From now on “bikeshedding” will be called “junction dotting”.
5 Likes
Sums it up
3 Likes
I was working on a real world answer when the thread went sideways.
If you care for honest argument, I’l try to keep my side influential.
By reading your original post which started this thread I can’t tell how serious or to-the-point this thread should have been.
1 Like
Try to…
…no more.
I have to push back on the idea that major government industries know best, therefore we should all follow what they do. By blindly following all the little rules you get perfect results every time… not. Major government industries are renowned for going spectacularly over budget and schedule. Even when they are on schedule, there is a large price premium.
I have worked for several major government contractors, and often their processes and procedures are absolutely terrible. It does not surprise me there are rules based on obsolete methods from 40 years ago. I am often saying “why on earth are we doing like this?” and the answer is someone 30 years ago wrote a document saying that was the best way, and no ever questioned it since.
Without cost plus, these companies wouldn’t last 5 seconds in a commercial environment. My instinct when a major government industry says “everyone should do it this way” is do the opposite.
1 Like
Asking all US Veterans to show @bobc that we do it that way to keep us all safe; and able to come back home still breathing.
I had a truck so full of manuals and schematics I scarcely had room for repair parts. Then we changed to computers. All that information and MORE was now available in less space than one of the binders. Today’s youngsters are adept with and prefer the small phone screen. Progress? Maybe. Inevitable? Probably.
1 Like
That device is not secure.
20 more…
This sounds a bit too US centric in an international forum… although I understand that people usually consider more than just technical merits of some approach, and it’s OK for me.
But I haven’t yet seen a better argument for not having dots in a schematic than that it’s annoying to see them there. Having dots and no 4-way junctions still seems the best solution to me if data integrity, unambiguousness etc. is concerned. KiCad allows hiding the dots but can’t (yet?) disallow 4-way junctions. Actually I would like to disallow 4-way junctions in my designs so that they couldn’t be there even by accident, i.e. that KiCad wouldn’t create them at all. Thanks to Sprig to bringing this issue into my awareness.
This discussion has been pretty much civil until now, but it’s going to slip towards military, and maybe it’s time to retire…
4 Likes
I hope you stay active in this thread.
The United States military designated C-130 airframe variants have been used in many non-military roles; including humanitarian natural disaster relief missions.
I don’t see how having KiCad being able to provide the same quality of documents for the same complex systems is a bad thing.
1 Like
C-130 has some interesting engines. From what I understand the guy that designed the engines was pretty much a ‘Turing’ clone. Sad.
Still, like language, schematics and their presentation will continue to evolve. Those guys preferring the small screen WILL prevail. That’s the future.
1 Like
With an air force budget anything is possible.
2 Likes
For me, it is more than both.
I have read your recent posts on the KiCad Bug Tacker. They were really well thought out, in my opinion. At the moment, they do not seem to have much traction.
When you find out that Altium already had such a feature, two(2) years ago, you might create your very own …Conspiracy! thread on the topic.
In the end, I wish you can have as many dots as you want; but I don’t want you to force your number of dots on me.
I just don’t know that I can agree; with what I know.
That stupid piece of paper that can be folded and requires no light emission management…
1 Like
Why not write a eeschema plugin that converts a 4 way junction with a ball, er dot, into 2 staggered T junctions with two dots. Just use if desired. Everybody happy, end of disputation, er conspiracy. 
I’ve had the privilege of flying on the NY ANG LC-130s (109th Airlift Wing). I was only PAX, but it is a fine aircraft. (Though the first time flying it was a little disconcerting watching the aircrew visually checking the landing gear (for hydraulic leaks?) after each take off…) But I quickly took the attitude of better safe than sorry.
1 Like
I never worked the C-130 launch procedure; or EOR protocol. But, your description seems normal to me.
" The benefit of not using Junction Dots is more readily apparent when using paper schematics in the field."
That is exactly where personal choice (and likely industry type) plays its part, to me it is exactly the opposite, years of working on equipment in the field and if I don’t see a dot I interpret it as no connection.
[edit] Just read Sprig’s comment about oil splatter, now there is something I never had to deal with and I can imagine how it would cause problems. Not much oil in mainframe computers and remote telemetry stations.
1 Like
There are still coffee spills and such. 
2 Likes