EAGLE Central Forums
Where the EAGLE community meets. Sponsored by Stratford Digital.

Home » CadSoft Support Forums » eagle.suggest.eng » Alternative symbols for easy rotation
Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #164161] Wed, 18 November 2015 14:41 Go to next message
rachaelp
Messages: 604
Registered: March 2015
Location: UK
Senior Member
When placing a common library part such as a resistor or capacitor it's often necessary to rotate it to fit in with how you are drawing a certain part of your schematic. For any one device, library symbols can currently only be drawn in a single rotational position so when you then rotate the part your text is now no longer how you would like it and you are required to smash the device and manually replace all the text in the right positions and orientations. This is okay for a handful of components but not good for a large design. It's fine for a hobbyist just throwing together small projects for their own use but as a professional design engineer, when I present clients with schematics I have drawn they need to look professional and this is causing additional work to achieve this.

It would be nice if several versions of a symbol (up to 4) could be provided which would automatically be cycled through upon rotate if they were available. This would mean we could create nice sets of symbols in our libraries and rotate away to our hearts content safe in the knowledge that we wouldn't be building up a mountain of smash and reposition work down the line.

A quick fix I tried for this was to have -H and -V variants of resistors, capacitors etc but this just became a pain in the BOM! (pun intended!)

Many thanks,

Rachael
Re: Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #164184 is a reply to message #164161] Thu, 19 November 2015 11:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Leikvoll
Messages: 1351
Registered: November 2007
Senior Member
On 18.11.2015 15:41, Rachael wrote:
> When placing a common library part such as a resistor or capacitor it's
> often necessary to rotate it to fit in with how you are drawing a certain
> part of your schematic. For any one device, library symbols can currently
> only be drawn in a single rotational position so when you then rotate the
> part your text is now no longer how you would like it and you are required
> to smash the device and manually replace all the text in the right
> positions and orientations. This is okay for a handful of components but
> not good for a large design. It's fine for a hobbyist just throwing
> together small projects for their own use but as a professional design
> engineer, when I present clients with schematics I have drawn they need to
> look professional and this is causing additional work to achieve this.
>
> It would be nice if several versions of a symbol (up to 4) could be
> provided which would automatically be cycled through upon rotate if they
> were available. This would mean we could create nice sets of symbols in our
> libraries and rotate away to our hearts content safe in the knowledge that
> we wouldn't be building up a mountain of smash and reposition work down the
> line.
>
> A quick fix I tried for this was to have -H and -V variants of resistors,
> capacitors etc but this just became a pain in the BOM! (pun intended!)

Is vertical reading really that difficult? All my schematics are a mix
of H and V and nobody I met ever had problems interpreting that.
Re: Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #164187 is a reply to message #164184] Thu, 19 November 2015 11:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rachaelp
Messages: 604
Registered: March 2015
Location: UK
Senior Member
No it's not difficult and it's not a question if not being able to interpret them, but I have dealt with large companies who have very strict style guides for schematics though and this sort of thing becomes an issue. If it's not a problem for you then fine, for me this is something I would find useful.

It's only a suggestion, hence it's in the eagle.suggest forum, so if you don't like it feel free to ignore it. I'm pretty sure the devs will only implement things that enough people have asked for to make it worth their while anyway so if it's just me that thinks this would be useful then I'm sure they won't waste their time implementing it.
Re: Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #164370 is a reply to message #164184] Sat, 05 December 2015 14:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Olin
Messages: 903
Registered: December 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Senior Member
Morten Leikvoll wrote on Thu, 19 November 2015 06:00

Is vertical reading really that difficult?


It may not be stictly speaking all that "difficult", but that's not the point. It is certainly annoying and very unprofessional. Every time you decrease clarity and annoy those who have to read the schematic, you increase the chance of someone misinterpreting it. Even one such case out in the field can be more expensive than to have drawn the schematic properly in the first place.

Quote:

All my schematics are a mix of H and V and nobody I met ever had problems interpreting that.


Being correct is only a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a good schematic. It's not about whether in the end someone was able to correctly interpret your schematic, but how easily, with little chance of error, and without the feeling the designer just threw slop at them. Don't underestimate the latter.

Neatness counts, A LOT. Your production tech, field tech, or customer, might not complain, but what attitude did they have when dealing with your schematics? Maybe they weren't even aware of it, but the "eh, who cares" attitude exhibited by your schematic probably caused a little of the same in them. Eh, that solder joint is probably good, I'm not going to bother to check with the jewler's loupe like I usually do. Eh, that cap fell on the floor where I might have stepped on it, it's probably not cracked, good enough, not worth my getting out of this chair to get a new one. And so on it goes.

When you give someone sloppy work, you set the tone and give them permission to do the same. Or, if you're working for them, they may decide they like the other engineer's work better, even if they aren't even concious of why.

I can tell you for sure that if you worked for me, you'd be making all your text horizontal. And if I actually had to say something to you to make that happen, I probably wouldn't tell you this, but your lack of professional pride in your work would be something in the back of my mind when deciding who to assign to what task.
Re: Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #164371 is a reply to message #164161] Sat, 05 December 2015 14:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Olin
Messages: 903
Registered: December 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Senior Member
rachaelp wrote on Wed, 18 November 2015 09:41

A quick fix I tried for this was to have -H and -V variants of resistors, capacitors etc


That's what I do to, sometimes -L -R -U -D and the like. My BOM system undestands the -XX naming of devices and realizes that all the variants are in fact the same device.

Actually, it's not that quick a fix. It takes more time to make library parts and keep all the -XX variants of each device up to date. The extra work is mostly in the device editor since the package is the same, and the symbol is what you want different between variants in the first place.

I find writing the commands to set up a device in a script file helps. That allows incremental tweaking to get it right, then usually small modifications are required to run the same script in the other -XX variants of what are otherwise the same device. Yes this is a pain, but it is unfortunately the only alternative that Eagle has given us.

I'm a little worried about selecting the different symbols only by specifying orientation. There needs to be some mechanism to explicitly select a symbol regardless of orientation. I do like the idea of being able to tie different symbols to different rotations as default, which then allows you to cycle thru them with the right mouse button instead of actually doing the rotation. That would probbaly cover 99% of the use cases. Some explicit selection still needs to be possible, but doesn't need to be as quick as a single mouse click. If the part is smashed, then the symbol selection by rotation must be shut off.

In any case, I've wished for some way of having alternate symbols per device also, for the same reason you state.
Re: Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #164377 is a reply to message #164370] Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Leikvoll
Messages: 1351
Registered: November 2007
Senior Member
On 05.12.2015 15:17, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Morten Leikvoll wrote on Thu, 19 November 2015 06:00
>> Is vertical reading really that difficult?
>
> It may not be stictly speaking all that "difficult", but that's not the
> point. It is certainly annoying and very unprofessional. Every time you
> decrease clarity and annoy those who have to read the schematic, you
> increase the chance of someone misinterpreting it. Even one such case out
> in the field can be more expensive than to have drawn the schematic
> properly in the first place.

I didn't even want to reply to this imho irrelevant topic, but since its
early morning, and my fingers need to warm up, here I go.

I think this topic belongs in the nitpicking category. It is very hard
to make all the different people happy, especially the few that has some
unique preferences or minor reading disabilities. For this topic, the
smash function covers the vertial reading disabilities and I see no
reason to change this in Eagle. I do however see the potential for
scewing up readability by placing the refdes/value totally wrong, or
even delete them. Its a function I try to stay away from, although in
some rare cases I may choose to use it.

> Quote:
>> All my schematics are a mix of H and V and nobody I met ever had
>> problems interpreting that.
>
> Being correct is only a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a good
> schematic. It's not about whether in the end someone was able to correctly
> interpret your schematic, but how easily, with little chance of error, and
> without the feeling the designer just threw slop at them. Don't
> underestimate the latter.

We are all different pepople with different skills and habits and some
of us work better together than others. I accept that, but if a customer
ever threw this request at me, I would first assume he/she was either:
-a documentation geek, demonstrating his powers
-a slave of some company rules invented by someone not even able to read
schematics.
-someone unskilled at reading schematics who is comparing to something
else he/she saw.
In any case, Im sure I could easily get them to accept vertical text.
And Im sure that's an easier job than to get this apparently
inconsistant feature into Eagle.

> Neatness counts, A LOT. Your production tech, field tech, or customer,
> might not complain, but what attitude did they have when dealing with your
> schematics? Maybe they weren't even aware of it, but the "eh, who cares"
> attitude exhibited by your schematic probably caused a little of the same
> in them. Eh, that solder joint is probably good, I'm not going to bother
> to check with the jewler's loupe like I usually do. Eh, that cap fell on
> the floor where I might have stepped on it, it's probably not cracked, good
> enough, not worth my getting out of this chair to get a new one. And so on
> it goes.

Yes neatness counts, but when we have different views of what's neat,
you dont get far. I feel bad when I read schematics where the
refdes/value placement is unpredictable. I prefer drawing the sch to
make space for labels where they are, relative to the symbol.
The production attitude you mention is slightly off topic, but is
important in production line, not that much during design. Personally I
dont give a damn on details like that for my prototypes, at least in my
current work environment where there is no safety risks. Actually I dont
mind some sloppyness on prototypes, it may help me identlfy weaknesses
in both the design, and production process. I never expect production to
be 100% correct all the time, there are lot of humans involved. But I do
add selftests wherever I can.

> When you give someone sloppy work, you set the tone and give them
> permission to do the same. Or, if you're working for them, they may decide
> they like the other engineer's work better, even if they aren't even
> concious of why.
>
> I can tell you for sure that if you worked for me, you'd be making all your
> text horizontal. And if I actually had to say something to you to make
> that happen, I probably wouldn't tell you this, but your lack of
> professional pride in your work would be something in the back of my mind
> when deciding who to assign to what task.

You make me smile and think all the thoughts I listed above. If I worked
for you and you asked me to do this on Eagle, we'd be having a hot
argument about time spending and resource utilization, and maybe end up
having dark clouds hanging over both our heads. If eagle had this as an
option already, I would still think the thoughts and not care.
If you were working for me, I think you'd do good production quality
control, at least if you behave toward people less skilled than you ;)

From reading your posts over the years, I know we are different people,
but at least we have something in common, since we are both die hard
Eagle users.
Re: Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #164379 is a reply to message #164377] Mon, 07 December 2015 13:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rachaelp
Messages: 604
Registered: March 2015
Location: UK
Senior Member
Given the first paragraph to your latest comment I expect you won't bother to reply, which is fine, as I said previously this is just a suggestion, you don't have to like it, agree to it being in Eagle or use it if it ever did make it in there. I can see now I'm not the only person that would like this but maybe I am in a minority and I don't care, it's something that would be helpful to me when dealing with some of my clients.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
For this topic, the smash function covers the vertial reading disabilities and I see no reason to change this in Eagle.

No the smash function is a cludge that allows a work around. It takes time to smash and reposition things and risks errors being made.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
I do however see the potential for scewing up readability by placing the refdes/value totally wrong, or even delete them. Its a function I try to stay away from, although in some rare cases I may choose to use it.

So you say smash does the job so you see no reason to change this in Eagle and then in your next sentence you go on to give a good reason why smash isn't good for this after all.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
We are all different people with different skills and habits and some of us work better together than others. I accept that, but if a customer ever threw this request at me, I would first assume he/she was either:
-a documentation geek, demonstrating his powers
-a slave of some company rules invented by someone not even able to read schematics.
-someone unskilled at reading schematics who is comparing to something else he/she saw.
In any case, Im sure I could easily get them to accept vertical text.

Have you ever worked for large multinationals with strict procedures? Especially in for example the aerospace field? I'm not going to annoy them by pushing back and refusing to do something they require and risk not getting any future work from them.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
And Im sure that's an easier job than to get this apparently inconsistant feature into Eagle.

No it's really not easier, for some clients this is non-negotiable, no matter how stupid you think their requirements are. Why is this feature inconsistent?

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
Yes neatness counts, but when we have different views of what's neat, you dont get far. I feel bad when I read schematics where the refdes/value placement is unpredictable.

I agree with you and hence this feature would ensure refdes/value were all placed predictably.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
I prefer drawing the sch to make space for labels where they are, relative to the symbol.

I assume you mean so you can label functional blocks of your design to make it more readable? Completely agree but off topic.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
The production attitude you mention is slightly off topic, but is important in production line, not that much during design. Personally I dont give a damn on details like that for my prototypes, at least in my current work environment where there is no safety risks. Actually I dont mind some sloppyness on prototypes, it may help me identlfy weaknesses in both the design, and production process. I never expect production to be 100% correct all the time, there are lot of humans involved. But I do add selftests wherever I can.

This statement make no sense. Sloppyness doesn't identify weaknesses in design or production, it just identifies issues caused where somebody couldn't be bothered to do something right. All it does is cost time/money to rectify these issues before you can go ahead with the more important job of testing out your prototypes to ensure your design was in fact correct.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
From reading your posts over the years, I know we are different people, but at least we have something in common, since we are both die hard Eagle users.

I've not been using Eagle for nearly as long as yourself or Olin but I have become quite a fan of it over the last year I have been using it. I've used several high-end tools from the likes of Mentor Graphics and Cadence and while they do provide some really nice features is comes at an immense cost, both up front and ongoing for support. Eagle isn't as polished and it has its usability quirks but in most cases you can get it to do what you want with a little bit of patience and scripting knowhow. In other cases you can't, and you need a little help from the devs to provide the facilities to allow it to do what you need, but generally it can cater for many diverse requirements.

As you said, we are all different with very differing requirements. You may not see the value in this but to be quite so dismissive for no reason seems quite unfair. You could just have ignored the post altogether if it wasn't something you were interested in.

Rachael
Re: Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #164388 is a reply to message #164379] Tue, 08 December 2015 11:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Leikvoll
Messages: 1351
Registered: November 2007
Senior Member
Ok, this is growing out of proportions, so Im gonna end this short.

Yes, you are right on many of your statements (also regarding my attitude)

The reason why I have this attitude regarding vertical reading is kinda
related to the tool we are actually discussing. We are discussing Ealge.
I doubt any high requirement space/safety would even allow Eagle as a
design tool for their gear. I may be wrong, but I think they will have
their standards to work along, and alignment of text would be very low
down on that list of need-to-have featurs. Eagle would fail early here.
Eagle has too many issues that would not make me feel good to use in
those high requirements products.



On 07.12.2015 14:48, Rachael wrote:
> Given the first paragraph to your latest comment I expect you won't bother
> to reply, which is fine, as I said previously this is just a suggestion,
> you don't have to like it, agree to it being in Eagle or use it if it ever
> did make it in there. I can see now I'm not the only person that would like
> this but maybe I am in a minority and I don't care, it's something that
> would be helpful to me when dealing with some of my clients.
>
> Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
>> For this topic, the smash function covers the vertial reading
>> disabilities and I see no reason to change this in Eagle.
>
> No the smash function is a cludge that allows a work around. It takes time
> to smash and reposition things and risks errors being made.
>
> Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
>> I do however see the potential for scewing up readability by placing
>> the refdes/value totally wrong, or even delete them. Its a function I try
>> to stay away from, although in some rare cases I may choose to use it.
>
> So you say smash does the job so you see no reason to change this in Eagle
> and then in your next sentence you go on to give a good reason why smash
> isn't good for this after all.
>
> Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
>> We are all different people with different skills and habits and some
>> of us work better together than others. I accept that, but if a customer
>> ever threw this request at me, I would first assume he/she was either:
>> -a documentation geek, demonstrating his powers
>> -a slave of some company rules invented by someone not even able to
>> read schematics.
>> -someone unskilled at reading schematics who is comparing to something
>> else he/she saw.
>> In any case, Im sure I could easily get them to accept vertical text.
>
> Have you ever worked for large multinationals with strict procedures?
> Especially in for example the aerospace field? I'm not going to annoy them
> by pushing back and refusing to do something they require and risk not
> getting any future work from them.
>
> Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
>> And Im sure that's an easier job than to get this apparently
>> inconsistant feature into Eagle.
>
> No it's really not easier, for some clients this is non-negotiable, no
> matter how stupid you think their requirements are. Why is this feature
> inconsistent?
>
> Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
>> Yes neatness counts, but when we have different views of what's neat,
>> you dont get far. I feel bad when I read schematics where the
>> refdes/value placement is unpredictable.
>
> I agree with you and hence this feature would ensure refdes/value were all
> placed predictably.
>
> Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
>> I prefer drawing the sch to make space for labels where they are,
>> relative to the symbol.
>
> I assume you mean so you can label functional blocks of your design to make
> it more readable? Completely agree but off topic.
>
> Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
>> The production attitude you mention is slightly off topic, but is
>> important in production line, not that much during design. Personally I
>> dont give a damn on details like that for my prototypes, at least in my
>> current work environment where there is no safety risks. Actually I dont
>> mind some sloppyness on prototypes, it may help me identlfy weaknesses in
>> both the design, and production process. I never expect production to be
>> 100% correct all the time, there are lot of humans involved. But I do add
>> selftests wherever I can.
>
> This statement make no sense. Sloppyness doesn't identify weaknesses in
> design or production, it just identifies issues caused where somebody
> couldn't be bothered to do something right. All it does is cost time/money
> to rectify these issues before you can go ahead with the more important job
> of testing out your prototypes to ensure your design was in fact correct.
>
> Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 08:28
>> From reading your posts over the years, I know we are different people,
>> but at least we have something in common, since we are both die hard
>> Eagle users.
>
> I've not been using Eagle for nearly as long as yourself or Olin but I have
> become quite a fan of it over the last year I have been using it. I've used
> several high-end tools from the likes of Mentor Graphics and Cadence and
> while they do provide some really nice features is comes at an immense
> cost, both up front and ongoing for support. Eagle isn't as polished and it
> has its usability quirks but in most cases you can get it to do what you
> want with a little bit of patience and scripting knowhow. In other cases
> you can't, and you need a little help from the devs to provide the
> facilities to allow it to do what you need, but generally it can cater for
> many diverse requirements.
>
> As you said, we are all different with very differing requirements. You may
> not see the value in this but to be quite so dismissive for no reason seems
> quite unfair. You could just have ignored the post altogether if it wasn't
> something you were interested in.
>
> Rachael
>
Re: Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #164462 is a reply to message #164377] Wed, 16 December 2015 21:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Olin
Messages: 903
Registered: December 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Senior Member
Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 03:28

-a slave of some company rules invented by someone not even able to read
schematics.

That may be true, but it would be reality nonetheless. Sometime requirements are requirements. All-horizontal text is sometimes a requirement, whether you think it's silly or not. I happen to make my schematics that way all the time, but that doesn't matter when a large corporate customer insists the consultant does it that way, or they'll get a different consultant.

This really should be something Eagle could allow us to do more easily. I know I'd use it heavily, whether required to do so or not.

Quote:

In any case, Im sure I could easily get them to accept vertical text.


Again, sometimes it's a requirement that you don't get to negotiate if you want the job.

Quote:

And Im sure that's an easier job than to get this apparently
inconsistant feature into Eagle.


You seem to be misunderstanding something. I recognize you don't think the feature is important, but inconsistant makes no sense. All we're asking for is the ability to have alternate symbols within a single device. These could then be optionally tied to specific rotation angles to make selecting them particularly simple.

Right now you have to either rotate and smash parts, or make whole alternate devices just to get symbols in different orientations. Both those make more work and give greater chance of inconsistancy.

Quote:

I feel bad when I read schematics where the
refdes/value placement is unpredictable.


Predictability makes little sense in this context. There is nothing to predict when the schematic is in front of you. If you really meant consistancy, then that makes little sense too. In your system, the direction towards the refdes and value are inconsistant because they depend on how the part was rotated. You're already not getting all refdes to the right, for example. You might get that for a vertical resistor, but then the refdes would be above (and tilted 90 deg in addition) for a horizontal resistor, or maybe below and tilted the other way, depending on whether the stock part was rotated 90 or 27 deg.

With the proposed system, you could have refdes and values to the right for vertical resistors and refdes above and value below for horizontal resistors, for example. That would be more consistant since each would be pre-defined as separate symbols for their orientation, so less chance of differences across the schematic.

Quote:

Actually I dont
mind some sloppyness on prototypes, it may help me identlfy weaknesses
in both the design, and production process.


Wait, you're actually saying manufacturing errors are good for your prototyping process!? Sorry, but that's just silly. Designing a circuit so that any resistor can be replaced by a capacitor or any other component that comes in the same package makes absolutely no sense, and is totally impractical anyway. This is not designing to part tolerance ranges, but basically random replacement of parts.

Playing along for a little, let's consider how this is supposed to work. Your tech installed a SOT-23 zener where you specified a SOT-23 NPN transistor. Your circuit doesn't work and you trace it down to this manufacturing error. What are you going to do about it? Redesign the circuit to be tolerant of either a zener or transistor in that spot? Surely you must see how silly that is. And next time it could be a PNP instead of a NPN, or a MOSFET.

Quote:

If I worked
for you and you asked me to do this on Eagle, we'd be having a hot
argument about time spending and resource utilization,


No, we wouldn't. Certainly not for very long.
Re: Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #164475 is a reply to message #164388] Thu, 17 December 2015 17:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jorge Garcia
Messages: 1294
Registered: April 2010
Senior Member
On 12/8/2015 6:16 AM, Morten Leikvoll wrote:
> Ok, this is growing out of proportions, so Im gonna end this short.
>
> Yes, you are right on many of your statements (also regarding my attitude)
>
> The reason why I have this attitude regarding vertical reading is kinda
> related to the tool we are actually discussing. We are discussing Ealge.
> I doubt any high requirement space/safety would even allow Eagle as a
> design tool for their gear. I may be wrong, but I think they will have
> their standards to work along, and alignment of text would be very low
> down on that list of need-to-have featurs. Eagle would fail early here.
> Eagle has too many issues that would not make me feel good to use in
> those high requirements products.

Hi Morten,

You would be very surprised at the areas where EAGLE is allowed and the
high requirements it's used to meet. I can't name drop, but the point is
just to say that I see value in this being added to EAGLE.

I have sent an enhancement request to the devs on this issue. Now it's
up to them.

Best Regards,
Jorge Garcia
Re: Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #166331 is a reply to message #164161] Thu, 21 July 2016 15:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jay Abel
Messages: 4
Registered: July 2010
Junior Member
Hi All,

Since the last thread went completely off the rails, I'd like to respond to the original post.

I routinely use smash and rotate, change font, change size, etc., on all the parts in a design until I have it looking professional.  Not because my readers are stupid, but because I'm a professional and I take pride in my work.  Our company has strict rules for the size of text, fonts, line weights, etc.  At the library level, we use a script to add standard name and value texts to layers; we don't bother trying to position them nicely because we always align them to the grid in the schematic when we finalize the schematic.

Now, I WOULD like to cycle between alternate symbols for supporting DeMorgan equivalents because authoring schematics using positive logic conventions DRASTICALLY reduces logic errors and makes them much easier to verify.  If I have two active low signals and I want the active high output signal to be true when either input is true, the +symbol+ would be an OR body with a bubble at each input and none on the output.  The implementation would be a NAND gate.  So a NAND gate would have two symbols, one with an AND body and a bubble at the output, another with an OR body and a bubble on each input.  Same gate, two different symbols.  I tried making a DeMorgan version of my logic library, but don't like the idea of maintaining each part in two libraries -- it's likely a change might be made to one and not the other.

So while I agree that it would be nice to have different symbols (for whatever purpose), I wouldn't want those alternate symbols to +necessarily+ be tied to the rotation.  But if someone else wanted to build their library that way, they certainly could; whatever mechanism selected the alternate symbol would have to be performed in addition to the rotation, but that would be less work than smashing and realigning text.

Jay

--
To view any images and attachments in this post, visit:
https://www.element14.com/community/message/202045
Re: Alternative symbols for easy rotation [message #166336 is a reply to message #166331] Fri, 22 July 2016 06:41 Go to previous message
rachaelp
Messages: 604
Registered: March 2015
Location: UK
Senior Member
Hi Jay,

It seems like you have another perfectly valid use for this feature which is different from my use case :-)

To answer your final point, it wouldn't necessarily be tied in any way to actual rotation, it could use the different symbol variants to cycle through symbols which were drawn at different rotations so no need for any involvement of the separate rotate command. It could maybe have an enhancement such that a flag set in the library part linked it to rotation which would then enable the schematic to be changed more easily in future if the orientation needed to be changed.

I do believe that with this approach, the need for smash and reposition in your first paragraph could be significantly reduced with an appropriately designed library which matches your style guides, especially as the schematic must use a 0.1" grid so all other text can be placed at any alternative off grid locations within the library. It'll likely never be 100% and you'll still have to smash and tidy up some parts but I think a lot should just go down without needing any fettling.

Best Regards,

Rachael

--
To view any images and attachments in this post, visit:
https://www.element14.com/community/message/202072
Previous Topic: Dynamic menu entries
Next Topic: Layer Abuse - how bad is this?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Sep 20 20:12:56 GMT 2017