> That looks right. =A0Next time don't be so lazy and rotate the part > designators properly before asking anyone else to look at the schematic. Also: brush your teeth, wear a clean shirt, carry a spare handkerchief perchance a lady may wish to borrow one from you, smile nicely for the camera and remember to say please and thank you on all appropriate and some inappropriate occasions. Note also that some very few people have problems with spatial orientation of labels and may need or want everything arranged just-so to suit them, or have personal preferences which they demand must be considered as if they were international standards which MUST be adhered to, or need to find some other "errant" detail to put you in your place and cause you to appreciate your inherent lack of worth and rank in the order of things. _____ Misc thoughts: Neatness counts, being polite costs little, improved readability is always a good idea BUT needs to be balanced against other factors. The "correct" orientation of component labels and values on a diagram is mo= ot. This is very very very much a matter of personal style and preference, and one person's "laziness" is another's "improved readability. But also, a given individuals' assessment of maximum readability is a personal choice and may seem strange or just plain wrong to others. As is, apparently, the case here. Olin's assessment that you should "rotate the part designators properly" seems bizarre to me. I can see a few designators/labels/whatever that I would have rotated differently BUT in no case would i say that my choice was "right". I could explain why I would do it differently but would not expect to get universal acceptance of my reasoning. Olin is, apparently, made of sterner (or something) stuff and is the (apparently) final judge and arbiter of good rotation. None of your choices is confusing (to me), hard to read (for me) or so obviously totally wrong (for me) that I (unlike Olin) would demand that it be done my way. Maybe Olin has problems with spatial orientation which I (or perhaps also he) am not aware of? Having the axis of the labels aligned with the direction of the associated circuit traces as you have done for eg D1-D8 has the very great (IMHO) advantage of increasing the reliability of correctly associating the component with its label /designator when component density is tight and there are many similar components in close proximity. I would have aligned the D1-D8 labels the same way you did. I would have aligned the Vcc & Vdd labels horizontally. I think it looks prettier and is more "euphonic" (or drawn equivalent) but your way is fine. I MIGHT have rotated the pin numbering on IC3 90 degrees clockwise for pins 14, 8, 19 IF the drawing package allowed that (or assigned them that way when creating the footprint IF that was a choice) but your way is fine. Your C2 and c4 labels follow different rules BUT what you have done is how i would have done it. I would have rotated output connector labels 1Y 2Y 3Y 4Y 90 degrees clockwise AND I think that is better than what you did BUT your method is fully readable and causes no problems in clarity. FWIW - my wife could quite possibly read this diagram "upside down" every bit as well as right side up. I couldn't. I could handle it inverted but it would definitely slow me down. That's just a matter of brain wiring and experience and ... . Whereas I can understand what the circuit does when viewed from any orientation, while my wife would have no idea whatsoever regardless of its orientation. Which is obviously irrelevant to how it is drawn. it may well be that Olin's expectations are based not only on a desire for neatness and order but on personal "brain wiring" which he is not aware of. We all have limitations and preferences based on how we rare put together. That in itself is not bad, but attempting to impose our preferences on others when opposing choices can readily be argued by others is liable to help one to have an interesting life. Olin does seem to have an interesting life :-). > I see some other potential issues, Vcc < Vdd, Vcc =3D Vdd, Vcc > Vdd ??? :-) > but I will wait to comment until ... why should I? :-) Russell --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .