They don’t actually have to be running at the same time. The clipboard stays around. So you can open one, do a copy, close it, open another, and do a paste.
(In fact, you can open one, do 3 or 4 copies pasting each one into Notepad, then open another, and copy/paste the snippets from Notepad to the other schematic.)
It does not work for me in V5.1.x
I opened KiCad twice in standalone mode by right clicking on a schematic file in a file browser (so no active project), copied in one window and tried to paste in the other window, but it does not work.
What does work:
- Open a schematic in standalone mode
- Eeschema / File / Open
- Paste in the newly opened schematic.
In KiCad V5.1.x I can only copy & paste within the same KiCad instance.
In KiCad-nightly V5.99 I can copy & paste between different instances.
I have used too many different KiCad versions to remember details of how it should work in which KiCad version. I’m not sure if this is how it’s supposed to work, or if there may be a regression of some bug.
Version: 5.1.12-84ad8e8a86~92~ubuntu20.04.1, release build
libcurl/7.68.0 OpenSSL/1.1.1f zlib/1.2.11 brotli/1.0.7 libidn2/2.2.0 libpsl/0.21.0 (+libidn2/2.2.0) libssh/0.9.3/openssl/zlib nghttp2/1.40.0 librtmp/2.3
Platform: Linux 5.4.0-90-generic x86_64, 64 bit, Little endian, wxGTK
wxWidgets: 3.0.4 (wchar_t,wx containers,compatible with 2.8) GTK+ 3.24
OpenCASCADE Technology: 7.5.2
Compiler: GCC 9.3.0 with C++ ABI 1013
So maybe you should take all of those version numbers and calculate the geometric mean; then try it with that version?
Wouldn’t it be better to use a friendly version than a mean version?
Yes indeed! Friendly is always better!
I was just answering the question:
telling how to do it.
I need it only when beginning new project having some parts from two others so few times per year. In this case having both schematics opened in separate windows is absolutely not important for me.
Thanks. Yes I would agree that having both open at the same time would not be essential for my purpose, but it does seem convenient. That point becomes moot for me now because I am running 5.99 with which I can open both simultaneously.
I design mainly power. There are ICs with which I am familiar (I have designed with them successfully) and some which I have in good stock quantity. Familiarity and stock both lend themselves to “I should design with”. In addition:
- Schematic design immediately around the IC is generally not so changeable (unlike something such as an LM324 quad op amp.) Redrawing the same thing seems like a boring waste of time.
- PCB layout is often more critical with these ICs than with some others (such as the LM324) so when I have proven good layout I would like to re-use it.
Wise words. Hopefully you have enough stock vs. your usage rate to bridge across the current supply issues. At my work I’m in the hardware test department where we test both new products as well as changes to current products for quality and regulatory compliance. We (not jut my department, but all the hardware test labs in the company world-wide) are just starting to look down the barrel of a whole flurry of testing of replacement parts for ones that we normally use but are currently in short supply. And they are all high priority to allow us to keep selling our current products. Some of our new products that are in design that would normally be very high priority are being bumped down in priority. We are used to these “Assurance of Supply” hot potatoes coming through, but at a slow trickle of a couple a year. Now we are looking at several dozen (in each test lab) in the next couple months… Damn us and our dedication to quality…
Thanks for the vote of agreement. While my words apply to some breadth of situations, I was mainly focused on home hobby craft. One of my previous employers would declare “obsolete” any components that had not been on a BOM in a while, and it seemed to cost more to get them to a surplus dealer than what the employee club got paid for the components. Nobody else was interested in them (I still scratch my head about this) and that explains some of my stock in quantities exceeding what I will ever use. Others were LM317s with bent clipped leads after having been installed by mistake. I will venture to guess that an un-named manufacturer producing 1.39 zillion iPhones in a year will probably pay less attention to component familiarity and stock.
Regarding familiarity; often something like a power conversion IC will have caveats which may be missing from the datasheet or otherwise “slip under the radar.” I was surprised when a not very old positive output linear regulator chip latched off because the output was pulled negative when split supplies were coming up into a +/- powered load. Being experienced, I should have watched out for that but I somehow expected newer ICs to be designed to avoid that vulnerability. There was no mention in the datasheet.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.