开云体育

Right-click on the number, such as R1. An editing pane opens where you can change it to anything you like, within reason.

Sorry for FAQ.

How can I renumber the parts number?

I heard "shift+ctrl+alt+R" is available.

But no change appear.

?

Hidehiko JA9MAT.

开云体育

That's a bit too much freedom. LTspice will not warn you of duplicate designators until you run an analysis, which will obviously fail. If you leave it entirely to LTspice you will never get duplicates. Caution! This does not apply to net names.

开云体育

Such an option would be better than the chronological one, which makes no sense in terms of schematic reading. But it won't work for schematic layouts other than two or more rows of symbols or two or more columns of symbols. I suppose that many schematics can be laid out in one of those formats, but not all can.

Would it be useful to have a renumber option that would go left-to-right, top-to-bottom, for instance?

开云体育

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 02:03 AM, Tony Casey wrote:

That's a bit too much freedom. LTspice will not warn you of duplicate designators until you run an analysis, which will obviously fail. If you leave it entirely to LTspice you will never get duplicates.

I guess this is the reason fo the “Reannotate”, shift+ctrl+alt+R, last gasp measure. I think that might be currently the only “useful” application of this feature: just erase my numbering scheme altogether because I don't trust it. Pretty stopgap. All those carefully considered Cin, Cout, Rtop, etc. designators will go away.

?

Open to renumber suggestions/options. Would it be useful to have a renumber option that would go left-to-right, top-to-bottom, for instance? The current “Reannotate” function simply renumbers by chronological placement. Maybe one that would do that, while ignoring alpha names, and warn of duplicates?

Personally, I don't have much use for a "renumber all" feature, although others might, as I don't use LTspice as part of a PCB design flow - I don't suppose many do, even though Mike E originally endowed LTspice with an "olde worlde" PCB industry-standard netlist export capability. I would back the idea that it only applied to all-numeric designators, since anything else implies it has been changed manually. Warning of duplicates would only be useful for non-numerics, since the others would be renumbered anyway.

If you're looking for new features to add, why not try a message inviting suggestions? Previous similar things have tended to produce all kinds of suggestions: some good, others... imaginative.

I suspect you're not that desperate yet. ?

--
Regards,
Tony

开云体育

I use reannotate when 'polishing' schematics for technical articles or documentation of simple specialist test equipment.

On 19/03/2025 18:10, mstokowski via groups.io wrote:

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 02:03 AM, Tony Casey wrote:

That's a bit too much freedom. LTspice will not warn you of duplicate designators until you run an analysis, which will obviously fail. If you leave it entirely to LTspice you will never get duplicates.

I guess this is the reason fo the “Reannotate”, shift+ctrl+alt+R, last gasp measure. I think that might be currently the only “useful” application of this feature: just erase my numbering scheme altogether because I don't trust it. Pretty stopgap. All those carefully considered Cin, Cout, Rtop, etc. designators will go away.

?

Open to renumber suggestions/options. Would it be useful to have a renumber option that would go left-to-right, top-to-bottom, for instance? The current “Reannotate” function simply renumbers by chronological placement. Maybe one that would do that, while ignoring alpha names, and warn of duplicates?

Personally, I don't have much use for a "renumber all" feature, although others might, as I don't use LTspice as part of a PCB design flow - I don't suppose many do, even though Mike E originally endowed LTspice with an "olde worlde" PCB industry-standard netlist export capability. I would back the idea that it only applied to all-numeric designators, since anything else implies it has been changed manually. Warning of duplicates would only be useful for non-numerics, since the others would be renumbered anyway.

If you're looking for new features to add, why not try a message inviting suggestions? Previous similar things have tended to produce all kinds of suggestions: some good, others... imaginative.

I suspect you're not that desperate yet. ?

--
Regards,
Tony

开云体育

I use reannotate when 'polishing' schematics for technical articles or documentation of simple specialist test equipment.

Why? I would think that would be last thing you would want to do, especially if you refer in the text to specific designators in the circuit description. One careless "renumber all", and you'll have re-edit the text, and you're bound to miss something. Well, I probably would...

--
Regards,
Tony

开云体育

Well, I usually find that I have to add or delete parts during development, so on the 'working' schematic, R1 is followed by R16 and C1 is followed by C4, but C2 and C3 do not exist, for example. I try to do the reannotation before replacing placeholders in the text by component designations.

On 19/03/2025 19:13, John Woodgate wrote:

I use reannotate when 'polishing' schematics for technical articles or documentation of simple specialist test equipment.

Why? I would think that would be last thing you would want to do, especially if you refer in the text to specific designators in the circuit description. One careless "renumber all", and you'll have re-edit the text, and you're bound to miss something. Well, I probably would...

--
Regards,
Tony

开云体育

That would be good. It's helpful to see what an editing or correcting feature proposes to do, before it does it.? Like replacing every letter in a text by an asterisk!

I suggest a report feature that provide a list of designators, warns of duplicates, and optionally renumbers.