www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f |
X-Recipient: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
DKIM-Signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; |
d=gmail.com; s=20120113; | |
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to | |
:content-type; | |
bh=EUh92ixjU1Aswu+25CTD+tqWycuOn1rEY3IhwtfGS/c=; | |
b=Rol7a4WCgc8Au1JdNTnlzZ4QVvVmVxHWtJlTZlTgtbUqapUgVv7Dr/YwibURhoA20B | |
nwOqdKdfG29ECNnZH52w/gl+ltt9w69MQpWypIZ62prBoVPaDB3ESJQ3ka9erIoi/LF+ | |
IItGE9ENxRNGlS2vMyhO6sn3NpB6U7WtRLg026Q4QLTEbZa3sMJjWCYhRNwVdm5i3dNG | |
pegGGSE288iXPCfGpIVGYGB3ulmTlxQQleeTn4cp6H+k3sFUhLrqzixRS/I0rjkBPmRS | |
wDahzZlBQu7pT1WgjOzNHaRrtV1Uj9Lq9h6l9xwu+EDDTq8Qhk47IQnxj3WWXs4/MG4/ | |
29Qg== | |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Received: | by 10.112.167.67 with SMTP id zm3mr38330882lbb.27.1406096339793; |
Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:18:59 -0700 (PDT) | |
In-Reply-To: | <53C5DDD4.404@ecosensory.com> |
References: | <jql5oeoex9l7r932tnwtp2i5 DOT 1404908642063 AT email DOT android DOT com> |
<53C5DDD4 DOT 404 AT ecosensory DOT com> | |
Date: | Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:18:59 -0400 |
Message-ID: | <CAM2RGhTH+K91JkhakxYgW5UZVWqGZ18zRMwkjvxjJRoCUWCBzA@mail.gmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] Re: Layers and footprints |
From: | Evan Foss <evanfoss AT gmail DOT com> |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Reply-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
Sorry about bumping an some what aged thread. I understand the desire to add 3D functionality, the idea of a utility to import outside formats makes a lot of sense. John thing that worries me is the alteration of gschem. Other than adding another label for marking a 3D model along with the footprint what alteration is really needed from gschem? On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:05 PM, John Griessen <john AT ecosensory DOT com> wrote: > 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. -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |