The only problem is when I create or update a PCB from the schematic it complains that "PORT1, PORT2, PORT3.
This is quick, works well, and looks nice too. This verifies that I typed the net names correctly. The second time I do this I am asked if I want to connect by name, which I do. I name the net connecting to the port component by the desired cross-sheet signal name. I set Main Marking = None on the first one I use and then copy/paste it for subsequent ports. These port components have no pattern, and their ref des is PORT.
I ended up with some custom components which graphically show the signal direction: I experimented with all three methods of connecting nets without wires as described in Help, and they all have their problems. I'm of the old school which believes schematics should be aesthetically pleasing, used and easily comprehended by humans in addition to being netlist generators. Net names appear in one font and color while net port component names are quite different, so you see a mixture of the two in a design which has named nets and cross-sheet signals. Using net ports with different names for each cross-sheet signal also means you have a proliferation of net port components in your design, which makes a mess of your component libraries.Īlso, net ports look wrong on the schematic. Why not? Why connect cross-sheet signals by means of a net port component name, rather than the net name? Using net port component names to connect signals with some invisible unrelated net name makes no sense to me. Net ports don't change the name of the net they connect to. I'm a new DipTrace user so I may be missing something here, but using net ports for cross-sheet signals in multi-sheet or hierarchical schematics looks all wrong to me.