X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.linetec.nl Subject: Re: [geda-user] Pcb: Automatic clearance between polygons? To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com References: <3721c0b4-2805-2d9f-eba0-119c9c2dd81e AT linetec DOT nl> From: "Richard Rasker (rasker AT linetec DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:30:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US 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 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