| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
KevL
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Aug 2010 : 18:05:51
|
1. There is a particular function in EPC which frequently causes me aggravation.
When clicking in the working area EPC will select the nearest object. Often (usually) this will not be the object I want to be selected. I might want to move a track so am trying to select the node of a track so that I can drag it etc. Or I might want to draw a box around an area to select multiple items.
Doing either of these things often results in an object I didn't want selected being dragged about etc. Requiring an unneeded edit undo type command sequence.
I have found no way to turn off this annoying characteristic.
Maybe there is a check box or a setting somwhere but I havent found it????
Am I alone in wanting a checkbox somewhere to stop EPC randomly selecting stuff?
A fix to this (if it inded considered a problem generally) would be to have a slider in the options dialog which allows the range over which the "random select most inconvenient primitive function" selects the nearest object. I'd set mine to mimimum or zero.
2. Why is deleting a via in EPC such a pain?
When tracking, sometimes a via on a routed tracked becomes redundant. I simply want to delete it. I dont want the whole carefully placed track to go with it.
First one has to unprotect the via. Then put a new track stub from the via to somewhere near by. Then delete the track (which then takes out the via). Only in this way can I actually delete the via and leave the pre-existing tracking in place (else simply deleting the via takes out the whole track). Surely there is a better way???
3. There is a mode in PCB layout (set in options menu) which warns me when I have duplicate connectivity. This might be becuase I'm tidying up connection to a pad and rather than try to drag tracks I decide its easier to just draw a new track section and delete the old offending section - this is oft the case when editing track which connect to off grid pads. If the function is set in annoying warn mode then it moans at me when I try to do this. Obviously some very clever algorithm is at work noting the duplicate connectivity. Rather than moan at me could it not default (or be made to default by another option in the menu) to simply deleting the old connectivity leaving my newly added duplicate track in place? This would be a timesaver.
4. Many text reports (e.g library manager item reports) produce text which is garbled by virtue of the text output making assumptions about component name string length. I think 30 characters are allowed as names but the reports assume fewer characters (maybe 20). This results in output which is imposible to parse with external tools. This should be trivial to fix. Maybe you could add an option to produce CSV reports - which is the ideal format for external tools to process. As it stands we have to hand edit the data to use it. Wastes hours.
Kev
|
Edited by - KevL on 14 Aug 2010 01:51:02 |
|
|
DavidM
United Kingdom
458 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2010 : 12:00:49
|
1) I'm not sure why it should be "randomly selecting stuff". The selection code should be picking based on finding a direct hit on an item under the cursor, or the first suitable item within close proximity of the cursor. Unless I've misunderstood what you are saying, I guess what you are looking for is a method of adjusting the 'range' or 'sensitivity' of the picking?
2) There is a checkbox on the Preferences dialog for 'delete attached tracks' but unfortunately this doesn't work for vias because they are currently treated as an integral part of the tracking. But I can see why it would in some situations be good if you could remove the via and leave the 'dangling' tracks, so I have now logged this on our enhancement database.
3) Another enhancement required here, something like 'Remove Loop' or 'Remove Duplicate'. Again, now logged on the database.
4) Again logged as an enhancement. Some reports could be generated through the user-formatted report scheme, but others (like the library report) require access to information that is not currently available through that reporting module. Looks like an overhaul of all reporting mechanism would be required to open it up to things like CSV output. |
 |
|
|
KevL
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2010 : 12:21:29
|
1. It has always done this. Pulsonix does it too. It is not really random (to it). It really is selecting the nearest item. But IMO that range is far too great. If you use EPC at speed and can go 5mins without accidently selecting and dragging some un-intended part then you are very lucky. Fix would be to make range of "feature" smaller and or user adjustable (to zero).
4. This is a bug. Though enhancing the report formatting would fix it. If max length of strings is 30 chars and report assumes (say) 20 then this is a bug. CSV output would be an enhancement. If you were adding enhancements then consider also allowing CSV in and out of every instance of that ideosyncratic grid of yours with inclusion of a suitable keyfield as column 1.
|
Edited by - KevL on 18 Aug 2010 12:22:17 |
|
|
|
DavidM
United Kingdom
458 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2010 : 12:37:59
|
1) would be interesting to hear if any others reading this also have the same issue, I can't see why it would only be you but also cannot recall this coming up before. Does sound like it would need a 'sensitivity' slider for picking.
4) okay, its a fair cop. Some of the builtin reports do this, they calculate the longest value in any column and allow space for it, so it sounds like at the very least we need to make all our reports do this. |
|
|
|
KevL
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2010 : 13:43:53
|
1. It has come up before. When we used Pulsonix, some years ago, my colleagues and I moaned repeatedly about this issue.
It happens more often when moving and clicking quickly.
K
|
Edited by - KevL on 18 Aug 2010 13:44:32 |
|
|
|
Peter Johnson
United Kingdom
498 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 10:03:54
|
I can see where you're coming from here, but it's not really random. It selects based on the type of item last selected, then only if matching items are not within range will it select the nearest item.
You are probably aware of using the <Alt> key with a left click to select the next nearest alternative, but there's also <N> which selects all items sequentially within a slightly larger radius.
The problem with the vias is that they are protected. There's an option under [View], [Display] to highlight protected vias in a different colour.
That would warn you which ones were affected, so you could remove protected status from the via properties before changing track layer. The via would then 'go quietly'. |
|
|
|
KevL
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2010 : 11:58:00
|
quote:
I can see where you're coming from here, but it's not really random. It selects based on the type of item last selected, then only if matching items are not within range will it select the nearest item.
I suspected there was some algorithmic determinism involved but.... rather than selecting nearest item could it not (by means of a tickbox in preferences) simply not bother selecting nearest after failing to find an in range item of same type as previously selected?
Worst case I would have to reclick again but at least this would avoid dragging random items about the place. I'm sure I cant be the only one to find this behaviour (in what is otherwise a fine editor) a serious pain.
Kev |
|
|
|
AndyB
United Kingdom
208 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2016 : 10:34:47
|
I also agree on the accuracy of the selection via pointer needs looking into.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
EPC annoyances