| ID: | 3699 |
| From: | ge...@igor2.repo.hu |
| Date: | Sat, 18 Jan 2020 16:23:37 +0100 (CET) |
| Subject: | Re: [pcb-rnd] Wishlist: improve arc resolution. |
| in-reply-to: | 3698 from Gabriel Paubert <pa...@iram.es> |
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020, Gabriel Paubert wrote: > Hi Igor2, > >On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:28:19AM +0100, gedau@igor2.repo.hu wrote: >> Hi Gabriel, >> >> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020, Gabriel Paubert wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> >The basic reason is that the file format only puts arc endpoint angles >> >rounding to the nearest degree, without any decimal place: when you draw >> >the line, the accuracy is great, the loss happens when saving the file. >> >> <snip> >> >> >I don't know whether this can be solved with a trivial file format >> >change, of if this needs much more surgery, and perhaps even a file >> >version bump. >> >> Good catch, thanks! >> >> Fortunately the data model and the file format both allow floating point >> there. The loader loads non-integer angles properly. It's only the write >> code that rounds it. So no need to change anything deep. >> > >Ok, thanks. > >Speaking of angles, I have quite a few "rot = 360.000000" in a large >file, about 80. Is it normal that they are not normalized ? Yup, normal. >Unless I've missed something, they almost all (except one) correspond to >the floater associated with a refdes. The last one is a text item on the >top silkscreen layer. > >Anyway, it works, it just looks a bit weird. The code normalizes it when needed. We don't automatically normalize values we load because then saving the file would cause unwanted diffs. >Note that in this case, the rotation angle is given with 6 decimal >digits, which is the default number of decimal digits for %f in C. > >Why not use the same precision for arcs? Because, as you see in the patch, we are using %ma, not %f for angles. This way angles are not tied to type (in theory we could switch to integer or fixed point or long double). >It's probably a bit overkill but it should not cause any harm, and all >angles/rotations would use the same precision. I will consider what %ma should do after the fix when I get there to fix it. Since this is not a critical bug, it's not handled now, but probably in next cycle's bugfix phase. (I don't want to ponder or make a decision now because I will do about 760 other things in pcb-rnd before I get there and will forget the result, so it's waste of time.) best regards, Igor2
Reply subtree:
3699 Re: [pcb-rnd] Wishlist: improve arc resolution. from ge...@igor2.repo.hu