Bevan:

> Not to discourage you, but I think some of the best minds in the
> industry have been working on autorouters for 20 years and we have 'what
> we have.' If you can single-handedly come out with an autorouter that

Phooey on that.  Bevan, I encourage you in your autorouter development
quest.  PCB design has changed a lot in the last 20 years.  Maybe some of
the "traditional" algorithms don't work so well as they once did.  Maybe you
can discover something new.  Maybe a simple algorithm will work better.
Given the huge speed increases in modern PCs, maybe it's like a chess
problem - you can consider more moves (routes) ahead if you have more
computing power.

Lots of tech advances have occurred because someone said "I think I can do
it better than these folks who have been doing it for 20 years..."

Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website:  www.bagotronix.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT: DIY: autorouter


> Not to discourage you, but I think some of the best minds in the
> industry have been working on autorouters for 20 years and we have 'what
> we have.' If you can single-handedly come out with an autorouter that
> performs better than what's out there, you will certainly become famous
> / rich / etc. Someone will scoop your code up and integrate it, but for
> some funny reason, I just don't see that occuring.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bevan Weiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 4:35 AM
> > To: Protel EDA Forum
> > Subject: [PEDA] OT: DIY: autorouter
> >
> >
> > Hi guys,
> > I've been doing some research on the kinds of things to
> > improve the autorouter (as per the desire to create my own).
> > I've come up with some stuff that I'd like to bounce off ya's.
> >
> > Using a path-finding algorithm which assigns weights to
> > various directions to travel (ie assuming that only 45deg
> > angles are allowed, does anyone have a reason this isn't
> > valid??)  The default weighting would be to head towards the
> > target pin (closest of the set), however if a large obstacle
> > (ie dense gathering of wires) exists in the default path,
> > then the algorithm would start to look at ways around the
> > blockage, ie either using a via in which case you just
> > perform the same operations on a different layer, or by going
> > around the blockage.  Weightings would be assigned to either
> > of these (based on a static disadvantage for a via), if the
> > side-track distance exceeds the disadvantage for the via
> > however, then the via would be generated.
> >
> > The algorithm would take a single step forward (ie a single
> > node point) for each connection pair, and then loop around
> > and do the connection pairs again.  I imagine that this would
> > allow for better compromises to be made however other
> > opinions on this are welcome.
> >
> > Just an update,
> > Thanks for your time,
> > Bevan Weiss


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to