Hierarchical Sheets - waste of time


#21

That’s OK isn’t it? Isn’t that like saying, you have to use the track command to draw a track? It won’t stop the file from displaying properly…no functionality will be lost. You just won’t see it unless “hierarchical=true”.
This is like General Settings->Options box - Show Ratsnest. I mean my god where has the ratsnest gone…oh tick the box.
OK fine default it to use hierarchical on loading, and the user can always set the preference for that session.


#22

A better more flexible approach is defined in the bugreport linked above. It asks for allowing multiple pages inside every hierarchical sheet (or level).

So a flat schematic would then simply be multiple pages on the level of the root hierarchical level.

No need to add a hack like you suggest. It even allows for more powerful hierarchical stuff that your suggestion simply does not fulfil.


#23

Yes, that’d be useful. No idea though on how to represent this in the Sheet Navigator.


#24

Perhaps we need to use icons to differentiate. Folders for the hierarchical levels, sheets for the contents of that level. (spit-balling here)


#25

Yeah I read the bug report. I thought that option was over kill. But then I am pretty happy with the current set up and using global nets and ignoring the root sheet.
Can’t believe you call it a hack.:sob:


#26

While I agree with Wayne’s statement, I think he’s misusing heat. I don’t use it to tell us what’s popular (ie: as in voting for a feature), but rather what issues are impacting a wide swath of our “customer” base. It’s then up to us to come up with good solutions (which may or may not match the original request).

But I’ve also got a personal interest in this one. :wink:


#27

It would also be nice if the end net location grid/s, as in A1 or/and C4, was auto added and updated as the net locations were changed on the following sheets.


#28

I’m a little bit surprised that this functionality has taken this long in time to be seriously considered.

All that is being asked is to make the display and print sizes match.

For example, start a project and make it size “USLetter 8.5X11in”. Put some parts in the schematic to represent what will fit in the page. Then change the size to E 34x44in and check out what happens!

There is plenty of “drawing space” for same level sheets already available, it just is not yet clearly defined.

Take the largest size “paper size” and convert it into a grid of smaller paper sizes that match the the user “paper size” and assign each square a number for viewing and printing purposes.

NOTE: I only take this approach due to what appears to already be coded in KiCad. This hack should only change what the user sees on the screen and make it appear there are many sheets on the same hierarchical level.


#29

35 years ago I was hand drawing complex schematics on a single A0 sheet. Not the ideal way looking back.


#30

33 Years ago I joined the USAF.

Would anyone think that an A0 sheet, at 33.11 x 46.81 inches in size would be carried out onto the flightline with jet engines running? …it would be like flying a kite every time!

There is more than one method to shrink the information on complex schematics that require more than one dinky page to convey that information.


#31

Hierarchical sheets are good when you have the same circuit and need to replicate it.

BUT - for most o the stuff i do, i don’t need them - I just need different sheets for stuff like i/o, devices, CPU, etc. It is irritating to be forced to create the hierarchical sheet, then have it complain and force me to make it non-hierarchical.

Not to mention it has a problem with the inability to have a bus (say 0…7) and the inability to have the same hierarchical sheet and pass in only a part of the bus (eg [0…3] and [4…7] to different copies of the same sheet).


#32

< Hierarchical sheets are good when you have the same circuit and need to replicate it.

That’s called “Design for Reuse”. Design it once and reuse it over and over again

<BUT - for most o the stuff i do, i don’t need them - I just need different sheets for stuff like i/o, <devices, CPU, etc. It is irritating to be forced to create the hierarchical sheet, then have it complain <and force me to make it non-hierarchical.

True you only need one power supply per project but if you do five projects you may want to have them all use the same supply. Design once, use five times.

<Not to mention it has a problem with the inability to have a bus (say 0…7) and the inability to have <the same hierarchical sheet and pass in only a part of the bus (eg [0…3] and [4…7] to different copies <of the same sheet).

First of all I do not understand the (0:7) bus people. That is like letting a town change its roads to drive on the left for a single neighborhood. Nothing good can come from it.

Partial busses are easy All you need are parameters. Design once and use in many other different configurations.

The main reason we need hierarchy is that you always want to test everything that you design so that you will always need a testbench. Your design simply becomes a hierarchical block under its testbench

John Eaton


#33

That’s called “Design for Reuse”. Design it once and reuse it over and over again

I copy the sheet to the new design.
I am lazy.
I am also an old fart with lots of bitter experience and bunches of tricks to save me from repeating myself when not needed.

First of all I do not understand the (0:7) bus people. That is like letting a town change its roads to drive on the left for a single neighborhood. Nothing good can come from it.

Maybe I was doing it wrong. My situation:
I have a large connector to a large external bus, all of the same signal type. The interface chips are 4 channels each. I tried having a common bus [0:11] from the connector, then branching off the bus three times of 4 lines each [0:3] [4:7] [8:11] to three copies of the same hierarchical sheet for the same interface chip. I tried a number of things, but only [0:3] would tie to its sheet. The others were ignored or otherwise would not connect.
I finally created one sheet with three i/f chips and threw out the hierarchical sheet.

The main reason we need hierarchy is that you always want to test everything that you design so that you will always need a testbench. Your design simply becomes a hierarchical block under its testbench

There are plenty of ways of doing this without the need for the hierarchical sheets. You seem to think the hierarchical names are the only way to do things.

bandit