Re: gEDA-user: How's my footprint?

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ben Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:47:42PM -0700, Steve Meier wrote:
>   
>> I don't see anything inherently wrong. But it is probably a little
>> dated. Were you using my doc?
>>     
>
> Yes, I was using one updated by Stuart Brorson.
>
>   

Using sub mill capabilities is needed as you move towards devices
(particularily metric oriented ones) that require higher resolution
possitioning.

I think, that in general all foot prints should be using the higher
precision as a default.

It is an opinion and not a requirement.

(despite the latest tirades I retain high respect for all of geda's
developers, and strongly recomend listening to them)
>> For today's  capabilities I would suggest that instead of working in
>> units of mills you work in units of 0.01 mills.
>>     
>
> I didn't need to place anything on a sub-mil location, so I didn't
> use that.  Is there another advantage?
>
> I also removed the clearance/mask parameters and let them default,
> since I saw other footprints doing it.
>   

Clearances with respect to copper is pretty much a photo imagable
process these days. The solder mask is also for small spaced pads, here
you need to be carefull, you need to understand the capabilities of the
fab shop and assembly shop that you are working with. You need to know
whom to talk to in the shop to modify the design you are using in order
to meet manufacturing yields.

Steve Meier


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