Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/01/11/09:43:57
"Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> writes:
> On 11 January 2016 at 11:25, Stephan Böttcher (geda AT psjt DOT org) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> I want the Gerber exporter to export exactly what I draw. And I will
>> draw exactly what the boardhouse wants. And I don't want the PCB
>> program to complain if it assigns semantics in a different way as the
>> boardhouse.
>>
>
> That would not be a problem, especially if you chose not to use the
> facilities (soon to be) provided by the tools for doing this in a more
> robust way.
>
> In this case, you'd retain a mechanical, or notes layer, which the tool
> will not treat specially, or apply semantic meaning to it.
Thanks.
That is exactly what I have good use for. Simple drawing layers that
are exported to gerber without via pads and holes, and that are not
checked for connectivity or DRC. I have PCB files with more non-coper
layers than copper layers. I export those after an awk script deleted
all Vias and Pins. It is all for documentation, images made with gerbv.
One of those is a rigid-flex board, with another awk script to export
the second pair of outer layers.
I do not understand why this is more difficult than attaching some layer
attributes (except for the second pair of outer layers). I am not
asking for special mechanical, or notes layers. I believe the copper
layers should be special, because the need attributes that tell DRC to
check them, or LVS to check connectivity, and a Layer attribute that
tells Vias to automatically connect to them until proper Via stacks
become available.
>> If somebody insists on 3D models in a PCB layout tool, then there need
>> to be separate drawings for the boardhouse and the 3D model. And the
>> programm please work well without any of the 3D stuff drawn.
>>
>
> Granted, but and I'm rather starting to take offence that you don't seem to
> respect I know what I'm doing here.
There was certainly no offence implied, I am sorry if you understood it
like that. I am sure you know what you are doing and what your coals
are. But I am not sure I fully understood what you were telling us, or
if I like it.
The -user part of these discussions is about telling how we use the
tools. I just meant to do that.
I like the fundamentals of gaf. A few drawing primitives and lots of
possibilities by adding attributes. PCB is almost there. Allow
attributes on everything, a good naming convention for those, and
anybody can write plugins and hids for whatever is needed.
Strangely, John is complaining that PCB has too little real-world
semantics attached to its core primitives, in contrast to what he values
in gaf.
If you work on a 3D GUI hid that allows board design similar to a
mechanical CAD program, that will be wonderful. But I wish that this
may be done in a new HID. What support does that need from the PCB
core?
I may well have use for proper 3D board models, that I can hand over
to our mechanics people to import into the CAD. But for most boards I
may not want to be distracted by all the infrastructure this needs. And
even for the boards where I do want a 3D model, I may not want to bother
about that while drawing traces.
--
Stephan
- Raw text -