Add handle for arc curvature

[silvio3105]

Hi,

Handle is missing for arc curvature.

[silvio3105]

Bump! @jorge_garcia 

[yqliu]

@silvio3105 , can you explain how you want to use the handle？If you need a way to change the curvature, you can change the "curve" value in the property dialog.

[silvio3105]

To change curvature without going into property dialog. Same as you can move object without going into property dialog and entering manually coords.

[yqliu · Accepted solution]

I see. Electronics environment doesn't have the concept of manipulators in modeling environment for now. But I agree it will be convenient.

[jesper8W75R]

@silvio3105 
Hold down the Command key while using "Move" and you can change curvature very easy.
This also works with circle diameter and other stuff.

[silvio3105]

To be clear - cmd key i CTRL on Win?
Okey, seems that this already exist, but it hidden and new user cannot know that without asking.
My first thought was - there's no handle or something that indicates "hold me while moving and you will resize object".

[jesper8W75R]

That's what the manual is for. 😉

There is "override" options for most things by using Control / Shift / Alt / Command 

This goes back to the EAGLE days.

They all affect various things, depending on what you are doing, like when routing:
Shift continues the route with the same track width as the existing part of the track (if any).
Command allows you to start routing in the middle of a track.
Alt overrides the grid snap.
Not sure if Control does anything else than make your left click look like a right click.

Command is the "universal"  "edge drag" override. It also works on rectangle edges e.t.c.

[jonrbloom]

How about a future world in which the Layout tools (both Footprint and Board Layout) were based on the constraint system used by Fusion Sketches, and Fusions basic UI carried across seamlessly to Electronics. Instead of having to place pads, and placement guides, and then reposition again with explicit coords (sometimes using a calculator to work out their positions!), you just set the distances between them with a Dimension. Or build an array of pads with the pattern tool, parametrically.

I get that not breaking things for existing Eagle users is important, but this feels like something that could be added without breaking existing mechanisms. If you don't add a dimension/constraint your explicit placement persists just as it does today.

Right now it's more Collection (separate independent tools) than Fusion (cohesive family of complementary tools). That's not meant as a criticism - It's understandable that the starting point is Eagle. But working towards a more cohesive GUI (after stability is improved) would be lovely. You don't really need a manual to use Fusion Design.

[silvio3105]

I agree with you, but examples you gave(with placing pads) does not hold the water.
All other programs for PCB design work on similar way. X, Y point is middle point of pad(not egde point) and you write where that point is. That's like unwritten standard for ECAD programs.
Some datasheets are poorly wirtten so you have to use calculator to calculate middle points.

But yes, some things should be more natural. If user(which have knowledge from other ECAD programs) have to go to the manual to learn how to create multiple pads at once, then UX is really bad.

[jonrbloom]

@silvio3105 - Not sure I understand. I am not asking for the Pad location (or line endpoints) to be other than its centre. I am suggesting that the position of the pad (it's centre) could be constrained in exactly the same way as Sketch entities. For example, for a simple footprint with two pads to be spaced equally around the origin, we could set their spacing (Pitch) with a Dimension, and use a centrepoint constraint (or symmetry) to fix them relative to the footprint origin.

Similarly, drawing the outline could be as simple as a dimensioned rectangle centred about the footprint origin.

For sure, not all the Sketch constraint types will make sense. But several of them would - You could take this a step further by defining a footprint fully parametrically and instantiating several times with different parameters to adjust pitch and pad counts (think multi-contact connector that comes in various numbers of contact). Once the core concept is in place, lots of things become possible.

[jorge_garcia]

Hi @jonrbloom,

I agree with being able to leverage appropriate sketch functionality in electronics and the team does too. There is still sometime before that will be possible because it requires much tighter union between two VERY dissimilar code bases than what we have now. It's definitely a goal.

For now though, @silvio3105 and @jesper8W75R have shown you the way.

Best Regards,