I had to search a bit for that.
It has gotten a bit more complicated in KiCad-nightly V5.99 because the thickness of wires is not a constant. Thickness and and color of connection wires can be coupled with netclasses so you can for example use thicker wires (or a darker shade) for power and GND wires.
So I experimented a bit with the Junction dot size you found.
For me it did not do anything at first either.
Then I placed some new wires and made junction dots, and these new junction dots do change when this new setting is adjusted.
In the screenshot below, there are three new junction dots on the left that respond to the Junction dot size setting. Then a big junction dot I set to â500 milsâ manually. Next to that and south of D485 a junction dot I manually set to a size of â0â, which now also scales with the setting above, and then a selected (light blue circle) junction dot, south of D486, and itâs properties show itâs (default) size of â36 milsâ. Iâm guessing that all junction dots imported from older schematics inherit the fixed junction dot size they had in the old project.
With this you can set all junction dots (Or use the filters in the upper right corner) either to some fixed value, or set them to âautoâ by setting their size to â0â.
Setting all junction dots to â6000 milsâ pretty much obliterates the schematic:
You can set them bigger, but if I go over â12000 milsâ then they cover the border on all sides of the paper and you loose any reference of scale.
I just tried: Setup/ General/ Formatting/ Junction dot size and up came six preset sizes from ânoneâ to âlargestâ when you place a new junction dot anywhere.
Well, Iâve been a bit more brief this time around the topic. I agree that there should be an âunconnected End Indicator Size Optionâ in the preferences for the EDA display options. But, this is a seperate issue from Junction Dots being printed on a paper schematic.
Yes I have thisâŚbut simply changing the setting has no immediate effect upon the junction dots which are already in the schematic. AlsoâŚmy version is from August but the âEdit Text & Graphic Propertiesâ Dialog Box does not include anything for Junction Size.
A common problem for new user who make the mistake of changing to a fine schematic grid.
With four wire junctions, you never are sure that one of them is not really connected, which is why I avoid them
Iâve found changing the junction size by âschematic setupâ changes the size of all the dots of the file I have been working on with 5.99 instantly, but doesnât change the dots on the same page that were imported from 5.1.10
Iâll download the current 5.99 tonight and do some more experimenting tomorrow. Something doesnât seem right.
EESchema-LIBRARY Version 2.4
#encoding utf-8
#
# xover: cross-over/tunnel/hop/gap
#
DEF xover ~ 0 0 N N 1 F N
F 0 "Y" 50 50 50 H I L CNN "Reference"
F 1 "?" 50 -50 50 H I L CNN "Value"
F 6 "R" -50 50 50 H I R CNN "Spice_Primitive"
F 4 "0" -50 -50 50 H I R CNN "Spice_Model"
DRAW
# arc/hop
A 0 0 50 900 -900 001 01 +00 N
X 1 1 0 100 50 D 50 50 001 01 P ~
X 2 2 0 -100 50 U 50 50 001 01 P ~
# straight line
X 1 1 0 100 100 D 50 50 001 02 P ~
X 2 2 0 -100 100 U 50 50 001 02 P ~
# gap
X 1 1 0 100 50 D 50 50 001 03 P ~
X 2 2 0 -100 50 U 50 50 001 03 P ~
ENDDRAW
ENDDEF
#
# tee: T-junction
#
DEF tee ~ 0 0 N N 1 F N
F 0 "Y" 50 50 50 H I L CNN "Reference"
F 1 "?" 50 -50 50 H I L CNN "Value"
F 6 "X" -50 50 50 H I R CNN "Spice_Primitive"
F 4 "tee" -50 -50 50 H I R CNN "Spice_Model"
DRAW
# T
X 1 1 0 100 100 D 50 50 001 00 P ~
X 2 2 0 -100 100 U 50 50 001 00 P ~
X 3 3 100 0 100 L 50 50 001 00 P ~
# additional dot
C 0 0 20 001 02 -02 F
ENDDRAW
ENDDEF
#
#End Library
I agree with this point. While perhaps not needed on paper I agree they play a major role (for me) in drawing the schematic on a CAD program. And in my opinion they are fine in the printed media as well.
Previously when I said the dots were superfluous to knowing the âTâ type connections are actually connected. I didnât mean to suggest they are âbadâ, just that the âTâ connections in inherently obvious.
Im genuinely surprised to see the vehement opposition to a display only feature that based on community feedback would clearly be set to the current style by default if it was implemented. There are clearly old manuals that say hop-overs are a way to show line crossings. And most of the hate here seems to be about the dots vs no dots for joins⌠which wasnât (originally at least) the question.
For me at least the passion I showed for a particular approach is me trying to communicate those things Iâve learned working with schematics over the years.
Not so much these days of digital communications but when a schematic is copied a few times (perhaps a phone photo of a phone photo) the fine details of the schematic start to disappear.
here are clearly old manuals that say hop-overs are a way to show line crossings.
Yes and weâve learned since then.
seems to be about the dots vs no dots for joins⌠which wasnât (originally at least) the question.
Correct, however the alternate to hop overs are dots or no dots.
Keep in mind this forum is a mix of hobbyists and professionals and KiCad developers are aiming toward professional PCB design. So adding a non industry standard feature is not in their charter.
Definitely a fair point. And as someone who is a bit of a standards junkie I know how non-obvious the professional way to do things can be, and I donât really have any opinion on the professionalism angle as a non-professional when it comes to electronic circuit designâŚ
However I do find it unintuitive based on years of work designing flowcharts/diagrams of all types as a professional software developer (and personal non work note taking too) where things like clearly unambiguously crossing lines has lead to widespread use of bridges and hops in diagraming, as opposed to having simple cross and dot join styles and even at the extremes to paradigms like that of the DRAKON visual programming language where lines cannot ever cross.
The notion that âthere is one wayâ to visually show an arrangement of lines that both join physically and cross visually in a way that does not represent physical joining feels honestly a little silly after using literally dozens of diagraming tools over the years to produce everything from basic Visio flowcharts to ISO certification related UML diagrams. There may be industry conventions⌠but that doesnât make having more options a bad thing as long as its a visual option client side that has no effect on the file structure, I genuinely donât see any harm at all. Its like how some fonts are better for dyslexia, sometimes its good to have options that may be better for the end user to help them understand, even if it looks less professional (because most of the dyslexic friendly fonts look kinda like a shaking hand drawing Comic Sans)
Of course, but in KiCad domain you should think differently. You have limited man-power to work on KiCad development. Should you use that power to add such extra option important (?) for probably less than 1% of users or should you use that power for something more useful for bigger % of users.
For example for me is very important to have a possibility to hide GND (and sometimes VCC) net connection lines during placement. Seeing only connections you will have to route helps a lot to find the best arrangement for footprints on board.
So I am happy it will be in V6. I think adding the feature of selecting colors for connection lines and hiding selected ones could need the same amount of work as adding option for hop overs.
And the other point. You spend 5âŚ10% time in designing schematic and rest in designing PCB. So if you can improve schematic or PCB design tool it is more useful for users to improve PCB.
as long as its a visual option client side that has no effect on the file structure, I genuinely donât see any harm at all. Its like how some fonts are better for dyslexia, sometimes its good to have options that may be better for the end user to help them understand, even if it looks less professional (because most of the dyslexic friendly fonts look kinda like a shaking hand drawing Comic Sans)