"dodges" or "hops" on overlapping wires in a schematic? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Pack34
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 02:17:40 pm
content: I could have sworn I saw this on an Altium schematic PDF at some point. It could have been a similar looking schematic editor.Is there some setting in Altium to display overlapping nets "dodging" each other? Meaning to have the vertical running nets arc over unconnected horizontal nets to make it clear that these nets are not connected? By default just the connected nets are displayed as connected using a dot.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 02:37:38 pm
content: IIRC its in Preferences somewhereYup...Preferences > Schematic > General > Display Crossovers

author: Pack34
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 03:31:18 pm
content: Thank you sir!

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 03:50:04 pm
content: do NOT use that.it is ugly and it is obsolete. drafting standards do not recommend this.

author: Mikekoz13
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 05:03:38 pm
content: I agree with Free Electron.... obsolete.

author: Pack34
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 06:10:46 pm
content: I agree that all connected nets should always be properly dotted. However, how Altium handles net naming makes me a little nervous and I like that additional indicator that overlapping nets are not connected.

author: edpalmer42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 07:22:16 pm
content: I actually prefer schematics with the 'hop'. It makes it very obvious that there is no connection. Otherwise, it's possible that there should be a dot but they missed it.I recently had that situation with a professionally drawn schematic of a commercial device from the 1960s. In that case, they missed the dot, but it took a while to realize that. If the drawing had used hops it would be obvious that two lines that crossed without a hop were probably connected. Actually, the mistake would likely have been caught before the drawing was issued.Does anyone know why they got rid of hops? Was it just to speed up the drawing process rather than make it better?Ed

author: Macbeth
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2017, 10:43:48 pm
content: I agree, I like the hop as it is obvious. But crossing wires at least have to do the hop or the 45 degree thing.Because some idiot would end up releasing a device into production because a little cross-splat dot was missed.I also prefer the old zigzag resistor than the boring rectangle that can be confused with a fuse.As for the imbeciles that changed super easy to use logic symbols everyone has used since the 1950's with vile rectangles using ampersands in corners because they insisted on using typewriters - IEC 60617-12 : 1997 - yuck! They can argue back in Esperanto.Thankfully nobody IRL uses them.

author: Hensingler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2017, 04:02:04 am
content: Quote from: edpalmer42 on May 15, 2017, 07:22:16 pmAnyone who connects two crossing wires with a dot needs a clue beaten into them with a lump of 2 by 4.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2017, 03:52:01 pm
content: Quote from: Hensingler on May 16, 2017, 04:02:04 amSchematic drafting standards only allow for T junctions. A crossing wire is NEVER connected !no dots needed, no hops needed. there is no room for interpretation.