Mail Archives: geda-user/2014/07/15/22:06:02
On 07/09/2014 07:50 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
> I'd be tempted to make pads layer objects going forward, (and let them reside on any copper layer), but perhaps for now, keeping
> them "special" and outside the normal layer data structure may be cleaner due to the fact they place objects on multiple
> "layers". (Copper, mask, paste etc...)
There's not much limit in computing language or data structures today,
so it will give the best return on time spent to model
physical reality well, rather than use "special" layers,
special cases, etc, that must logically combine to
match reality. In other words, have pads be defined per
physical layer and affect things that are 3D physically near them
and nothing else. Making things self consistent like an e field
is ultimately simpler than a giant text sort kinda giving the right answer.
And you can use assertions on the local volume of material to keep errors in check. Otherwise,
you can have "action at a distance" spaghetti code effects.
Of course a physical material and 3D space model means a lot of
PCB and gschem redesign, but... why waste any life hours of any
developers on dead ends?
Incremental change is the only way we've seen work in FOSS, so any move towards such goals
that can be incremental is what to "wrack your brain" for...
On 07/09/2014 07:58 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:> I've personally never had a board vendor want changes in gerber data to accommodate
manufacturing processes. This is generally
> something they can do themselves using their CAM software if they need.
But, that drops the responsibility of repeatable successful fabbings on the fabber, when
one should keep it him/herself, or maybe have a lot of waste and loss.
- Raw text -