X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:17:02 +0100 (CET) X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv To: "Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu" From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu Subject: Re: [geda-user] [pcb-rnd] tEDAx footprint load support In-Reply-To: <20170314194424.a2f383cf15dcf3ae8e204261@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20170314194424 DOT a2f383cf15dcf3ae8e204261 AT gmail DOT com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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 Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > A good initiative but I also have some suggestions: Thanks. Please note that tEDAx is not trying to grasp every detail that exists for a perfect footprint. It tries to provide a minimal set of features to deliver an already usable footprint. In return, it's small, simple and easy to implement. It's a tradeoff. I am trying to achieve a local optimum. (There are other formats that go for another local optimum: not small or easy to describe, but care about all possible details. Those are already invented, I am not trying to reinvent those with tEDAx). > - Holes without plating is common. Common, but not essential. The same footprint could work fine with plated holes. I simply didn't want to introduce another detail that may not be implemented in smaller EDA software. > - A hole is usually thru all layers but it might be useful to restrict as for objects. If you mean blind/buried (not thru-hole), that's intentionally not present in tEDAx, for the above reasons. (The layer desc is so simple that we don't even have enough details for that). > - Is clear really needed, I thought this a ruled applied between or objects in general. I defined clearance for copper-copper objects. Unlike plated/unplated, I felt like this parameter can make a difference - but I'm not 100% sure yet. (By the way, an implementor may ignore this parameter if their EDA doesn't support clearance and/or polygons.) Question (to all PCB engineers): how often do you rely on the clearance value set in a footprint? Regards, Igor2