On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:37:53AM +0200, Simon Huwyler wrote: > Now, still another thing: It’s been a while when I was working with Protel > (now Altium designer), but I mean to remember that there you could enter > three different widths: A minimal, a maximal and “standard”. This seems to be > a good thing to me, because it is normally a bad idea to always stress the > constraints to the limit, because of the yield.
For impedance matching too... however checking 'maximum' distance would be a little complex/expensive. Maybe only if explicity requested. > I just think that now that There will be the push-n-shove router, KiCad > becomes even more sophisticated, and I think the constraint possibilities > become too limited compared to the overall project features. Layer constraint *could* be useful for some applications; the 'programmable' constraint interface could also be considered (either in table or in python call form). > uh, another thing, I think this has also been mentioned before: It should be > an absolute must to be able to define net classes in eeschema. I think, from > the technical point of view, this should be easy. At least netnames without polluting the sheet with label should be the minimum. Netname to netname association would be useful but not truly essential. It's more or less shifting the dialog from pcbnew to eeschema and extending the netlist, anyway. -- Lorenzo Marcantonio Logos Srl _______________________________________________ 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
