Hi, For 1 feature. We do have lots of tools for this, try to play this bellow image ![enter image description here][1] 2. You can use One Arc, just let it start point very close to end point. ![enter image description here][2] [1]: /editor/20160425/571d6acd82aea.png [2]: /editor/20160425/571d6b1361110.png

Thank you Dillon! I have problems getting my point across sometimes. The grid can be setup to snap with two settings. However, even though that is true, the adjustment will affect both X and Y at the same time, instead of having an independent X-snap and Y-snap for making things like this... Try to make something similar to the below and you will find out that 60 degrees is different than 90. ;) With the Y axis pinned to the X, the best you will have is a hex of circles that is tight in only 1/3rd of the design with gaps between the rest at the other two angles. ![6mm circles equidistant in pattern][1] Try it and see! :) [1]: /editor/20160425/571d7ef2c3a65.png

Yes, need to find a good way.

I wonder if we need to be able to switch between rectangular (XY) and polar (radius, angle) coordinates?

@andyfierman - Just a picture of my "wish it were" while i'm poking numbers in by hand. . . :) And please correct me if you see sumpn i dunno yet, okies? I only started yesterday and dove right in, so there is a lot i have yet to try. Anyways... I was thinking about that parts list in the Design Manager, and let's say, instead of using a mouse on a very busy crowdy board that lights up practically everything as the mouses passes over head... one could just select the parts from that list and it would make them "selected" bold, or something. With that selected sub-list, then, one could apply the age old transformer to it like a waveform ( Placement = Bias + freq-sweep gain * Amplitude * F(x) * theta versus a fixed number of degrees per cycle to "drop" the part ) such that were a person creative enough, they could drop the parts in a spiral if they liked and have an option-box available to preset the rotation of the parts as they drop ( or leave them at some fixed value ). F(x) would include sin(theta), tan(theta), square-wave rails, etc. Overkill? Perhaps. But at least if the goal is high, then the basic needs along the same lines find a pleasant compromise eventually. Just tossing out ideas. This is a bunch of pixels i "dropped" that way one day: ![This is a frequency shifting sin wave versus tan(theta) spun around the center. It's an optical illusion. If one zooms into it, it will simply render the exact same thing as one "travels" down that tunnel toward the center. ][1] [1]: /editor/20160425/571dc37825518.png

How about this? In my reply to a similar request: https://easyeda.com/forum/topic/Semicircle_with_LEDS_RGB-lFDZlH2oK I suggested that a possible solution might be to create your own scripts to automate the process using EasyEDA's scripting features: https://easyeda.com/Doc/Open-File-Format/ and: **Super Menu > Miscellaneous > Scripts...** If the script is easy to use and works well, maybe it could be added to the Extensions list: **Super Menu > Miscellaneous > Extensions > Extensions Setting...**

Yes, that was exactly my thought as well, but right now, i have about 15 projects, including pulling an engine apart to its bones ( trying to find what ate a bearing ), going on all at the same time. The hexagon pattern i am working with now is for a Turn Signal lamp for the bike. As things go around here, while waiting for one part to arrive, or money buy a tool, or what have you, i usually start up yet another project along the way. So, eventually, yes, when i have time to read it all, that is exactly the simplest solution. I started reading it yesterday, and there is no "next page" button, or was too hard for me to find, i eventually pooped out going back and forth to the contents. I didn't really get very far. Seriously speaking, i was thinking of just writing something in C that could take a basic file's data, run a quick solution on it, then upload it back to the server. In any case, hexagons are not so difficult to crack with the math and they repeat anyways, so.... hey.. need some coffee? :) Either way, i really do enjoy working with the software. And the "atmosphere" is excellent. So, long story short, while reading dox yesterday, that button called out to me and said... "Ask a question". so i did and voila~. I am sure that the reason for this area is to stir ideas about software. Those two functions were just my two bits. :D

Your project is nice, but why keep lots of tracks just on bottom layer? ![enter image description here][1] [1]: /editor/20160425/571de397b5a72.png

@dillon Hey Groovie man! :) Uhm.... short answer? cuz ima still learning. :) Actually, though, i'd like to keep the electronics all on one side as possible too. But i have a question for you and sumpn to make you smile.. see.. i made my parts exactly the correct size per the data sheets. Okies, so.. yesterday... i was having all sorts of problems you should see version one on the back side, but... i like learning too. Come to finally figure it out that trying to make a hole in the board... i was using "lands" ( pads ) and figured they were like, erm... you know... "Lands!" anyways, so to put the hole into the self created part, i used a hole. so.. first a land on the bottom, then a hole, seemed to make sense. After i got the entire thing done, i had ONE wire ( the most fun for me is solving the circuit puzzle, but please accept my excuse that "cuz ima still learning", okies? ). Anyways, i finally had to deal with that rascal, and i read and read ... tutorials, help questions, trying to figure out what the problems were... basically two things were happening... it refused to allow me to make a hole, but after i finally worked around that problem, the program was yelling at me about bugs in my build. It said that i had to build my copper... so i read on that a bunch... made no sense at all ... ( oh and by the way, that is a bug you have... the solution you will see in a sec ). So, basically the Design manager was refusing my layout.. i had over forty errors all saying the same thing showing me the X's... i measured and used the measure tool, i measured several ways and it was just wrong... there was no phreeking way those lands were too close together, but that manager kept giving me bug after bug ( and that's the copper error, it goes to the wrong error message ). Anyways... eventually i figured it out, and it was because i had two holes on the lands of the parts... so... every single resistor, and every single LED was giving me a message. Instead of the layout it was my component, and yups, if you have two holes right on top of each other, that's too close together! :D So then i had to go back and read up on the "update" function.. still not real clear on how that is ordered, but i get it to work after a couple of times... AND... i am about to do it again because, i just now found out that the pretty picture up above... if you look real close... every single land is blue. And... up to now... i thought they were supposed to be that way... until i just ran those two top wires and saw they changed gray, so... with that little info in my craw... i was looking at the photograph ( which is an EXCELLENT FEATURE!! ) and HEY.... how comes my lands show up on the top of the board, but... erm... where are the rest of the holes? Did i leave that layer off or something? TA Boing! it finally dawned on me... all of my components ( only three, no big deal ) have lands with only bottom layers and... no holes on the top. Which brings me to my question... i was just in there setting the layer correct and then i wondered... before i save those.. up to now... i just draw them, then save as the part after putting in the dox. Okies, so whenever i am working with the layout, and i click a land, they fall off... so... just curious but... Should i be joining those parts into a unit with the tool before saving them as a component? I was worried they wouldn't work if i did. Hope you got a smile on your face from this... i'll be up for awhile.. :D

@dillon P.S. To be specific and clarify... the copper message occurs if one attempts to submit a build for fabrication while it still has device manager errors... See? I tried that a couple of times just because i wanted to see what would happen, and my errors were about holes being too close and out of spec. ALL of them were. I didn't have any copper to be built... as soon as i submit it though... copper error... make sense? I did that several times and sure enough it is a consistent erroneous error message. Hope that helps, might be a quick bug to fix. :)

Hi, After read your post again and again, I can't see what is problem, because your project is public, so I fork it and play it. All ok. Can you post an error message image to here.

@dillon Let me try to do it again for you in a separate project During the meantime, my project has new requirements. I will be busy tonight! :) I will name the error project "Error Project" and let you know here when it is working ( w/errors )

Hi, This is not bug of EasyEDA, is your bug :). Because your copper area don't connect any thing. you need to choose the keep island to **Yes** ![enter image description here][1] [1]: /editor/20160426/571ef9ac93676.png

Keep island? Where and what is keep island? o.0 The bug i was getting for this was Build Copper, but i have no copper on this design. I tried to submit this to get the same error, but it would not repeat the error. My first design would not allow me to go from a build to fabrication order. There was no copper on that design. It was using parts like these, with holes on top of lands. Run the DRC and see the errors. :)

Hi, If you add a copper area to your PCB, before you got to fabrication order, you must fill the copper area, if can't, you can't fabricate. The DRC errors just because your pads have hole and you add other holes, hole to hole to close, this is a warm, not error. I can submit your project to fabricate order, if you can give me an image when the error come, it is good for us.

@dillon I understand. Tonight i am building it all again from scratch. My earlier measurements were for 50mm, but they have changed to 42 mm.

They? your customers?

They <--<< my measurements. My earlier measurements did not include a housing. Also, my earlier parts included the lines. The line width in the software is "around center" instead of Outside Dimension. So, i made a new part. To complicate matters more... my only tool to measure is in English instead of metric. But i need to have a metric design. All three of these were reason enough to start over again since this is the easiest of my designs for the entire bike.