Mail Archives: geda-user/2014/07/16/13:37:11
On 07/16/2014 02:56 AM, Peter C.J. Clifton wrote:
> On 2014-07-15 05:41, Dave Curtis wrote:
>> On 07/14/2014 09:09 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>>> "octagon" flag appears to do nothing on Pad[] directives. Is this
>>>> correct?
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>> Is that by plan? A friend and I are looking at "challenging footprint
>> specs" (we're easily entertained..) and I've seen a couple where an
>> interpolated octagon could be helpful.
>
> Thats a poly-curve.
>
> (As are ROUND pads, obround pads, square, .... (you get the idea).
Well, but octagons are a RS-274X pad macro primitive, both flashed and
stroked, so they are fair game for footprint pad construction.
I guess I don't understand the logic of not allowing the octagon flag on
Pad[]'s, since they are allowed on Pin[]'s. It seems to me that all the
logic should be there to draw them -- wouldn't they be handled the same
as a square aperture, even when the pad is parallel to the X/Y axes?
>
> Bonus points for allowing "HOLES" to be non-round (poly-curve) too, to
> support manufacturing slots ;)
>
> (And for footprints which use slots to pass wide tabs on a big power
> connector, for example.)
How are footprint slots communicated to the fab house? Outline layer
paths are routed after fab, but slots would need to be routed
pre-plating. Would another mechanical layer be added that contains slot
routing information? And do you communicate slot outlines or a toolpath
and tool diamater?
>
> Peter
>
- Raw text -