I don’t know what to think about this:
Anyone have some ideas/?
On Edit: Same issue:
They become virtually invisible on normal zoom levels if you set size to 0.0
I would bet it’s related to the recent antialiasing changes that do pixel alignment.
1 Like
Might be. It’s best to start with “no antialiasing” and then test other settings. I have found all antialiasing lacking. It’s not about KiCad quality but the nature of antialiasing which is that exact pixels are changed to non-exact with different kinds of algorithms. And of course “no antialiasing” requires algorithms and finding the approximately best option, too.
It’s always a minimum of 1.5x the line width.
Does it have to be?
I’d like them to be less then the thickness of the lines, so that they appear to go away.
File a bug report and we can see how to fit your request with others’.
@Seth_h
I’ve been trying to figure out exactly how I’m going to sign up for the developers mailing list; for most people it would be easy. My privacy and security are my current concerns.
Junction Dot Size got commented upon in the AMP HOUR podcast 440.1 that was presented.
If US Defense Contractors are not commercial enough to design features for them, I then would not know what to think after spending the time to listen to the podcast.
There are no two ways around it. Anonymous postings to the mailing list are not helpful. You may utilize a throw-away e-mail address if you like but please note that we will often have follow-up questions, so it makes better sense to utilize an e-mail address that you check regularly. If your goal is to report missing features, it would be appreciated if you could do that via the bug tracker. Messages to the mailing list requesting features are typically lost in the larger flood of messages.
2 Likes
Perhaps this could be presented as a schematic printing/plotting issue?
EDA doesn’t care about dots as it is directly connected to the layout software. On the other hand, Humans do, particularly those who are maintaining or repairing this equipment off of paper schematics (like the military), but also occasionally, those of us who review schematics. On the other hand, having the option to create an invisible or unselectable junction would confuse many users and probably be considered as a bug by many.
Drafting standards from the days when schematics were manually laid out to PCB. EDA Schematic capture largely keeps these trappings.
What is important is that ERC is good enough to capture most wrong connections or dangling nets. Additionally, that schematic prints can be done to the satisfaction of your engineering organization.
1 Like
I guess I just didn’t write it as well as you just did.
Glad this came up. I forgot this was being added as a feature. I’ve happily reduced all of my junction dots to ‘there if you’re looking for them’ size. Happy camper. 
Huh???
Are you then also going to draw those silly inductors whenever 2 wires cross each other?
This is a case where you should really practice in setting aside your own preferences and conform to common sense and practices.
I cincerely hope it will NEVER EVER be even POSSIBLE to place junction dots in Eeschema without being able to see them.
I believe that @Sprig is saying this not only preference but certain industry requirements for their work. These requirements may be outdated or even asinine, but organizations are slow to change, if you want to sell designs to someone that has strict requirements you have to follow their rules .
I agree that it would cause many problems , but surely if you can print schematics to PDF with an option for junction size or junctions hidden that would keep both camps happy
2 Likes
Edit, self sensor.
Rene is right, I’m a bit *&^%$#@! at the moment and should not rub that on others.
Eeschema can “plot” to SVG, which is a vector format and junction dots are probably easily recognised entities there, and I’m sure there are plenty of (Python / Perl / imagemagic?) libraries to manipulate those.
@paulvdh i think you might want to step away from the computer for a while. You got yourself way too worked up over this!
I would further suggest you re read your previous post and make it less insulting.
Unless things have changed in the last few years, Mil Spec Schematics must have dot junctions and must not have crossed lines (wired) that are connected.
Working at a large defense contractor, not that long ago, I never saw a junction dot on any schematics; across several different systems installed on several different platforms; Air Force, Navy, and Army. Enlisted in the USAF there might have been one system in training, all tubes no semiconductors, where the schematic had junction dots (I just can’t remember that long ago).
Thirty(30)+ years of working with hundreds of schematics,for commercial products; all without junction dots.
It is not surprising that not many(any?) other KiCad forum members have the same experience with the systems schematics that I have.
I set mine to the point where they aren’t noticeable unless I zoom in. They’re free, unambiguous and not intrusive at the size I’ve set them. Remember the face planted luner lander that was a victim of metric vs. imperial? It’s a big world and relying on other people to have the same understanding as you gets riskier all the time. Growing up I was taught that the dictionary was the final arbitor of words and their usage. Now I find that dictionaries say they are just a reflection of common usage and not there to impose standards. Things change.
1 Like
What settings are you using for the three dimensions in that preference box?
Yea, that is sorta the point. There are very good reasons to not have junction dots on the schematic; especially until the world goes completely paperless. There are no good reasons for junction dots on paper schematics.
In my opinion, even on schematics on screens, the junction dots are unnecessary and just create visual clutter.
There simply is no benefit to a schematic having any junction dots; if people like seeing them, who am I to argue? I just don’t like to be personally forced by KiCad to see them on my schematics that have no use for them.
Hmm… I see you’re point. I had them 2 above the default wire. Setting it to zero doesn’t seem to make it any smaller. My only point for jumping into the thread was I forgot they were going to be settable and I found the old defaults ridiculously large. Perhaps a bug? Almost seems like there is some hard coded minimum and it is tied to line thickness because if I increase that they are still visible.
1 Like