Jumpers:
It’s not clear what the jumpers are trying to communicate here. Are they connections that can be made after the board is made with the intention of selecting different options.
If this is the case they should not be placed on top of other lines. Just like you wouldn’t put a resistor symbol on top of a trace.
Or are they some suggestion that when the board is layed out these connection will be made by wire jumpers. In which case they shouldn’t be on the schematic.
Hop Over:
I guess I got caught up in the way I’ve done things for years, which is based on readability after a few generations of copier copies.
I will admit the hop over is a valid method of drawing diagrams / schematics etc. If drawn to be obvious under less that perfect copies.
However the example in post # 60 is a little too small IMHO. I realize it was drawn to show an example, however if this was a C size schematic reduced to a B or A size paper the hop over would be easily missed.
I will not consider a connection where two lines cross is ever a good idea. Regardless of a dot or not.
Please understand, my suggestion or desired method has little to do with my personal preference, but is the result of years of working with less than perfect reproductions of schematics from many sources.
I’ve received schematics which had:
copier artifacts
folds in areas paralleling connection lines.
Copies that didn’t fit in the available media and was printed on multiple smaller pages. And not always at the best area of the schematic.
As someone that works in a certain industry, and has to deal with Skydrol getting onto paperwork, these are valid concerns. However any duplication (a printout etc) is classed as uncontrolled and thus cannot and should not used as a canonical reference, only freshly opened drawings from the source control system can be and should be used. If I am not mistaken this is also a pre-req of AS9100
plus things move on… When I started I was reviewing on microfilm against newer plots. these days…
That would be great. However I’ve had to work with many schematics that weren’t of that quality. And when one is trying to solve a problem where time is a factor you learn to work with what you have.
That’s a interesting method Although I think line hops are a poor choice, yours (not line hops) have a visual impact that seems to allow one’s eye to follow easier than simple lines. At least for this example.
I’ll have to try this and see if it makes reading the lines easier.
I think straight lines (in this case) will be also easy to follow (you just have 4 lines, 4 capacitors and the capacitor order is the same as lines). But they would go too close to the dot in the line below. To avoid this you will have to have more space between IC and resistors. And not needing it seems for me the biggest advantage of Brians method.
well, that’s more a problem of the grid/snap behavior of KiCAD after all and the lacking visualization of unconnected wires having just a faint rectangle around them in the very same color (instead of a more prominent color and always at the top so it’s easily visible that things aren’t connected).
Thus we always suggest and got used to grab a part/junction, juggle it then drop it with ESC to check for connectivity and keep the grid at whatever coarse setting it is by default…
Those are feedback loops and adjusted behavior to deal with problems that originate somewhere else.
Same as the desire to not use junction dot crossings on paper prints as the experience via photocopying/etc. turns them ambiguous…
Personally I like them junction dots and will use them on crossings, but I also do not work in the US mil/space industry nor do I have to use photocopied printouts of my schematics nor do I think anyone ever has to
Although I think line hops are a poor choice, yours (not line hops) have a visual impact that seems to allow one’s eye to follow easier than simple lines. At least for this example.
