When removing hierarchical sheets, the old sheet number is retained which is good as otherwise all parts on the PCB layout become disconnected and deleted/replaced, but then new parts added to the existing sheet schematic use the number from root instead of the sheet number.
What needs to be set to avoid this, other than not deleting the sheets and just removing the schematics instead? Ver 7.0.10
BTW, this also happens if you just add new parts instead of copying them as I did here (yes I know they arenāt connected correctly - as I donāt care until I resolve this).
To get around this, I have generally just left old sheets blank in so that the sheet number from root is maintained, but this isnāt exactly an elegant solution. You could rename them on the PCB to match after renumbering everything on the sheet - but thatās rather time consuming and error prone, although I have done it in the past.
Hi,
Half answer and half question - have you tried just re -annotating your schematic? I know there is an iption to keep existing numbering but if you unchecked this option then numbering āshouldā revert back to normal- that said I have never use hierachical sheets so ā¦
Yes, you can keep or replace existing annotations, but these will be set to sheet 5, not sheet 12. If you reset existing, then the PCB placed items and the current ones become disconnected. There is no āGUIDā that ties them together, the annotation is the tie.
It is not, unless you select it to be it. When updating the PCB from schematic you can select if you want to use the annotation as a tie or not. default behavior is, that the annotation is not used and the background GUID is used instead. Selecting the Re-link footprints to schematic symbols based on their reference designators option in fact resynchronizes the GUIDs between schematic and layout based on the annotation. The main tie in the background is always the GUID.
Ah. Thanks I didnāt realize that, I think Iāve always had that checked.
Now to understand what to do with the page numbering issueā¦
Unfortunately this bug (from what I can tell) is still present in v8. Time to file a bug report and possibly download the code to have a look. I assume the wrong page number variable is just being referenced and causing this issue.
There are a couple of open issues that may be related to what you are running into, if any of them apply consider giving them a āthumbs upā to show support.
Annotation on āvirtualā page numbers
Missing/skipped page numbers
Also missing/skipped page numbers
Thanks, yes the first appears to be the same issue, although I am only one level deep. Glad to see itās also been noted for v8 as well.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
