X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] Another PCB grid step question To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com References: From: "Richard Rasker (rasker AT linetec DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:49:18 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id w19BnLam009101 Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk Op 09-02-18 om 11:19 schreef Stephan Böttcher: > "Richard Rasker (rasker AT linetec DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" > writes: > >> Isn't it far more logical to adopt the logarithm-based step scheme >> that is ubiquitous wherever scaling takes place, so 1 - 2 - 5 - 10 - >> 20 - 50 etcetera? > I find it difficult to work with steps sizes that are not integer > multiples. Doing some work a 2.5mil, when switching to 1mil I cannot > find half the endpoints. Requires some discipline to skip some steps, > accoring to preferences. Either 1 - 5 - 10, or 1 - 2 - 10. Good point, the '25 step size is indeed more of a pain than an asset. I vote for 1 - 5 - 10 then. I myself almost exclusively use 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 mm -- and very rarely 0.01 mm, mostly when working with non-90° angles in and bends and arcs. Then again, maybe there are people who actually use the other step values for good reasons that I haven't thought of yet. Richard