Simply put,“4 way connections” and “junction dots” are almost 30 years outdated in modern printed schematics; they may well be currently used in EDA tools (but they do not have to be).
I am okay with not using junction points but what is the alternative?
I know that labelling each node with like words makes a connection, but I find that just as annoying trying to look around a schematic for the matching points. For the person building it, that is one thing but the person using it, it is another. What are the alternatives.
Can you point out where you seen this? I would go over it again before I am ready to transfer to PCB to make sure everything is 100%. I just want to know I am on the right track.
If you followed from the beginning, you would find that this is a pass-thru board or a junction board. The other half of the connector is attached to physical components through the other half of the connector. There is a reason why I am doing it this way but that has nothing to do with this schematic.
Alternative for four way joint is two 3-way joints
|
---+---+-----
|
It may be almost 30 years old but I am almost double that so I go with what I know. I am learning this very quickly and am like a sponge to learn new ways so teach me as we go and I will pick it up.
What is the benefit as opposed to a 4-way joint?
I will not point it all out, but for example near J3B, the FL_FEED is not correctly placed, there are a small square box before the text (or bottom of the text).
1 Like
Up to you… I have not opposed for 4 way joint.
I don’t think I am ready to go from start to finish in 5 minutes. Seems like having sex without foreplay. I need to learn just as I am learning now. Slowly but surely. Lots of good information in these posts but thank you for the video. I had seen it already.
Good luck to this reason, I have no idea how would you actually doing the layout with this approach!
I got them. Thanks for pointing them out. I had checked them earlier and then made some changes and wanted to get it back on before everyone left the forum for the night. I would have gone back and triple checked everything before I was finished.
See the pictures above of actual boards that I have. I am doing something similar to that.
I understand what you need, and your board very very simple and your approach just not sound to me…
So what would you do differently?
For example, J1B, you can just pick the symbol that only have 1 unit, and 2 pins to use. So this would help KiCad understand , and help you map it to the footprint later…
Is this part of your schematic readable to YOU?
Nothing has changed.
I thought this was one symbol with two pins. Hence CONN_01x02_Male.
Am I wrong?
Earlier I posted a picture of the schematic I had without the wires and then I am told to label it. So I labelled it. Do I like it? Not necessarily. I am listening to a few people and as mentioned earlier, everyone is going to be different. I am just doing as told right now until I figure everything out for myself? I don’t understand the benefit of having vs not having labels.
You may not be wrong. But where is the “B” come from? KiCad reserve it for symbol/part that have multiple drawing… But if that “B” are manually enter by you, then never mind you are fine. But is it not a KiCad typical way (still work).
What “B” are you referring to? The B in the connector? If so, that is me. I called the female side of it J1A and then male side J1B. Make sense?