I was mistified a bit by your wide clearance, untill I saw the text:
Maximum: 250V 1A 100W
You can also make the clearances visible. This is quite common in PCB programs, but not often used because it adds even more clutter to the board.
In KiCad V5.1 you can enable it with:
I just did a simple test, and re-loaded the BobZ’s original upload, then:
1). Click on the 45 degree segment and delete it.
2). Click on “auto track width” icon to enable it.
3). Re-draw the 45 degree segment on the same location.
4). DRC check, and it flags the same errors.
After that I removed the inner 4 fat segments ob Bob’s design, and re-drew it from left to right. There are now 3 “Track ends too close” and one “Track too close to pad” DRC errors.
On other attepts the Interactive router pushed the other things aside and layed the track witout DRC errors, as I have come to expect from KiCad, but this time it did draw tracks with violation to DRC and it looks like a bug.
Some time ago I was updating a PCB from a minimum track widht of 0.25mm to 0.3mm, which caused about 200 DRC errors.
Once those errors were created I had trouble with dragging the tracks apart to conform again to the DRC rules.
I have read that but please look at the image which I sent. I do not see that link anywhere. I think I need a screen shot showing me where this link is.
The bug tracker will check to see if there are similar bugs based on the summary. If one of them looks like yours, then follow step 3 above.
If not, click “No, I need to report a new bug”
In the “Further information” text box, please describe the steps to recreate the bug. If the bug is subtle, please describe both the expected behavior as well as the actual behavior.
That does not tell me to go back to the main page. It tells me to click on the upper right after searching for bug already existing. That is what I did.
I’m sorry that Launchpad is confusing. You are definitely not the first person to run into issues with it! I appreciate your keeping at it to help out with the report.
The screenshot you posted looks like you are at https://bugs.launchpad.net . This is the main Launchpad site. To report a new KiCad bug, you’ll need to navigate to https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad (Note the extra ‘kicad’ at the end).
I am thinking that (what would appear to be) an easy way to solve my immediate issue would be a revision of the instructions at “How to report a bug”. I realize now that my initial bug search came up empty, and that resulting page is probably different from finding possible matches. That is the situation which is addressed in the instructions.
Also recently I have come to rely almost exclusively on this forum. If I had looked at “Help>about” it provides the link to report a bug, aside from searching first. But I am sympathetic to the idea of searching before originating a new bug.
Searching first helps but only if you experiment around with the search term. If you only enter your planned bug title then you can skip that step as the same test is done automatically anyways as part of the bug report step.
Thanks Rene. Actually I have learned that the search within this forum seems to work surprisingly well. Usually not much need to play with the search terms. So I was expecting similar from the bug search. Anyway it is useful to keep in mind that the page for reporting a bug covers the search also. My question is whether the " How can I help improve KiCad?" page on this forum should be revised?
The search on launchpad works quite well. The problem is that reporters do not always use the best possible title nor description (and there are fewer guys around that fix titles afterwards)
I tend to search for single key words at launchpad and then manually go through the results to see if anything can fit.
I see Rene already dropped a link on launchpad back to this thread. I also tend to do this because this forum often has screenshots with explanations with more background info about a bug.
Even if the bug has been fixed by now, I don’t want to update in the middle of a project. Hope the following is useful to somebody in a similar position.
I worked around this issue by heading to Design Rules > Design Rules and increasing all clearances by 0.01 mm. So my default clearance of 0.20 mm is now 0.21 mm. I keep my grid at 0.1 mm, so tracks that would be just slightly too close are now forced a small distance apart due to my grid spacing.
Yes, a few tracks have to be shuffled around to get rid of real DRC errors now, but at least the interactive router doesn’t play these games any more. If the interactive router says the tracks will touch, DRC agrees. If the router says they won’t touch, DRC agrees there too. The grid simply won’t allow the traces to get too close anymore.
