Hey, thats great: Junction Emojis !
No other EDA package offers them, its the killer feature 
With 68 votes this far, we can say something about the result. It was expected that majority would vote “I don’t care”, but it’s interesting that support for this optional feature was only around 10% all the time while almost half opposed it. I would expect people either supporting or not caring about a possible optional feature. We can safely conclude that it’s probably not worth implementing, at least not by the current active development team.
whats more, while there are a lot of more or less serious ideas, EVERYBODY understands the current notation with more or less big dots for junctions.
BUT it would be just nice … 
Perhaps they oppose it because every optional feature costs development time that could be spent on a different feature.
2 Likes
It’s possible because it’s wasn’t clarified if this would be in an ideal situation of unlimited resources or in realistic situation with very limited resources. Based on the discussions in the other threads it looks like some people may oppose this one even for “ideological” reasons.
Opposition seems odd, especially since us meer consumers wouldn’t be the ones to implement it (I know where my limitations are and my PR are limited to that 
)
This is a classic “herding cats” problem when it comes to FOSS… You can’t force someone todo something, but equally you can’t stop them. If you magically implemented hop-overs tomorrow what are those people that really don’t want it going todo ? Write a letter? What if you dont, what are those people that really want it going todo?
Personally I’m more interested in UX and as such if it was done well (if at all) why not but I am sure there are a few pressing features that trump it, let alone some pre-req for this to even work (IE orthoganol dragging)
Most probably most of the negative voters and other KiCad users wouldn’t actually care if someone implemented it, provided that the same someone wouldn’t take the time from other feature development.
The poll was more tongue in cheek than serious and I didn’t think too deeply the possible motivations and interpretations. I can now tell I voted against, but the reasons were mixed and it’s not a strong opinion. In the end the limited resources is more important factor than avoiding “bad” schematic wires.
This looks like a great book (although I cannot read the Polish.) Someone put a lot of work into the illustrations and probably the rest of the publication as well. I think you posted it before. I wish (but doubt) that there is an English version (translating the text only) and with the same illustrations.
Yes.
That is the oldest text of electronic I ever seen (I didn’t searched for other ancient electronic texts).
So seeing in discussion that hop-over is the 1950s schematic style I just checked how schematics looked in that book. If they were with hop-overs I would not post it here again but it uses the ‘modern style’.
It is edition VI of this book. The book I had was from 1953 but I don’t know what was its edition number and I can’t find in that scan any info when was edition I so when author was writing it and drawing the schematics.
There are probably programs that can convert scanned text into ASCII and then you can use Google translator
At page 2 there is a sentence: “Praca przeznaczona jest dla młodych radioamatorów,” = “The work is intended for young radio amateurs”.
I’m not sure if ‘the work’ in English can mean “this book” as “praca” here really means.
And the language is really for young as I understood it being 10 years old. I suppose it would seem for us embarrassingly primitive at the moment.
Funny…I started electronics as an amateur radio operator in 1965 when I was 13. I was thinking to mention that I have 1965 and 1968 editions of the Radio Amateur’s Handbook, published by the American Radio Relay League. But I do not think it has so many hand sketches! The drawings in my two books all appear to be mechanically aided, and the schematic diagrams do not use hop-overs or goose-unders. IMHO those sketches in your book seem like small works of art. I cannot draw like that to save my life…
How to participate in this poll? (where is the “vote” button? :))
I thought it had been open long enough so I closed it, but I just reopened it for you, so you can refresh and try again
Thank you, done voting 
Generally, it’s poor form to connect signals at a 4-way connection for exactly the reason the “hop-over” is being suggested here. A better practice is to turn the connection path into two 3-way connections like this:
Performing connections this way will save a lot of debugging time caused by visual ambiguity later in the process. Hop-over is neat, OrCAD used to do this, but it’s not necessary if good design practice is followed.
FWIW, there is a high probability that I will implement them at some point. Mostly because I’m in to nostalgia. (My cars, for instance, range in age from 50 years old to 15 years old, and my model railroad is set in the 1920’s.)
16 Likes
A bit more information please?
HO?
S?
O?
Narrow gauge?
Overall size?
How long have you been constructing?
You do a great job with software so you should have some “bragging rights” 
Thankyou.
Great work!
And you still find time for software!!!
I would like to have 17 nine-way connections.
Im an old model railroad fan and this looks EXTREMELY well made. Congratulations !
2 Likes