X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7x/I6rjZ6Pk4jscCH9WToNw64jIKmBFug3y4ddbM1wM=; b=it3Le4mZaFAoLqHmM0mzV47ixBVAqoCwM1m1XfCAuDO6FnQpbPLfDGVw0A7d3d8XsE qRDL7z3R7XdPXzzRujx4pS7fM6Wwu0k7Cg5vplytECBCVr5b2qespihgXBY72MBPhrKP lAplX9u/huPmz8EqPnM4658UQktIsCPUvW4K6iY55dqrSsCrjqL4QJXqg5AmchS5r53h Qi4vL5t4bPGwV9eVCZC+bFrQuODJelgVamu8GPa8tgmX74EIsBKnkHJv3A25QrD4ingv 3WqnHmUf06BIdfYwkuSlpn1ToFFEv+BP6dux0DiMB1Dgyy8AmYGmc+tQJrwlKgTVFiN8 aQzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=7x/I6rjZ6Pk4jscCH9WToNw64jIKmBFug3y4ddbM1wM=; b=WHBxch25OQlyyvE/1uR3CsJfrYGZ3jfPKTjD2oLbk0QcGmpWtoZXYkYAW3jBrG0Zbu OrH+kvs36swmFIxJta7drtEWzAFQ1EZ06MHHe5PZPMgw/SnR/NBpRkaKEsbumIDVJeOu vrMthCJ1qC1OCZFXq73XK0bijsT76NVXiIHjYIx+VtFi8vues1UkcvUpqz/eedEoNYp0 2QAnoaBEEhCKmEx0AhhWQ4D4ueGFyMXCQ4irFluEbnZbm8rb8p8AeOCOW5ssmMcbJd6F Gvmj2h4tLZXAmETmJT5MId8kwPicUtNd2ksu7pFw8J3JuPiJioVSXxTS8FTPvBRFMfXC Z8uA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Vka3cAECduUJlVvNWXugc9Q/tfnthDo13gYG8f+aEhiZuyz6S 4hbPhQMN8lz31NVlw2J3sCa25GuEmXTgq6SUOsmdCwclwJ0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJywEJm6u8KsqdhQb56Ztji/nfRJzwL7YgKw6+8xv0tKgdu45VmFvmUw9qq2XTqN6OlLPgQP7U72BeGzN5nx8lA= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:3a92:: with SMTP id r18mr18328485uaw.42.1603719359246; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 06:35:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5ba24d79-87b2-c783-2bb9-a562d8dc4d73 AT linetec DOT nl> <0816be00-2a7e-e311-e5b9-1ba46227f1b8 AT linetec DOT nl> In-Reply-To: <0816be00-2a7e-e311-e5b9-1ba46227f1b8@linetec.nl> From: "Chad Parker (parker DOT charles AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:35:48 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] PCB, 2 parts physically in the same place To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ba33b505b2930235" Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com --000000000000ba33b505b2930235 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Not being able to set the thermals is not the result of pcb enforcing any kind of DRC, but most likely because the engine that decides what you clicked on is unable to select the object that is "underneath". One option, if your footprint happens to be symmetric, might be to put one of them on the "front side" and one of them on the "back side". I'm not sure if that will work, but there are some places in the code where it checks the "shown" side first before the "opposite" side. That might allow you access to both footprints, just by flipping the board. I frequently use objects that have funny shapes, like trapazoids rotated 30 degrees or something, and I have been frustrated by the inability to select things that are underneath the bounding boxes of other things. This is an issue I really need to deal with... I was about to say that the DRC doesn't actually check to see if holes are overlapping or too close to an edge or anything. *However*, as I type this, I am reminded of a clause in the via code that checks when you create a via to see if there is already a via at that location which would have an overlapping hole and removes one of them. ::sigh:: The Gordian Knot grows larger. So, in light of that, I can't say that pcb isn't mucking with something, but I'm _fairly_ sure that it doesn't do this kind of check when you're placing or moving footprints. On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 9:16 AM Richard Rasker (rasker AT linetec DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > Hello Gene, > > Op 26-10-20 om 12:21 schreef gene glick (geneglick AT optonline DOT net) [via > geda-user AT delorie DOT com]: > > Richard, > > Yes, that makes sense. Once overlaying the parts, it won't allow > > setting the thermals - so your approach of setting the thermals first, > > and then overlapping the parts surely should work. > > > > I sort of think the DRC warning is because the holes for the header > > and the display are not 100% the same size. One of the parts drill > > size is 0.045 while the other is 0.040. Both have annulus of 0.015 > > The difference in drill size on its own can't cause the warning -- I > just tested that (35 mil hole for the display, and 45 mil for the > header). And it isn't the annulus overlap either that is deemed to small. > > Does the warning disappear when you give all holes equal dimensions? So > selecting the holes from both the header and the display together, and > then command > > :ChangeDrillSize(Selected, 40, mil) and > > :ChangeSize(Selected, 70, mil) > > (You may want to turn off all layers and elements except pins and pads > to prevent resizing other objects, especially with the last command.) > > Regards, > > Richard > > --000000000000ba33b505b2930235 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Not being able to set the thermals is not the result of pcb enforcing = any kind of DRC, but most likely because the engine that decides what you c= licked on is unable to select the object that is "underneath". On= e option, if your footprint happens to be symmetric, might be to put one of= them on the "front side" and one of them on the "back side&= quot;. I'm not sure if that will work, but there are some places in the= code where it checks the "shown" side first before the "opp= osite" side. That might allow you access to both footprints, just by f= lipping the board.

I frequently use objects that h= ave funny shapes, like trapazoids rotated 30 degrees or something, and I ha= ve been frustrated by the inability to select things that are underneath th= e bounding boxes of other things. This is an issue I really need to deal wi= th...

I was about to say that the DRC doesn&#= 39;t actually check to see if holes are overlapping or too close to an edge= or anything. *However*, as I type this, I am reminded of a clause in the v= ia code that checks when you create a via to see if there is already a via = at that location which would have an overlapping hole and removes one of th= em. ::sigh:: The Gordian Knot grows larger.

So, in= light of that, I can't say that pcb isn't mucking with something, = but I'm _fairly_ sure that it doesn't do this kind of check when yo= u're placing or moving footprints.



= On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 9:16 AM Richard Rasker (rasker AT linetec DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
Hello Gene,

Op 26-10-20 om 12:21 schreef gene glick (geneglick AT optonline DOT net) [via
geda-user AT delori= e.com]:
> Richard,
> Yes, that makes sense. Once overlaying the parts, it won't allow <= br> > setting the thermals - so your approach of setting the thermals first,=
> and then overlapping the parts surely should work.
>
> I sort of think the DRC warning is because the holes for the header > and the display are not 100% the same size. One of the parts drill > size is 0.045 while the other is 0.040. Both have annulus of 0.015

The difference in drill size on its own can't cause the warning -- I just tested that (35 mil hole for the display, and 45 mil for the
header). And it isn't the annulus overlap either that is deemed to smal= l.

Does the warning disappear when you give all holes equal dimensions? So selecting the holes from both the header and the display together, and
then command

:ChangeDrillSize(Selected, 40, mil) and

:ChangeSize(Selected, 70, mil)

(You may want to turn off all layers and elements except pins and pads
to prevent resizing other objects, especially with the last command.)

Regards,

Richard

--000000000000ba33b505b2930235--