I wonder whether this has been suggested and/or is planned as a feature for upcoming releases; I think it goes well with the general theme of teardrops (although not at all the same purpose).
Let’s explain by showing what the problem is: I’m routing a track that carries VDD, so I want it as thick as possible. This detail always annoys me:
I’m referring to what happens when the track connects to the target pad, where it goes past the pad’s area. At this thickness, it is still DRC-compliant; but if it was a bit thicker (which, no reason why I wouldn’t want to make it as thick as the longer dimension of pin 16), then it would get too close or even cover pin 15. If I manually retract the track to make it fit, then these also-annoying things happen:
I retracted it further back than necessary, to make the issue more obvious. The two things are: the weird angle (and narrower contact width) at the contact between the track and the pad; and also, the DRC now complains (since it sees the track’s endpoint as not connected to the pad — I would claim that this is a bug, independent of this situation; but I don’t want to go there in this post)
The feature request: wouldn’t it be great that I simply go ahead and, regardless of the track’s thickness (assuming that it fits within the longer pad’s dimension), I just go ahead and move the cursor and make it snap to the pad’s center, and just click and have KiCAD produce the following?
Just like that: the track’s endpoint gets confined to the pad’s area, connecting properly, right-angles at the contact between the track and the pad, etc.
I should be able to get that even if the track’s width matches the longer pad’s dimension:
And BTW, in all cases, it should also work if I start the track at the pad.
If this has not been suggested and is not being planned: anyone with me on this view/opinion?