I got this issue you can see into the screenshot.I’m not able to solve it
I would like to have the full body, filled in
like it is here:
Tested it: no way. This looks like a bug. The arcs can be selected an filled, but not so the vertical lines. They are just lines and hence cannot be filled. There is no closed shape, only the components. Bug tracker?
I will send this as bug then. Hoping in a 6.0.2 early, since there are many of this small stuff in the 6.0.1
Yeah, that’s true. Talk about stable…
Is there some functional advantage to filling in symbol bodies? I have never done that. I think there have been situations (pointed out on this forum) where this fill-in coloring can conceal errors.
I know, every request is considered/told be useless. However there is - yes - kind of advantage:
PRESS reasons. Articles for Electronics Magazines that they have this kind of paging.
That’s because everybody thinks: “I do not need it, so it is unimportant”. Or when asking for a method to achieve something: “Why do you want that?”. On the other hand, there are page-long discussions about the shape/color of icons.
1 Like
Indeed.
And it’s quite annoying considering that one doesn’t ask for things “just because has nothing to do”
P.S. I corrected my comment since i tagged you erroneously instead of the one of BobZ
I carefully phrased my question as a question. I am no expert wrt KiCad or any EDA software or programming in general. I make errors as people do. But I would like to understand why fill coloring is a matter of concern.
When I am working with others (who typically use Altium or other EDA software) I always try to get schematics in B/W monochrome. Of course it prints better on a B/W printer. But the main reason is that if I mark errors or changes on a B/W schematic with red, my markups will stand out. If the schematic is already in color, then my markups get “buried in the noise.”
BTW when others with whom I worked gave me color schematics, I don’t think they did so because they had a strong preference. I think they did so because it was the software default to do so. So those people were not suitable for answering the question…
1 Like
@BobZ: I appreciate your point.
So, why have filled bodies? One straightforward answer could be - from a programmers/testers standpoint: the function is there, it has been implemented, so it should work.
2 Likes
KiCad doesn’t support filling an area which consists of bunch of lines, so I don’t expect it to be implemented in eeschema/symbols. However, it would be reasonable to have same graphic shapes in schematic and layout, including polygons, and polygons with arcs are in the to do list for pcb editor. There’s no wish for polygons in schematic/symbols. Is somebody willing to file an issue and mention filling, too?
EDIT: stupid me, polygons are implemented for symbols, but not with arcs.
I’ll file a feature request. We’ll see how it will be triaged.
1 Like
It’s rather a bug though, as polygons work unless they contain arcs.
There is a workaround for this:
Simply make a polygon with a very thin line width and using a very small grid hide it underneath the symbol lines.
Here’s a dual transistor symbol as an example:
Here’s the hidden polygon:
3 Likes
Creativity award granted 
EDIT:
I saw it now, just with contiguous lines. I will do it to try
I was wondering about your hidden polygon image. It was very blurry until I clicked on it (and it is again now). I have never seen that happen before. I am getting old but I do not think I am very senile yet…
Weird, the original screenshot is high resolution. I have checked on 2 different devices and it displays correctly, so the problem seems to be on your side. Maybe refreshing the page or clearing the browser cache could help.
1 Like
Well this is indeed strange. I mentioned it because I had doubt as to whether other forum participants saw the same thing. I was thinking to post a screen shot. Coming back to this page now, the view is perfectly sharp. (a screen shot now would be pointless.) Previously it was so blurry that I could not have guessed what it was supposed to show. (As I say it was sharp when I clicked on it and saw full resolution.)
I guess that is why I am not a computer geek… As they say let bygones be bygones!
But aside from my temporary blurry image: I think your work-around is a good “poster child” for a work-around!
1 Like