Re: gEDA-user: PCB paste layer, revisited.

[Levente <leventelist@xxxxxxxxx>]

John Griessen <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Levente wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I think the padstacks should be defined elsewhere, and we should only have a
>> reference for it in the PCB file. Same goes for pads in padstack. So I prefer
>> light footprints. Just my EUR 0.02.
>> 
> 
> Could a file-wide pad stack handle all cases of using a padstack?  I am thinking
> Dave wants to vary the shape of paste layer from place to place...

Yes.

Imagine, that you have a 431 pin BGA. Would you include 431 times the same
padstack in the footprint? I think one should bother with the whatever shape,
and size of the stencil, copper, mask, paste layers. Those are just "pads".
Then we could link pads to a padstack, and the padstacks into the
footprint.

Sure, this approach is more complicated, but then the whole design would
become a tree. This the approach is used in a commercial tool, which I use at
work.

Vias are just another padstacks too.

Note that I don't want to force this approach. Just my thoughts, and another
0.02 EUR.

> So, are you saying you would prefer attributes attached, no file format change,
> and somehow pcb will not draw the usual paste defined by the pad, and start drawing
> from a formula contained in the attributes?

Not formula rather a name, or reference.

> I suppose that could be done
> by starting from the footprint origin...
> 
> There seem two ways to approach this, outlines or vectors/centerlines.  outlines are natural
> for making a toolpath from.  A postscript function can give you a toolpath for
> a round tool, like a laser cutting kerf or a mill.
> 
> How can we generate a toolpath from gerber vector output of a pad sliced by anti-paste layer?
> 
> John Griessen

-- 
Levente
http://web.interware.hu/lekovacs



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