On Mar 6 2009, DJ Delorie wrote: >Please don't. I don't mind splitting pins and pads, but I toggle pins >and vias separately a lot - especially when I want to select them by >type, check masks or clearances, etc.
Ok, fair enough. >> For GL (which can do opacity quite easily), some kind of (optional) >> automatic fading (or just toggling) of surface features like pads >> might be useful, based on the active layer being worked on. > >Or do like we do with the "invisible" stuff? Sort-of, although invisible is at the bottom of the z-order, and I'm not sure quite how it would look if we took the component side pads and drew them undereath the active layer. I guess this depends on whether your UI makes it feel like you're pulling the active layer all the way to the top (on top of pads). I'd imagined that having pads translucent (or off) so you work "through" them could be useful. When I'm reviewing multi-layer boards, I typically turn pads off if I'm working with an inner layer, unless I'm wanting context on the exact 3D stack-up. I guess I need to find some time to hack together a UI full of knobs to play with these ideas in the PCB+GL code, so we can figure out what works and what doesn't. Just throwing another GUI idea in the works.. something IC design packages use it would seem: Fill stipple patterns. Those might be useful to mark out island removed areas, keepouts / pour filled regions which haven't yet been calculated. I guess any use of patterning ought to make use of judicioulsy chosen defaults. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to teach / help people if every class of object could have its drawing modes completely redefined. (e.g. Is that hatch pattern indicating a locked object, unpoured fill, or a keepout region?) _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
