Re: gEDA-user: Toporouter Changes

[Anthony Blake <tonyb33@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Gatliff wrote:
> On the pdhobbs board, the toprouted output shows a failed net at the 
> top-left corner of the board that seems like a trivial case.  Funny that 
> it would miss that one--- and if it had found it, I think it could have 
> completed at least one more net as well.

Ahh yes.. I know why that happened. Since taking that shot, the 
algorithms have changed and the board no longer looks like that.. So 
next time I see that problem crop up I'll take care of it.

> I'd be curious to see how the total track lengths compare between your 
> toporouter output and the geometric autorouter's, and what the 
> statistical variation in lengths is between the individual tracks of the 
> two boards.  Does your output tend to find shorter paths but with 
> occasional outliers, for example?  The answers might be interesting to 
> the RF and power guys, and might also help you automate the tests to see 
> if toporouter changes improve the test case outputs.

I've put up a new page 
(http://wand.net.nz/~amb33/toporouter/detour.html) showing some results 
of a simple adjustment to the detour optimizations, which includes 
wiring lengths for comparisons. A few boards such as LED and Meggy Jr 
have a few inches less wiring now. All boards I tried have improved 
wiring, and sometimes route more nets. The one exception was the 
laminator board which now fails 6 nets because early optimizations 
prevent some of the huge detours needed to finish with only 2 failures.

Cheers,
Anthony


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user