Sorry to open this again, but would what Maciej suggest be an okay fix
here? He is indeed correct that they do not have a "Sheet Path" when
footprints are explicitly added from pcbnew, compared to when they are
added from "update from Schematic"
On 2017-01-11 15:59, Maciej Sumiński wrote:
On
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 7:39 AM, jp charras wrote:
> Virtual tag is just to avoid the component put in BOM.
>
> A typical virtual component is a edge-connector card and some microwave
> components which are only a
> drawing on the board.
> The footprint itself is similar to other footprints (but
On 01/11/2017 03:46 PM, Kristoffer wrote:
> Every kind of dialog is quickly going to become annoying, the components
> needs to be marked in some way. Maybe if one could identify which
> components was added in pcbnew, and which was imported from eeschema?
I think they can be distinguished by chec
The locking of footprints are a major pain when every stitch via is an
extra component, and even if I locked everything, one miss and the button
would delete the footprint(s), making it less useful than the "read netlist".
It is much easier to manually delete a few extra component later, than to
Kristoffer, does the locking of footprints in pcbnew not serve this
purpose good enough?
2017-01-11 15:46 GMT+01:00 Kristoffer :
> Every kind of dialog is quickly going to become annoying, the components
> needs to be marked in some way. Maybe if one could identify which components
> was added in
Every kind of dialog is quickly going to become annoying, the components
needs to be marked in some way. Maybe if one could identify which
components was added in pcbnew, and which was imported from eeschema?
This would not break anyone of our workflows.
On 01/11/2017 03:39 PM, jp charras wrot
Le 11/01/2017 à 14:55, Kristoffer Ödmark a écrit :
> I was the one suggesting that, and I would also suggest that every extra
> component/footprint that
> does not have the "virtual" attribute should be removed if there is not a
> matching schematic symbol,
> so that an extra resistor would be re
I was the one suggesting that, and I would also suggest that every extra
component/footprint that does not have the "virtual" attribute should be
removed if there is not a matching schematic symbol, so that an extra
resistor would be removed, but an extra mounting hole with the virtual
tag woul
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 14:00:50 +0100, Maciej Sumiński wrote:
> Someone on #kicad has noticed that "Perform PCB update" removes
> components that were placed only in pcbnew without a schematic symbol
> counterpart assigned. It works as if "delete extra footprints" option
> was always enabled when
Someone on #kicad has noticed that "Perform PCB update" removes
components that were placed only in pcbnew without a schematic symbol
counterpart assigned. It works as if "delete extra footprints" option
was always enabled when reading a netlist. The drawback is it removes
logos, mounting holes, et
10 matches
Mail list logo
