Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/12/21/05:05:20
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:51:15PM +0000, Peter Clifton wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 13:21 +0100, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>
> > Well, some of my designs were broken by PCB upgrades, in the area of
> > copper pours if I remember correctly. I always keep the photoplotter
> > files I send to the manufacturer just in case I need a new batch (and
> > in one case it was useful since the manufacturer of the first batch
> > went bankrupt), but if I had to modify it...
>
> That I'm interested about.. if you have test cases you can share (even
> privately), let me know.
>
> Was this breakage a long time ago, around the time polygon support was
> changed from dumb flood-fill, to our current connectivity aware
> behaviour which keeps the largest clipped piece only?
Yes.
> I know of some designs which were broken by that change. The breakage
> boils down to the fact that the "fullpoly" flag (which was introduced
> much later), should have been implemented with that original change, and
> defaulted to on, at least for polygons in files prior to the version
> where the new behaviour was added. This would preserve the old geometry.
>
Indeed.
> If it wasn't related to this change (which I know about, and cannot
> fix), I'm very interested to see examples.
As far as I can say, it was related to that change, but the absence of
fullpoly flag at the time forced me to generate 2 polygons instead of one.
The weirdest part may have been that the two halves were actually connected
on one end through a line which had not the clearline file set.
Anyway, this was the real problem. This was also when there was only
one thermal, so I had to put copper rings around each via instead
of using the solid thermal. This may have been the cause of some connectivity
breakage.
Regards,
Gabriel
- Raw text -