[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: gEDA-user: General Layers questions
On Mar 19, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Martin Kupec <martin.kupec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:14:54AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Martin Kupec wrote:
>>
>>> If layers types would be defined by attributes, someone would be able to
>>> declare one layer both as conductive and as silk for example. That could
>>> cause me a nighmares. That is why I insist on 'typed' layers, not
>>> 'tagged' layer.
>>
>> No. The nightmare is classification.
>>
>> It's perfectly possible to put conductive ink on a board with a silkscreen process.
> No problem here. Just define that conductive ink as copper or conductive
> type layer. I don't care how that layer happens to be manufactured.
>
Simulation! As long as the parameters can be specified then were good.
And when I say simulation it can be either a exporter to a field solver for antennas, or a trace width calculator for current limits used while specifying line widths. i.e. Not an exporter.
Imagine drawing a trace with a width of 50 ohms single ended to ground. When you move layers it would make the correct via with the proper clearances to the plane. The realtime DRC prevents you from crossing the edge of your reference plane. And when your top layer is separated from the ground plane by .2 mm of FR4 it know the width, and when it dropped to layer 3 between 2 planes it asked how to calculate the trace. Referenced to one or both. Or it could have
Known that the separation of 1mm from layer 4 plane was enough not to consider it.
Ahh, that would be fantastic!
> Martin Kupec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user