Missing fundamental features

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hey,
I'm using your software since V1. So I'd first of all like to say thank you. 
There are others but this one is my favorite. ...especially V2 was..
I don't want photorealistic components confusing my eyes, but a clear layout..

Now here comes what I'm missing in V3 (most important on top):

1. Be able to show text (value/name) of standing components
1b. Move value/name (like in V2)

 ...how to identify standing components on printouts etc.??

2. Import/Merge a file into the project
3. rotate a selection
3b. free rotation-angles?!?

The rest of the list is not that important I think (and not ordered):

4. Link drawing to a netlist or something
5. If you move a selection with "sticky points" some points will be ripped off 
instead of the component changing shape.
6. The component-cables are a bit too dark. There is not enough contrast to the 
"copper-layer". The component-cable-color should change with the 
copper-trace-color, maybe..
7. Diode: "Reverse (standing)" is very confusing!!! And can lead to nasty 
layout-bugs.
-Because it only reverses the diode when standing. And because it changes 
polarity & orientation (only if it stands). Instead it sould change place as 
well. Like "(o)=" -> "=(x)" ("x/o"= the two sides of the diode) so that the 
orientation remains the same...

8. Please make the colorcode on the resistors optional!!! Sometimes it's better 
to not have it (to me numbers suffice). 
8a. ..and I liked the shape of the resistors in V2..

..oh and please don't update the java-version "just for fun", since this 
software still works on my old-but-not-obsolete machine with this 
java-version...

Anyways thank you!

Original issue reported on code.google.com by pen...@web.de on 6 Oct 2012 at 4:02

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for suggestions. I agree with some stuff, here's what I'm not sure:

* labels on standing components - there's no place to draw over the component 
and I can't guess where to put (top, left, bottom, right, or somewhere else)
* controlling label position...that's handy but what annoyed the cr*p out of me 
in v2 is that there's no easy way of moving a label control point while you 
move one of your end points, so label stays potentially far from the body.
* what do you mean by component-cables?
* Reverse (standing) - I don't know, maybe it would be clearer to reverse the 
diode but not polarity. I'm not sure what you're suggesting

there are no plans for java update btw

Original comment by bancika@gmail.com on 6 Oct 2012 at 4:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Maybe this is a solution for both the label-position and the lable itself:
One could set these parameters in the components properties. What comes to my 
mind first is setting the position with an angle and a radius from the center 
of the component. So generally it isn't directly related to the grid.
That means one can't move it with the mouse, but it really belongs to the 
component.
And even more one could make someting like "add (another) label", if it's in 
the properties. ...but I don't know how many labels one needs...

Or the label can always be moved freely relative to the body (w. mouse!), or at 
least it doesn't snap to grid. It did in V2 if you reactivate "snap to grid". 

To me this is the most important thing, because if there's no nothing, how can 
I identify a standing component? Without a label a standing component is just a 
colored circle with a line... :)

Sorry I didn't get this: What do you mean by "moving a label control point 
while you move one of your end points".
I just gave it a try in V2. The standing resistor has only one label-point, one 
end-point and the body. And everything is relative to the body and can be moved 
freely (if it doesn't already stick to a point or you deactivate "sticky 
points")
Do you want the label to be far away from the body? ..or why does it??

With "component-cables" I meant the legs/wires to the component.
Btw. the transistor(s) could have some as well.. (not only the endpoints)

To me the wire-color is to dark. What's that, a dark blue? Why not give them an 
outline as well?! Something like a light/dark outline and a dark/light inside..
So that one can see (at least something of) it on any underground.

Btw. is it wanted, that they don't become transparent as well?

The diode-stuff: I just would like to have it that way that it is not possible 
to accidently reverse a diode.
Lets say current flows from A to B (and this should be a standing diode with a 
leg: [(o)=], "x/o": the two sides of the diode):
Now it is like "[A]-[(x)=]-[B]" -> "[B]-[(o)=]-[A]", but it should rather be 
"[A]-[(x)=]-[B]" -> "[A]-[=(o)]-[B]", so that the current still can flow in the 
same direction circuitwise.

Imagine you open an old project that you have to rearrange. You pull here and 
there and make a standing diode lay down, but then you don't know if it is the 
right direction since it's only affected while it is standing, as it is now.

Oh and I got another one: Sometimes (out of space-reasons or laziness) one just 
calls every resistor of the same type "R" and tells later on that "all R=50k" 
or something. But this can not be done so easily here. On the one hand, if I 
just name them "R" one gets lots of Rs in the BOM-list and the 
"component-name-autocount" (usually really handy) restarts counting, so one 
always has to rename it on copy/paste etc.. On the other hand I can't "hack" 
the value for this since only numbers are allowed there (and it adds a "k" or 
something or ohms)

Oh and yet another one..: Sometimes a variable fontsize is really useful, (eg. 
when displaying labels ;) )

Oh or what's about switching the visibility of individual layers on/off?! Would 
include "exporting the coppertrace" and more. Maybe someone only wants eg. the 
components in some situations, who knows why..

Ohhh...and something else: Sometimes if I open some properties and change the 
color, after the color-window is closed, the properties-dialog disappears ,like 
if it was behind the mainwindow. ...it is... I just tested it.. And nothing 
reacts on mouseclicks. I just can switch to another window and back again to 
make it appear in the front again (cause the mainwindow usually is bigger, and 
properties seem to appear in its center), or hit "enter" or "esc" to return to 
the mainwindow..

...this really is a wishlist and not a worklist... :)

Original comment by pen...@web.de on 7 Oct 2012 at 1:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

re: selecting all resistors, just go to toolbox and right click on component 
type you want to select.

Original comment by bancika@gmail.com on 7 Oct 2012 at 8:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

re: component lead color- yes, it's blue with darker blue outline. Just give me 
hex codes of outline and lead colors and I'll change. I agree they are weird, 
but I'm no good with colors :)

Original comment by bancika@gmail.com on 7 Oct 2012 at 8:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks, this "selecting all resistors" is really nice. Is it possible to select 
more than one type at once?? ..like while holding the shift-key or what?!

I've found another oddity. At least I didn't understand it, maybe there is more 
I didn't recognize:
When you "draw" a component, you can use the right mousebutton as well for 
placing the connection-points. (Intuitively right mousebutton would be the same 
as "esc", for me)
Well sometimes! The point will only be placed if you press down a button, move 
the mouse, and release it. Clicking on the same spot will not work.

Lead-color: Personally I just use black for copper-traces, but as one can see 
on your frontpage, some people change its color. And that's the problem.
So finding a color for the leads might not be so easy. (..if you don't want 
pink..)
I really don't know how hard it is to implement, but I'd say one needs a 
dynamic coloring. So eg. if you connect a lead to a black trace it will become 
black (or 'blackish') as well, and if you have red traces it will become 
red(ish) itself.
So that trace- and lead-color are always closely related. This would even make 
sense, since leads are just the extensions of the traces, so why not have more 
or less the same color..
To be a little more concrete: Imagine a black trace, if you connect some lead 
to it, its fillcolor will become that one of the trace, and the outlinecolor 
will be (A)) someting like black, or (B)) white/ a complementary color.
(B)) would result in a better contrast and one can be relatively shure that one 
can see it on every underground, but maybe it's too much, idk..
This is what I found at first glance (w. hexcodes etc):
 http://serennu.com/colour/rgbtohsl.php

I got one more little issue: Could you change the shape of either the R or the 
axial C?! They appear to be the same, and that's not cool...:) eg. something 
like "round corners" for the resistors. ..cause they do have in real life...
And a second one: The (folded) transostor "TO-92" has no leads, the "TO-220" 
does.
And a third one: Could you add more leads to the "TO-220" since there are 
components like integrated amps with more than 3 legs. For now I abuse the IC 
for it, by making it flat and ignoring the second row of legs (as I did in V2).

But, to me, in contrast to the missing label of standing components, all these 
issues are just peanuts.

Ps. How did I think it wasn't possible to deactivate the resistors colorcode?!? 
It is since a long time appearently...

Original comment by pen...@web.de on 8 Oct 2012 at 4:44

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I don't necessarily agree with dynamic coloring. Why would you want black leads 
on black trace? You can't tell where trace ends and where component begins. 
I've never seen a layout drawn in every software that has black component leads.
For now, I'll make leads light gray and will make them editable, so everyone 
can set their own preference...

Original comment by bancika@gmail.com on 9 Oct 2012 at 10:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The leads should still have an outline. Sothat one can distinguish lead and 
trace from another.. But I'd say the fillcolor should be quite the same as the 
tracecolor.
At least if you take two colors it is impossible that it can vanish in front of 
an inappropriate background. And you won't have something like a connection if 
two leads overlap - with an outline per lead one still can say that they don't 
belog together even if they overlap.

Just for an impression I have attached a file with "simulations of" dynamic 
leadcolor and text for standing components w. dropshadows. Maybe dropshadows 
are a solution for labels that are bigger than the component itself.. (w. 
dropshadow: again two-color-principles)

Original comment by pen...@web.de on 9 Oct 2012 at 3:42

Attachments:

• designtst1.diy

[GoogleCodeExporter]

IMO Leads look way too similar to the trace, I find it to be confusing.

Original comment by bancika@gmail.com on 10 Oct 2012 at 8:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Just a thought that would make labeling and everything much less of a bitch...

Have an option to force components to lay flat... even if in the real world 
there was no way they would fit flat... makes for easy labeling and looks a 
hell of a lot better...

If we are reading and making our own vero I think we can see in real life when 
something is going to be a stand resistor or not.

Original comment by ArkAngel...@gmail.com on 6 Nov 2012 at 6:16