Hello, can you guide me thru this please?
I get That I need to create a called ''kicad_advanced.json" right?
then I need to write ''HoleWallPaintingMultiplier=(let’s say 8") right?
Just kicad_advanced without suffix. Please read also the FAQ article behind the link on my previous post, but your example looks correct.
Awesome, thank you very much.
Now I get what it does
I think I will keep removing some opacity to the tracks to se where is the pad and where is the track (just in case it helps someone)
Thanks fellas
The change to the through-hole pad coloring in KiCad 9 is very inconvenient and makes the design process less user-friendly. In version 8, the gold pads made it much easier to distinguish through-hole contacts, especially when working on complex boards with multiple layers. Now, with the new coloring, it takes extra effort to identify the through-hole pads, which slows down the workflow. It would be great if the developers could make this feature customizable, allowing users to choose their preferred display style. I hope this feedback will be considered for future updates.
OP here.
Is there any word that the Kicad devs might revert or offer a selectable option for this issue?
Ian
Can you give an example (screenshot) to undermine this? For me, the yellow ring showing the barrel is quite a good indication.
1 Like
quite good is much less than once 
The gold barrels seem very obvious too me as I have quickly got used to them.
4 Likes
consider changing the > (overwrite) to >> (append). You do not know what other people have in that file
I like it more than before
Thank you very much man I really appreciate it, at the end I was having to many issues with 9, so I went back to 8.
Nice for you;
that doesn’t mean an option to choose between the two would make any issue for you.
Well, for me it would be an issue if
- a configuration dialog would be cluttered with such a setting,
- or if it would complicate the further development of KiCad.
A while ago, I maintained software with tons of settings - it was a PITA, and made clean development impossible. In other words, it made software quality worse.
That’s why I fully support the developers’ decision - not based on a gut feeling, but on professional grounds.
It’s easy to support the developers decision if the decision is the same as the own liking.
While I accept the decision I will continue to critize it - within 4 month now I’m still not used to the visual change and need more concentration during pcb work. And if a change needs so much time to get accustomed to then the change was probably not the best in user experience (gui design).
And yes, I know the xkcd sketch “every change brakes someones workflow”.
1 Like
I agree.
All the other EDA’s I have used (from memory) had it the original way, and whilst there is a workaround it’s not as good as the original.
In the months I have been using V9 it’s been quite a thorn in my PCB design workflow. It’s simply not comfortable to use.
Can the Dev’s please incorporate a method to have this selectable.
Thanks,
Ian.
Adding a checkbox isn’t the primary issue. The issue is adding the logic quite deep down in the rendering code. That logic isn’t especially simple, which you can see by the fact in that 116 total posts deep between this thread and this one, there is as yet little coherent suggestion for how to reconcile the tension between “I want THT pads to be gold like before” and “padstacks exist now”.
The only suggestion so far has been “draw pads gold when all layers are the same shape”, which I think is a overly strong highlight in the UI for what is essentially a piece of trivia about a padstack. For example, in this image of a footprint where pin 4 has a different B.Cu pad size, why are the two pads drawn so differently on F.Cu when all that differentiates them is the shape on a different layer?
For actionable change, we are still missing:
- What information is actually desired to be highlighted (e.g. “any THT pad”, “any pad boundary”, “exposed, un-pasted copper” or “plated barrel exists here” or “all layers same shape” or something else) and why is it helpful to see that information in practice?
- How to show that information in a consistent and understandable way (for example, if the first answer is “any THT pad = gold”, what do do about padstacks)?
For example, using the gold colour as a proxy for “exposed, un-pasted copper”, has always been a tempting mental shortcut, but is actually misleading. Perhaps what is actually needed is a way to emphasise un-pasted outer-layer copper.
Or maybe people liked the way that the gold THT pads show clearly when the copper comes from the pad shape, and when from a track entering the pad. In that case, do we need a better way to show that transition for all pads, THT or not (or is it already covered by a small opacity adjustment)?
1 Like
Amusing
just explain me which difference in adding an obscure settings which very little users will test 
it seems it easier in other tools
technical debt…
of course it is possible but decisions to factor the code can result in a new feature, a “trivial” feature causing a major rethink about decisions that were made months and sometime years ago.
do you
- hold the line with the present implementation
- bite the bullet and refactor
- do some bodge that will come back to bite you
the correct thing to do unfortunately is #1 leading to #2 once it is all understood so the best thing todo is answer @johnbeard queries so the impact can be assessed…