John Griessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user