I have no practic in using KiCad (last 20 years I have designed PCB using Protel). I can’t imagine working if I not see at front the layer I am working on. If the PCB is installed in the box that way that the SMD elements are on oposite side I used to design such boards placeing all elements at bottom side so the interface elements (LEDs, bottons) were visible as user will see them. I would probably can’t work if anything placed on top would hide tracks I am routing.
Rene,
Thanks for your input and help on these problems. It is really appreciated. Also please be aware I’ve been pushing KiCad as a great PCB software to many others in my hobbyist flight simulator forums. I’m pleased that it is moving forward in many areas and over the years has gotten better and better (with a few exceptions to be and problaby are being worked on) vs. Eagle (especially now that it is subscription software) and other very expensive PCB design software.
However, by going back to the layer stack display 4.0 had, it should not be an issue as the adjustable Opacity function on all layers provides all the tools needed to allow “individual” layers to be seen. You can then have the best of both worlds that the two of us are talking about and then KiCad closer matches the super $$$ pro PCB design software and will continue to compete with them.
For now, it appears that I can use the layer Opacity function as a “Work Around” for this issue and continue forward using 5.0.2. However, I really want KiCad to be able to fully compete with those big $$$ packages so if the Devs can revert to the layer display stack order of 4.0 that will help. Either that, or simply add a feature that allows the User to specify the order that the stack is displayed. That too provides both ways to work with the PCB that we have been discussing. If this is currently available but I’ve missed how to do it, please tell me how to change that order. Additionally, It “looks” to me that the comments by Piotr (if I understand those comments correctly) also punctuates my point.
Again, thanks for your (and others here) help.
What’s the best way for me to report this as a “Bug” to get fixed?
I’m trying very hard to understand what your problem with layers is. When you select a layer as active in the right side Layers Manager the selected layer is seen on top of others. For example the F.Silk layer is actually on top of other layers, not blended with other layers as in the legacy mode. When I’m drawing tracks on the bottom side I see the bottom side copper on top of other things. With different combinations of Layers, Items, the selected active layer and the High contrast display mode (in the left side toolbar) I can see almost exactly what I want. The only thing I miss is the ability to define the color and especially opaqueness of zones apart from other copper.
Can you give two screenshots which show the difference and the problem? I would like to know what is this thing which makes KiCad inferior to other EDA software.
I just did a little test in KiCad V5.0.2
I opened a PCB, and drew 2 circles and a pentagon (with line function) on it.
All 3 objects were yellow in the 3D viewer. They did cut through the solder mask but not through the yellow copper (Why is copper yellow?)
Then I thought a bit and had an Eureka moment.
I pressed “b” to regenerate the zones and then I could see the holes in the PCB. (In Pcbnew and in the 3D viewer.)
I would also like to see a screenshot (of a simplified design?) of the layers problem. The most logical seems that KiCad is working “as designed”, but the design is not very user friendly. Yes, you can set transparency of layers, but if you first edit the top layer with a opacity of 50%, and then draw on the bottom layer, you probably want the opacity of the bottom layer to change to 50% and the opacity of the top layer to change from 50% to 100%.
It may also be usefull to keep for example the Top Silkscreen always viewable on top. This helps with orientation on the board.
I believe OP’s problem with layers and transparency is “I was used to it being the old way” with the odd color addition that legacy toolset does to overlay layers.
I think difference is well illustrated here
OLD
NEW (F.Cu is selected)
Images taken from this post and one below it
My idea also.
You have a lot less viewability while editing tracks in V5, without fiddling with the opacity settings of different layers, or turning the zones completely off.
Weird though that the 4 mounting holes of the RJ-45 connectors are yellow in both screenshots ???
I work with eagle at work now. I can tell you that kicad is definetly not inferior to it with regards to how it shows layers
eagle has no support for transparency. And it does not blend the layers like kicad legacy does.
It also stores layer colors within project files instead of a global layer setup so you can not really change the colors if you have to work with others. At least you can not change layers to have different colors if they have the same colors by default.
The fact that the default setup does not use transparency at all is a bit of a bad decision to be honest.
The screenshot is made a lot worse by viewing zones in filled mode (Not really how i would work with it. I like the fact that in kicad i can select zones to be in outline mode. In eagle for example i need to ripup the zones to be able to see what i am doing.)
Here a comparison using a board with more part density but with zones on invisible inner layers. (So a more modern board with smd pars instead of tht)
Original legacy:
Original open gl scheme:
I feel with open gl it is much easier to work in such cases. Especially the task of laying down traces as it means you more easily see the layer you work on right now.
But well lets get transparency involved shall we?
For a quick and dirty setup i simply gave all top copper 50% transperency (I do not show paste and mask here as i do not want to invest too much time into this)
And here the setup i personally work with (Colors are less saturated to make it easier on my eyes. Very limited use of transperency as i personally do not really like to see other layers while i lay down traces. Blue instead of green for the backside layer as i do not like mixing red and green. Inspired by the behave syntax highlighting scheme for atom):
For my scheme i also hide paste as i have kicad kind of setup for footprint review and need paste to be extremely visible for that task.
Verdict: The renderers are different. There is no way to recreate the legacy mode in the new renderer. People who are used to the legacy view will hate the fact that the legacy canvas will vanish.
I however feel the new renderer is better suited for complex high density boards as it more easily allows the user to focus on the layer they work on right now.
And be prepared to switch which layers are shown for different tasks (One needs different information when laying down traces vs when deciding where to place a component. For example the courtyard layer is not strictly necessary while working on the traces.)
1 Like
That’s true for zones. That’s why I said in my previous post: “The only thing I miss is the ability to define the color and especially opaqueness of zones apart from other copper.” Now I have to switch between zone visibility modes too often.
If the design doesn’t have zones or they are invisible, how exactly the old way is better? The mixed semi-transparent colors of the legacy canvas are actually contrary to what has been said:
Semitransparency makes it impossible to tell which is in front of which.
So, can someone tell exactly what the wanted logic is?
Don’t understand my sentence as postulate that working layer have to be at front.
I was telling about situation with no transparency possible.
I was just against opinion that it was good in V4 that PCB was visible as true PCB (top layer in front of bottom layer). And I don’t know how it really was in V4 I just based on what I’ve read in this thread.
I don’t understant if ‘punctuate’ means you understand me as being for or against you (punctuate as giving puncts or punctuate as hitting adversary at box ring).
I understood you (previously) that in V4 you always have seen top in front of bottom and you wont it being that way and only that way. I don’t remember myself how it was in V4 (as experiment designed one very small PCB - so few hours of PcbNew experience and then 6 boards with Protel). My experience is (in old (1997) Protel) that any layer I select to work on becames in front of all others. And I said that if I had to work on bottom then haveing it covered by top would be a problem for me. Also it happenes that I have to mark for myself some places at PCB (by small crosses at one mechanical layer). If it happened that my cross is just hidden by let us say big DPAK pad on top than how I can simply do it.
I don’t know if it was such in V4 but I understood you that it was such and you want it be such.
v4 open gl behaved very similar to how stock modern behaves in v5 with the addition that v5 now can work with transperency in modern.
It always had the active layer as the one that is up front.
The comparison here is therefore not between v4 and v5 but between legacy and modern toolsets.
But it does not make sense to talk about what is up front in legacy! That renderer mixed colours of all layers. This is where the confusion comes in for everyone who is a bit more familiar how kicad works. (There is a big communication problem here. I would guess @gbeauw has some specific complaints but is not really able to explain them such that we know what exactly is going on.)
1 Like
The only reason I began being interested in KiCad was that I have seen the demo of modern toolsets. So I have never looked at legacy behaviour. So what I have written about my little experience in V4 should be here understand as 0 experience because even in V4 i worked in modern toolset.
From first post:
2. The various PCB layers are not showing properly in terms which is in front of which.
I understood that in 4.0.5 the layers were shown “properly in terms which is in front of which” and @gbeauw impend 
that if it will be not the same in V5 he will not use it.
As in my opinion during design you need not to see layers “properly” but in order to help you design I added my 3 cents here, but now I think I would better not did that.
At that moment I would like KiCad to do that way. If it was such I would be able to change colours to grays, export doocumentation pictures and close program without saveing pcb to get back to my working colours.
There are better ways to achieve this that do not have as many side effects. A separate color profile for printing comes to mind. (I even doubt that it would be easier to implement storing colors in the pcb file compared to having separate color profiles for different tasks.)
As we have said multiple times alread: This is simply not true! KiCad never showed the layers in the order they are on the pcb. It always either mixed all of them together (legacy canvas) or showed the active one on top (modern canvases).
This will be the last time i correct anybody about that. If people again start to spew out misinformation here then i will personally lock this thread down. (This really is the first time i seriously consider this move.)
I was trying to explain from what my incorrect assumtions commed (but you cited only the second half of my sentence).
I always admire how much good work you are doing at KiCad forum but at this moment I suppose that may be the cost of it is that you sometimes read too fast.
That’s a sin of not only a few of us, I admit.
A hint: There is the quote feature that makes a lot of things more clear.
Team,
Here’s is what prompted my confusion.
View in PCBnew in 5.0.2_1
View in PCBnew in 4.0
Based on the discussions in this thread it seems that how you do design and see things has changed. To me it seemed like it might have been bug when I first fired up 5.0. However, after reading the thread, it sounds like that this change is an improvement to the PCB design tools which I gather from those of you more experienced in PCB design, is true. (I’m still a rookie at this.) If everyone likes the way this now works then that is OK but I would still like to “somehow” adjust something in PCBenw to get the view I had before when I need it.
The reason I’m asking for the ability to change something to get that view is that what I was doing in 4.0 was to take a screen shot of the PCB layout as it looks in its final form to document to others that I was working with to show what the PCB “layout” will look like. On initial use of 5.0, it seems that I can no longer do that and the only reason is that the ordering of the layers has changed and is unchangeable .
Having said that, If someone can show me how to get the same view that I was getting in the past with 4.0 by changing some setting in PCBnew then I’m happy. (BTW, no, I really don’t plan to go back to 4.0. I just want to make that clear.) I think being able to get that screen shot/view is important to some of us and it appears that ability is lost now. It seems that the Devs can change the default layer display stack order it would return that view ability without (I think) impacting the new design tools. The other way to provide that is to add the ability for the user to adjust that layer stacking order would also return that ability.
I’m hoping someone can show me how to make some sort of simple adjustment in PCBnew to get the shot I used to be able to get in 4.0, then I’ll be fine. (It could easily be the case I just don’t understand how to work the new model to get that shot.)
If there isn’t a way to get to the shot shown in second picture above, I’d like to request that the layer view stack order be changed in the code to show it like in 4.0. Alternatively if the Devs can provide an adjustment feature so that the user could maybe drag and drop the layers in the Layer Mgmt window to different positions to change the view order. Example: If I could drag F.Silk (and a couple of other layers) more to the top of the list so that they are displayed near the top, that would allow us to generate that old Layout shot with all the layers shown in the order that they are on the PCB. (It might even be a help during the design phase.) I think that would be an enhancement to the code that would be nice to have in PCBnew.
Again, many thanks to all of you as your input on this thread continues to help me understand why things were changed and how each of you make use of it. Those comments will help me to use PCBnew in better ways.