On Jan 17, 2008 11:01 AM, Levente <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:38:08 -0500 > Dan McMahill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > DJ Delorie wrote: > > >>> This was fixed at one point, such that pcb itself would remove > > >>> the silk over pins and pads, but I haven't migrated that code > > >>> into the HID version yet. > > > > > > We changed our minds about this. We changed PCB so that it showed > > > silk over pads if that's what your design calls for, so if you see > > > silk over pads on the screen, you'll get silk over pads on the board. > > > > > > The magic we chose to go with to deal with the fabs that can't handle > > > cuts is to convert all cuts to multiple polygons instead, so that we > > > never have to use cuts or negative layers. That was what we used to > > > remove the silk, and too many fabs didn't like it. > > > > > > Which fab is it? Are they unable to fix the problem themselves? > > > > A DRC check for silk on pads would probably be good. In my past life, > > we always had in house reviews of the gerbers and weren't allowed to > > send them to a board vendor until there was no silk on the pads > > Yes. In the other hand however, it may be good to have code in PCB that > optionally removes silkscreen from pads. For an example, please see this > photo. What you can see is a power transistor, and a thermo-resistor. > > > http://logonex.eu/gallery/tns/c4.html > > Best wishes, > > -- > Levente > http://web.interware.hu/lekovacs > > I also believe that it would be good if PCB could remove overlapping silkscreen although the fab house I've used seems to be able to do it themselves.
I don't get the picture. It looks like a power transistor and a diode, and I don't see obvious silkscreen overlap. Joe T
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
