Mail Archives: geda-user/2020/01/15/08:53:00
Hello Chad,
Op 13-01-20 om 20:40 schreef Chad Parker (parker DOT charles AT gmail DOT com) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com]:
> Hi Richard-
>
> What's wrong with wide traces? The end caps?
Traces are OK for simpler shapes. The problem is that they have a fixed
width and (of course) do not clear pads and pins. So for a more complex
shape, I'd have to use a thin trace to make the outline, and then
'colour it in' using lots more traces.
> What about using a large element pad for your connections instead of a
> polygon?
This is even less convenient, as it requires defining separate pads for
each situation.
For example, I have four 0.5W 0805 resistors that need as much copper as
possible to dissipate heat, located amidst other components. So for each
of these resistors, I draw two polygons covering the desired area,
connected to the pads by setting a zero clearance gap (Shift+K) for each
pad. No problems so far, as other pins, pads and traces still have
automatic clearance with regard to this polygon.
However, when I want to fill up the remaining space with a ground plane,
I need to manually steer clear of the polygons that are already present,
which can be quite a bit of fiddly work. Not really a problem, but
time-consuming all the same. It would be nice if a polygon had a
'clearance gap' parameter that would make other polygons observe a
certain clearance, just as they do with all other elements.
But as said, I just wondered if I overlooked an option all those years
-- it is more of a nuisance than a real problem.
> I'll have to look and see if there any facility for polygon-polygon
> clearance. I've only delved into polygons a couple times, but I have a
> vague recollection of something.
Well, I'd be most interested! And of course I'll be glad to do any testing.
Thanks already,
Richard Rasker
- Raw text -