Re: gEDA-user: Thermals on Pads

["Bert Timmerman" <bert.timmerman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rickman
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 5:11 PM
> To: gEDA user mailing list
> Subject: Re: gEDA-user: Thermals on Pads
> 
> On 1/31/2011 10:33 AM, Martin Kupec wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:13:27PM -0500, rickman wrote:
> >> On 1/30/2011 4:47 PM, Martin Kupec wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 04:37:17PM -0500, rickman wrote:
> >>>> What geometry problems do you have?  There are plenty of 
> references 
> >>>> in regard to thermals.  I don't recall seeing any other than 
> >>>> bridges that span a uniform gap around the pad.  The 
> only variation I can recall is
> >>>> the number and rotation angle of the pattern.   But 
> most, if not all
> >>>> that I have seen use four bars either along the x and y 
> axes or at 
> >>>> 45 degree angles.  I think there are even some built in commands 
> >>>> for this in the RS-274X Gerber file spec.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or am I missing something?
> >>> We already do support bridges with rounded corners. And 
> what we do 
> >>> not support is anything suitable for TSOP package pads(long thin 
> >>> pads near to each other).
> >>>
> >>> But the big problem with you current implementations is 
> the size of 
> >>> the bridges. The size is somewhat magicaly calculated 
> from the size 
> >>> of pin and from the size of clerance. But this is 
> neighter working 
> >>> nor probably right.
> >>>
> >>> With big clerance the shape becomes completly bogus(at 
> least for the 
> >>> rounded versions).
> >> That surprises me that the bridge width would be calculated rather 
> >> than specified.  What's the idea behind that?  Isn't it a simple 
> >> matter to let the designer pick the dimensions both for 
> the width of 
> >> the bridge and the width of the clearance?
> > I would not argue against it.
> >
> > So shall we change the code in a way, that older files gets current 
> > calculation and newer ones has thermal specification in file?
> >
> > This opens discussion how/what to specify.
> >
> > 	Martin Kupec
> 
> Is there a way to support both compatibly?  If the data is to 
> be specified, it will need to be stored in the design file.  
> If that info is there, use it, if the info is not present let 
> the software determine the values be used?  I would think the 
> only issue is determining a file format that would allow the 
> info to be optional yet compatible with existing formats 
> without the info.
> 
> Rick
> 
> 

Maybe use attributes here ?

Just my EUR 0.02

Kind regards,

Bert Timmerman.



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user