X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Envelope-From: paubert AT iram DOT es Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:24 +0200 From: "Gabriel Paubert (paubert AT iram DOT es) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] Antifork Message-ID: <20150827132824.GA11105@visitor2.iram.es> References: <55D9BDC7 DOT 4000608 AT jump-ing DOT de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spamina-Bogosity: Unsure X-Spamina-Spam-Score: -0.2 (/) X-Spamina-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-0.2 points) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: delorie.com] 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4999] Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:43:40PM +0200, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote: > Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda- > user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > > >> My fantasy when I heard about ruby scripting in pcb was that perhaps > >> Stefan's router might someday see the light of day afterall. Oh well > > > > I keep seeing mentions of this legendary router. I have been these > > gEDA lists +10 years but I don't remember it. What was the big appeal > > if it? > > It comes up with cool looking layouts. When done properly, the technology > promises to be very efficient and find clever solutions. There is a little > demo on youtube from back in 2012 when the toporouter sort of worked: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqT4ZYGB3VY > > As fancy as the result looks, the toporouter never lived up to its > potential. The state shown off in the video has several significant > limitations. > > * The algorithm is all-or-nothing by design. It can only applied to the > whole layout. You cannot tell it to route just this subset of connections. > Quite a limitation, especially for boards with analog RF signals. I've done quite a few boards with analog RF switches: the RF signals have to be routed very carefully (controlled impedance, nothing coming too close, etc). But I would have liked to have an autorouter for the control signals, which are never critical (they are quasi static, changing them every 15 minutes would be considered extremely frequent). > * The algorithm restricts it self strictly on one side of the board for > any given net. That is, when in a dead end, it is not able to insert a via > and switch to bottom and work from there. With thru hole components this > is often less problematic. But SMD without vias tends to be unroutable. That's quite an understatement. > > * The router ignored any pre-routed copper, too. You had to start it on a > footprints-only layout. At least it would need keep-out areas for where you don't want the toporouter to affect the later parts. > > * As seen in the video, more often than not, there are a few unrouted > nets. Typically these are hard to fix manually. Even with vias? > > The developer who did the toporouter left the project when the Google > summer of code he was financed by was over. Unfortunately, there was > insufficient documentation. And the code style was such that the router > was assessed as working but impenetrable by those who took a closer look > after the fact. Even more unfortunately, there was a major shift at the > core of pcb going on about this time -- the internal precision of geometry > was pushed from 1/1000 mil to 1 nm. Ever since this move, the toporouts > straight out fails. Actually the previous resolution was 1/100 mil. Gabriel