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@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
