DipTrace 4.2 Release

News from developer. Also post info about new articles, tutorials, conferences, etc.
Message
Author
jgerhardy
Posts: 12
Joined: 23 Oct 2017, 03:20

Checksums - Re: DipTrace 4.2 Release

#21 Post by jgerhardy » 19 Nov 2021, 03:55

Hello Alex,

thanks for the checksums.

Hello Mattay,

thanks for your suggestion. To now, I have never busied myself with digital signatures.

I found the "Digital Signature" tab in the properties window. While it may be that
a warning message pops up when I press the "details" button and something is wrong
with the file, but if you had not told me this, I would have never known. Is the
digital signature checked automatically every time at the installation, in case I forget
to look at this tab in the properties window? How can you tell if it was checked at
installation or not? What if the check it turned off by by somebody or something?

I am a guy from the old school, you know, action/reaction. So, in this sense I am sort of missing
the "check" button with your method which then gives the answer "OK" or "Error". So, please
no offense when I prefer to check what Alex sent me (from the source) with what certutil
(on my computer) returns and I can see the results right away. I simply have more trust in
things I can see.

Cheers,
John

fluxanode
Posts: 92
Joined: 28 Feb 2014, 21:15

Re: DipTrace 4.2 Release

#22 Post by fluxanode » 19 Nov 2021, 12:52

I didn't see the push shove routing in 4.2? is it implemented yet?

novarm44
Technical Support
Posts: 423
Joined: 09 Jun 2010, 06:24
Contact:

Re: DipTrace 4.2 Release

#23 Post by novarm44 » 24 Nov 2021, 05:36

fluxanode wrote:
19 Nov 2021, 12:52
I didn't see the push shove routing in 4.2? is it implemented yet?
I'm actually the programmer who does this feature. It is quite complex and requires some kind of investigations/attempts how to implement it. The first attempt was back in 2018 and as a result I've got pushing of the first trace and T-junctions. But the speed was not very good for large moves and the principle was actually moving/changing the trace, not re-routing. Then I was forced to pause investigations and development to implement IPC-7351 features and other things you can see in 4.x. I have just returned to development, kept all environment (pushing traces is made as separate thread), but now changed the principle to re-routing traces (similar to auto-router, and I already did that). Actually other tools use re-routing too. I will post the video once get something similar to real routing process. Again I don't promise it will be fast due to algorithm complexity, however it is our high priority and we do not plan to pause development until completion of the feature.
Other programmers doing Spice simulation and XML/Plugins support at the moment, so we still may publish updates before completion of push and shove.

fdemir
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jun 2010, 11:47

Re: DipTrace 4.2 Release

#24 Post by fdemir » 24 Nov 2021, 16:31

Other programmers doing Spice simulation
Hi Stas.
will Spice simulation be a built-in feature?

novarm44
Technical Support
Posts: 423
Joined: 09 Jun 2010, 06:24
Contact:

Re: DipTrace 4.2 Release

#25 Post by novarm44 » 25 Nov 2021, 06:17

fdemir wrote:
24 Nov 2021, 16:31
Hi Stas.
will Spice simulation be a built-in feature?
Hi Fazil,
Yes, it will be integrated into Schematic Capture.

fdemir
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jun 2010, 11:47

Re: DipTrace 4.2 Release

#26 Post by fdemir » 25 Nov 2021, 06:41

novarm44 wrote:
25 Nov 2021, 06:17
Yes, it will be integrated into Schematic Capture.
Good news. I'm looking forward to it.

matttay
Posts: 54
Joined: 08 Aug 2010, 01:58

Re: Checksums - Re: DipTrace 4.2 Release

#27 Post by matttay » 28 Nov 2021, 13:53

jgerhardy wrote:
19 Nov 2021, 03:55
So, please no offense when I prefer to check what Alex sent me (from the source) with what certutil
(on my computer) returns and I can see the results right away. I simply have more trust in
things I can see.
None taken, but I think you are missing the brilliance of signed images. When you try to run the diptrace installer, if the digital signature matches you'll see a notice saying it was signed by NOVARM. That means the integrity of the install package is exact and you can be certain nobody has tampered with it--what you are getting is precisely what the developer intended for you to get. It's currently impossible for anyone to tamper with a signed image and NOT have it detected. The problem with MD5 is that if someone other than the developer had the ability to modify the EXE for malicious reasons, they also have the ability to change the MD5 that you expect. In other words, the MD5 can give you assurance that the exe was correctly downloaded, but that's already done at many other layers in the various protocols.

matttay
Posts: 54
Joined: 08 Aug 2010, 01:58

Re: DipTrace 4.2 Release

#28 Post by matttay » 28 Nov 2021, 14:07

Alex wrote:
18 Nov 2021, 07:55
There are components with internally connected pads. For example, transistors in TO-263 package or most tact switches. It's good to have neat schematic without extra pins and control what pads to connect (either or all) in PCB Layout. You can ignore connectivity error if you are sure a short circuit between different nets is wanted. We will consider a way to do it without warnings.
Interesting, thanks. I just don't think adding a pin for every pad is a hassle. Plus, it lets you do a check where you can see every pin is connected as intended. If you are magically connecting pins when you are assigning a pattern then there's no way to visually check this on a schematic. In other words, when you have a 256 pin BGA with 60 grounds, you need to (at some point) verify that all 60 grounds are connected. Having the 60 ground pins visible on the pattern is important because it allows you to check it. You might call it a "neat schematic" to hide them all except for one, but the "neat schematic" has no way of being checked. And yes, it's true on a 4 pin part too. Things that work behind the scenes and result in divergent databases and net names between schematic and pcb are dangerous.

Post Reply