Hello, > Hello Peter, > unfortunately I did not try the PCB...I had'nt the time to solve my > Linux building problem yet. Sorry to hear, I managed build PCB on linux. Post your problem's details, maybe I could help. > But your pictures remind me to a problem with a windows-based progam. > There, the autorouter produces also result like this. > > So I would give you two possibilities: > 1st. some Programs gots settings like "prefered routing direction" - you > can make here the decision like "Layer x shall prefer vertical" - "Layer > y shall prefer horizonal" Is it true about gschem/PCB combo too? > > With wrong settings the results seems also like yours. > > 2nd experience: > The autorouter (which I know) are programmed to solve complicated wiring > situation. > If you try it with a simple task, the result looks much to complicated. > It seems like the algorithm can't "think" such easy. Yes, I experienced such situations befor with some really professional tools but they seem to overcome this with some sort of optimization passes. PCB failed to optimize this route. > > Perhaps it is not vailid for your PCB, but results like yours Ive seen > also at very "professional" and expensive programs. > It is not really beautiful, but in my mind not a bug. The thing is that I did not want just to complain, I have programming experience in C and I would like to make it better. Unfortunately I have no knowledge of possible algorithms and their optimizations. There is very little interest in autorouter quality from what I see but I will try to reach the author and find out what can be done. > > with best regards > Manfred > Regards, Peter > > > > PR schrieb: > > >Hello, > > > >Did my screenshots of autorouter problems reach you? > > > >Peter > > > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: To jest =?iso-8859-2?Q?cz=EA=B6=E6?= listu podpisana cyfrowo