Local v Global & hierarchical Labels

The difference in vertical alignments of Local labels and the others is really annoying. I understand why it is done like this but there needs to be an option to set the vertical alignment to the centre just to stop things like this.

1 Like

Does it really clarify your schematic to mix local and global labels in such a way? I would just place the SCREENY0 label, depress the [Ins] key 6 times and be done with it.

But as a workaround, you could place the local label where you want it, and then just add an extra vertical section to the wire to connect it again.

I’m mixing them because some of the variables are used local and some globally and the electrical rules checker flags up variables marked as globally but only used on a single sheet as an error.

Pressing the ins key 6 times pastes what in the buffer 6 times. Not sure why I’d want to do that.

What you would do seems to be an illogical and unnecessary mess, which seeks to hide information for some reason or other.

Completely aside from your original comment, but Paul’s suggestion should insert local labels for SCREENY1, SCREENY2, SCREENY3, SCREENY4, SCREENY5, and SCREENY6 - the insert key repeats the last action, while auto-incrementing labels and adding a configurable offset (0.1" in Y, by default). It shouldn’t add the same thing again.

Concerning your original question, there have been lots of updates to text editing and alignment in the development version 6.99; it’s possible this is already possible. I know it’s a requested feature on gitlab.

1 Like

Nope, [Ins] repeat the last action, and if that was a label placement, then it auto increments the last label and places it under the previous one. This also works great for a column of short connector wires such as the connections between the IC and the label in your screenshot.
(Gkeeth answered while I was attempting to reproduce the ERC label error.)

I could not reproduce

Are you using KiCad V6.99?

I think the difference in styles comes from how a hierarchical label looks like what we called “off-sheet ports” in other CAD software, whereas the global label is just like a standard net label.

Now I never use global labels (I don’t see the point) but I use net labels for pretty much everything, and what I do for a situation like in your picture is to drag the hierarchical labels out away from the part, giving me enough room to label my nets as I like.

Something like this:

1 Like

No. I’m using the release.

It seems to have changed recently to only flag up Globals that are not connected to any other pin anywhere, whereas simple labels do not get the warning. I think must have quickly read the error and assumed it was the one that I used to get.

I often put labels on lines for future use and it causes a mess.

It likely should warn when a global is local only as it can mean there is a problem.

Sometime ago need up with 2 unlinked data buses, when I split a schematic because despite creating globals on one I forgot to do it on the other, it was only when it didn’t work and it was only when I checked netlists and had 2, I found out why.

Which looks messy and inconsistent IMHO. Especially around pin 12 and where the overbars are interacting with the traces above.

I think that “messy” and “inconsistent” are aesthetic distinctions. I honestly don’t care.

As for the overbars, yeah, they sort of bleed into wires that are above them, but for other reasons I made my default label size slightly smaller and that solves the bleed problem.

Why is that a problem? There’s no requirement that a global net be used on more than one sheet. If it’s a problem, then perhaps not making the net global and instead use a hierarchical label to make clear that yes, the net does need to go to other sheets.

Again, using hierarchical labels would solve that problem. Hierarchical buses are quite powerful. Use them.

What is the text size of those local labels?
With the default text size of “50”, the overbars look quite acceptable for me.

I’m not asking you to care, whether you care or not is a complete irrelevance but strangely this isn’t about you. Your problem seems to be you like hard work and has never realised software is supposed to be there to help create something and minimise errors not to introduce new ways of messing up.

Yes, there is no requirement that a global net is used but people make mistakes and in the case where something is set up with a capability that is not actually used is worth flagging as it could be indicative of a problem.

Are then pins on that diagram standard separation?

Yep, all standard stuff straight from the default libraries, default grid, etc.

Another idea, does this look acceptable to you:

image

I just dragged a box around the top 3 global labels and dragged them upwards a single grid point.

This one though is not standard

Indeed, and if you make the texts more bigger they overlap even more.
It’s quite easy to make a mess of things this way, but why would that be relevant?

There are plenty of workarounds but the simplest and most universal is to be able to alter the vertical justification on the standard labels.

The test of whether a feature should be implemented is the time taken to implement it v the time to do the job by hand * the number of times it is done.
In this case, the implementation costs are minimal and while the time saved is not immense the number of times it is useful likely is. I’m basing the last bit not just on my use but on the claims that it has been requested in other places.
In addition to making it an editable field when a global or hierarchical is transformed into a standard, the default should be aligned on the centre. The ease with which the changing of Label types is done suggests that it is quiet a common operation.

Deleted. Wrong version.

Is that feature already in 6.99 then?

Well, of course you’re wrong about this, but I’ll just let you believe whatever you want.

Goodbye.