On 6/5/19 11:55 AM, Seth Hillbrand wrote: > On 2019-06-05 10:09, jp charras wrote: >> Le 05/06/2019 à 15:40, Wayne Stambaugh a écrit : >>> On 6/5/19 7:20 AM, jp charras wrote: >>>> Le 04/06/2019 à 22:51, Wayne Stambaugh a écrit : >>>>> On 6/4/19 4:25 PM, Seth Hillbrand wrote: >>>>>> On 2019-05-31 07:25, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/30/19 4:53 PM, Seth Hillbrand wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2019-05-30 15:00, jp charras wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 29/05/2019 à 21:31, Seth Hillbrand a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 2019-05-29 10:33, jp charras wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Attached a patch that modify the way filled areas (solid >>>>>>>>>>> polygons) >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> built in copper areas. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Currently, solid polygons are slightly smaller than the exact >>>>>>>>>>> area, and >>>>>>>>>>> the polygon outlines have a thickness to fill the exact area. >>>>>>>>>>> With this patch, polygon outlines have no thickness and the >>>>>>>>>>> polygons >>>>>>>>>>> have the exact area. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To test it on a given zone, the zone setting must be edited >>>>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>>>> "Fill polys without thick outline" checked. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi JP- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why did you decide to make this a user option? Is there some >>>>>>>>>> feature >>>>>>>>>> that it prevents that a user would want for some areas but not >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> others? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I tested it with a large board and it reduces the polygon point >>>>>>>>>> count by >>>>>>>>>> almost 50% (!) for complex fills. If I zoom in on an edge, it >>>>>>>>>> appears >>>>>>>>>> that the approximation count is substantially coarsened by the >>>>>>>>>> patch. >>>>>>>>>> See attached image. The edge on the right is with the new option >>>>>>>>>> enabled. The edge of the left is without the new option. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I didn't find any other issues. Large boards were much faster >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> DRC / >>>>>>>>>> plotting appear consistent between options (with the exception >>>>>>>>>> noted >>>>>>>>>> above) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Seth >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Seth for your test. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Currently, having a user option is useful to test and compare >>>>>>>>> the 2 >>>>>>>>> options (the current way, and the new way). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK. Makes sense. Instead of changing the board file, can we >>>>>>>> put the >>>>>>>> option in the advanced config file to enable our testing? It >>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>> nice to avoid changing the file format here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree that the board file format should not change for rendering >>>>>>> configuration. Please make this a user option. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi JP- >>>>>> >>>>>> Did you mean to push eb1faebf1? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Seth >>>>> >>>>> I thought this was not going to require any board file version >>>>> changes. >>>>> Did I miss something here? >>>>> >>>>> Wayne >>>>> >>>> >>>> Some clarification: >>>> >>>> I pushed some changes because maintaining my local branch against all >>>> changes in master branch was not always easy. >>> >>> I know keeping things rebased given the current development churn but >>> you should have held off committing the file format change before >>> committing the rest of the code that actually does anything with the >>> file format changes. How much longer before you merge the rest of the >>> changes? If it's going to be too long, we should probably revert your >>> initial commit. >> >> I'll commit the last change (in zone_filler) very soon. >> It is finalized on my computer and looks good. >> I just want to make more tests. >> >> Currently, the file format is not modified. >> ( changes are not yet enabled, because variables inside the code are >> fixed to a default value to use the current zone filled polygon way). >> >> When finalized, the new zone filling will be used only if the user >> activate it (until it become the default, after many tests) >> When not activated, the file format has no change. >> >> Commit eb1faebf1 prepares the change, but does not activate it. > > > Could we see and test what the changes are before they are committed? > I'm happy to use your launchpad branch if you could push it there. If > we are not making this a simple advanced config option, it would be > helpful to go over the details. > > > Best- > Seth >
I wouldn't mind doing some more testing as well given the complexity and potential issues with this change. Having a public repo to clone from would make life easier than patch sets given the amount of code changes. Wayne _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
