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/[email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
