability to insert and
delete vertices in the CDT, while properly managing the data on the
edges (wi
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> [...] Any hints that let me actually use the router appreciated.
Uhh, I don't think you could actually use it for anything useful, as
it's pretty broken.. but if you still want to go ahead try
:toporouter(). There is a 'h' parameter which makes it re-evaluate the
netor
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> Any hints that let me actually use the router appreciated.
Oh, I forgot to mention that any existing routing will not work. It did
at one point, but I changed the something which meant the code that
resolves problems in the constraints would no longer work, so it has
b
Stefan Salewski wrote:
> I wonder if the PCB autorouter should be more closely bound to the
> gschem schematics. For example, in the schematics we may specify
> priority of nets (fast signals, power, ...), trace width or clearance
> for net segments. Maybe by attributes? I have no idea how commerci
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> Are these instructions valid for the "new topological autorouter" too? By
> the way, when is this autorouter going to hit the streets. Or at least be
> acessible for beta testing? It's been almost a year since the gSoC 2008.
> With this sub project I feel like having sm
DJ Delorie wrote:
> Just for fun, I figured out how to make room to add traditional
> serpentines and a few other tricks, and have all the SDRAM traces
> within 7 mil of the CLK length (1.89").
That looks really cool. Did you write some code to do that?
-Anthony
Stefan Salewski wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 15:25 +, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
>> By the way, when are the results of the 2008 projects expected to hit
>> main stream testing? The autorouter looked quite promising. What about
>> the project manager?
> I hope the topological autorouter is sti
Stefan Salewski wrote:
> But maybe the new pcb router of Anthony Blake is the better, really free
> way.
Yes, I'm still working on the autorouter. The algorithms in the
autorouter I implemented for the summer of code give great solutions to
some problems, but they really fail on
DJ Delorie wrote:
> The netlist pcb loads has an option for specifying the route style for
> each net, but as far as I know, nothing actually creates or uses that
> option.
>
> I did mention this to Tony and he said the router *could* do it
> eventually, but not yet.
>
Yes, it currently imports
78 matches
Mail list logo
