Floating Power Object GND error
zeino , 02-07-2016, 03:11 PM
I keep getting this floating power object error. I thought it is related to my schematic library not being on grid properly but it seems it is. The error position is shown the attached figure. Do you know what I am possibly doing wrong? I resolved one of them by redrawing and updating the library and on the schematic but this one poped up and I guess there would be more if I am doing something wrong. Besides this one didn't go away doing so!
zeino , 02-07-2016, 05:17 PM
The solution seems to be, not only being careful to have everything ending on the grid but also when wiring going over the component till one see a red cross happening meaning it is attached. Those elements having this error do not show the red cross when ending on the grid.
Despite ending the component schematic on the grid and the size of the pin multiple of 10 (so supposedly is on the grid with view and snap on 10 ) it doesn't show connection (red cross when wired) . The errors went away when wire overlapped the component but I don't think this is the right way or the solution.
I guess in the schematic is not important as it is only generating a net-list and the routing is important based on the net list but anyway overlapping the component partially to get connection should not be necessary, as it was not for other built components.
Finally got clear compile and looking forward to know what I did wrong. Probably will go back to beginning and see how Robert made the components and were he placed his pin and what length.
Pleasure being here and doing this.
Despite ending the component schematic on the grid and the size of the pin multiple of 10 (so supposedly is on the grid with view and snap on 10 ) it doesn't show connection (red cross when wired) . The errors went away when wire overlapped the component but I don't think this is the right way or the solution.
I guess in the schematic is not important as it is only generating a net-list and the routing is important based on the net list but anyway overlapping the component partially to get connection should not be necessary, as it was not for other built components.
Finally got clear compile and looking forward to know what I did wrong. Probably will go back to beginning and see how Robert made the components and were he placed his pin and what length.
Pleasure being here and doing this.
robertferanec , 02-07-2016, 11:56 PM
Usually, this error happen, when pins are rotated the wrong way. Be very careful, only one side of pin is ELECTRICAL. If you have a careful look, you will see a small square there - this side of pin must face out of the component, so you can connect there nets. To fix this error, you need to go into library and rotate the pin.
zeino , 02-08-2016, 12:16 AM
Thank you Robert, Had seen those white square and thought what it is. Going back to correct the ones mistaken. 7 components had been like this but 2 or 3 showed error. Glad I had this error.
robertferanec , 02-08-2016, 12:23 AM
Please, let me know then if it helped.
zeino , 02-08-2016, 12:45 AM
Perfect, Changed all and all is good now. On those that didn't show the error I have had gone over the component with the wire and connected to the other end. When I corrected the library it showed a dot as if there are 3 nets there instead of two. Corrected those and all is fine.
I have had googled the problem but couldn't find the answer at the time. Thanks again.
I can check if ever I have done this mistake by checking to see the red cross when connecting them if I even miss the dots in the schematic while placing.
Interesting that they made this distinction which side to be electrical but it all makes sense (object wise and linking wise) and very objective. Would have been interesting to know if overlapping and connecting would have made any difference in the routing despite passing the compile (in the sense of position of the electric connection (x,y) and their (Dijkstra algorithm). May be not.
I have had googled the problem but couldn't find the answer at the time. Thanks again.
I can check if ever I have done this mistake by checking to see the red cross when connecting them if I even miss the dots in the schematic while placing.
Interesting that they made this distinction which side to be electrical but it all makes sense (object wise and linking wise) and very objective. Would have been interesting to know if overlapping and connecting would have made any difference in the routing despite passing the compile (in the sense of position of the electric connection (x,y) and their (Dijkstra algorithm). May be not.
robertferanec , 02-08-2016, 12:50 AM
Perfect 
Use our interactive Discord forum to reply or ask new questions.