Re: [Kicad-developers] Highlithing components with a certain value

Ok, I was experimenting a little bit. Please see the attached picture. I searched for all components valued with "470" and afterwards "supp40". As the marks are not (yet) removed before a new search, you can see both results. The highlighting alone is only visible in high contrast mode. Maybe

Re: [Kicad-developers] Proposal: Move to C++11

Ok, thanks for your clarifications (all of you). I hope that the "environment" (compilers, distros, etc.) will be ready in 1-2 years so we can start working on it. I the meantime I'll be going ahead and try to help improving KiCad wherever possible. _

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:11:54AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > But how important is that really? Will it result in a reduction in pay? > > The "common" user has been a hobbyist, and is becoming a corporate employee > as the > software gets better. OK, even most of the corporate employees ha

Re: [Kicad-developers] Highlithing components with a certain value

I don't know. That's why I wanted to experimen. I don't know if you cann see a 0603 footprint on a 100mmx100mm board, if it's highlighted. Maybe yes, then it's fine. But I just looked at a highlighted net. It's perfect for showing a net, but I think, if it was only a tiny 0603 footprint, I would

Re: [Kicad-developers] Proposal: Move to C++11

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 12:31:54PM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: > GCC 4.8 is fully 0x11 compliant with one minor exception (see the Have they fixed the misoptimization breaking the zone filling code at least? Don't forget about compiler maturity... 4.8 is like only one month old. -- Lorenzo Ma

Re: [Kicad-developers] Highlithing components with a certain value

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 06:30:47PM +0200, Simon Huwyler wrote: > board. Maybe something completely differen would be better? A circle > around the component? ... what do you think? We already have highlighting code *and* the extended palette to support it. Why invent something else? -- Lorenzo M

Re: [Kicad-developers] Proposal: Move to C++11

On 4/26/2013 9:18 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: On 04/26/2013 04:50 PM, Felix Morgner wrote: Hi there I think I haven't introduced myself yet. I'm a hobbyist programmer and mechanic by trade. I got into electronics about 2-3 years back with my first micro controller experience using an Arduino.

Re: [Kicad-developers] Highlithing components with a certain value

I will try to get some spare time tonight and experiment a bit with this "highlighting" thing. After all, we're not talking about a net spreadin accross the board, but about components spotted around the board. Maybe something completely differen would be better? A circle around the component?

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

On 04/27/2013 12:56 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 08:48:52PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: >> It will definitely be a bottleneck. Maybe we should measure how bad soon, >> otherwise this >> is a suggestion which serves as a roadblock to progress, and the roadblock >> it

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 05:44:22PM +0200, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote: > P&S is currently the top priority for me, I can't spend time > evaluating DRC speed. Another bottleneck in the DRC is the lack of > spatial indexing and numerically unstable clearance calculations. > There's a lot of stuff to be i

Re: [Kicad-developers] Highlithing components with a certain value

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 05:33:12PM +0200, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote: > @Lorenzo: You will probably need adding a per-item HIGHLIGTHED flag > (no globals, please). I never *meant* to suggest a global. I only feared there was one in there... In fact, looking closely, there is *no* component level hig

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

both is a python object that is visible to C++ that is stuffed at each distance test point in the DRC? At least one of the two members would need to be updated on each compare. Hi Dick, I'm not sure, it might be the case if a single matching expression refers to both items. A crude solut

Re: [Kicad-developers] python-a-mingw-us PC/dl_nt.c fix

On 04/27/2013 10:21 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote: > On 22 April 2013 17:47, Dick Hollenbeck > wrote: > > > >> > >> Yep, I understand. It is difficult. Thank-you for all your effort so > >> far, you've put a tremendous amount of work into this project already! >

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 03:36:17PM +0200, Simon Huwyler wrote: - How many impedance controlled lines are there? - On how many different layers do I place them? Stop there. *If* you do impedance controlled lines then you *need* different constraint for each layer, because: a) I know, and tha

Re: [Kicad-developers] Highlithing components with a certain value

Hi Lorenzo, Hi Andreas, I like your ideas! I will somewhen this weekend look into the code (I am completely new to developing for kicad), especially concerning the multiple highlighting. The 0603 were on tapes, but the tapes were in bags. :-) BTW: Andreas, where are you from? I'm from zug.

Re: [Kicad-developers] python-a-mingw-us PC/dl_nt.c fix

On 22 April 2013 17:47, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > > >> > >> Yep, I understand. It is difficult. Thank-you for all your effort so > >> far, you've put a tremendous amount of work into this project already! > >> > >> I see this as a nice stepping stone for those people anyway. > >> Building this pro

Re: [Kicad-developers] Highlithing components with a certain value

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 04:03:16PM +0200, Simon Huwyler wrote: > So, a short thing explained complicated. Really nothing more than “highlight > all components with value xxx (where xxx could, preferably include wildcards) Could be useful and should not be intrusive. I see nothing bad in that. >

Re: [Kicad-developers] Highlithing components with a certain value

Hi I like the idea, I also solder the components type by type. But I'm not sure if search is the best Idea, maybe display a list with all parts ordered by value, highlight all occurrences if you click on it and add a button "remove from list".

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 03:36:17PM +0200, Simon Huwyler wrote: > - How many impedance controlled lines are there? > - On how many different layers do I place them? Stop there. *If* you do impedance controlled lines then you *need* different constraint for each layer, because: a) not every layer ha

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 03:09:11PM +0200, Simon Huwyler wrote: > "layer stack" dialog tells about the PCB itself. And therefore, the > layer constraints are not so wrongly placed there, are they? Ouch this is so much complicatea to explain :D Now I'm about to go algebric and defing the 'intersect

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

Le 27/04/2013 15:09, Simon Huwyler a écrit : The first question I am thinking is: Why a by layer constraints. Why do not have only 2 min clearance values: one for outer layers, one for inner layers. I also thought about that. Would also be good, yes. It could fix some of issues created by mult

[Kicad-developers] Highlithing components with a certain value

Hi folks, while still being in the discussion about the layer based constraints, I would like to propose some other small feature. I will create that for sure, because I will need it eventually, but I’m not sure if it makes sense to give it back to the project, and if, how to implement it so th

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

Thinking about it, I think, there are, indeed situation, when it makes sense to define constraints for "NETxxx on layer yyy". This would be, for example, impedance controlled tracks. They have to have a defined width which is different on each layer and only applicable to certain nets. But now,

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

The first question I am thinking is: Why a by layer constraints. Why do not have only 2 min clearance values: one for outer layers, one for inner layers. I also thought about that. Would also be good, yes. It could fix some of issues created by multiple constraints. Because there is no more mul

Re: [Kicad-developers] KiCad GAL changelog

Hi Maciej,   > Actually, as far as I can see - most of the code you have written for > display lists is already working, so there is not much to be done. Right > now I use it for testing of item caching, but I am going to implement > VBOs and when it is done - push it to repository.   Yes that

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

Le 27/04/2013 11:40, Simon Huwyler a écrit : Hi Jean-Pierre, see my responses below. ... right. -But - don't get me wrong, i consider Kicad a tool that can easily compete with professional tools - but it is used by many hobbyists. An without wanting to do some advertising, seeedstudio (among

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

Hi Jean-Pierre, see my responses below. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- From: jp charras Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 10:49 AM To: kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints Therefore, "response-to-response-to-response" is not surprisin

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:49:52AM +0200, jp charras wrote: > The first question I am thinking is: > Why a by layer constraints. > Why do not have only 2 min clearance values: one for outer layers, > one for inner layers. This is one of the 'esoteric' feature I talked about in another message. Usu

Re: [Kicad-developers] layer based constraints

Le 27/04/2013 08:52, Simon Huwyler a écrit : I think I do something wrong, since my responses are only seen in the "date" view, but not in the "thread" view. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I don't see any "response depth level" greater than "response-to-response-to-response"? So,