Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/12/15/13:28:55
On Sat, 2012-12-15 at 15:10 -0300, Felipe De la Puente Christen wrote:
> In fact, a PCB layout package has a lot in common with a subset of a
> geometric modeling package capabilities.
Yes, actually, there are some interesting parallels there. Most of our
geometry is planar though, which makes it easier for us. (Having spent a
lot of time working with PCB's polygon code, I am _glad_ I don't have to
do boolean geometry on 3D objects!)
> > You can model anything with that (including material properties). I
> > won't expect you can make everything you model, nor that it will help
> > you match up the netlist - but whatever... it is flexible.
>
> It, of course, needs the "other" capabilities geometric modelers don't
> need. This electrically aware control layer is the piece of code that
> transforms the thin geometric modeler into a pcb layout program in my
> opinion.
>
> I can see (abstracting myself from the emotional opinions from time to
> time) a valid point in John's approach.
I actually want to head this way in the future, but doing so is hard.
There are no GPL compatible 3D kernels, and I am reliably informed that
writing one from scratch is "silly" and/or _HARD_.
For some work I'm doing at the moment, I may need to add support for
modelling router cuts (not necessarily full board thickness either).
My first thought was to introduce a primitive "board outline" sketch
loop, and allow footprints to contribute to that. (This wouldn't cater
for the non-full depth routes though), but by making the cut-extrude a
separate step (with a depth parameter), we start to get what looks like
a cut-down 3D modeller.
Regards,
--
Peter Clifton <peter DOT clifton AT clifton-electronics DOT co DOT uk>
Clifton Electronics
Peter Clifton <peter DOT clifton AT clifton-electronics DOT co DOT uk>
Clifton Electronics
- Raw text -