John Griessen <j...@ecosensory.com> wrote: > On 08/03/2010 10:54 AM, Andrew Poelstra wrote: > > My problem is that I'm used to thinking of layers as physical layers, and > > I'm confused about > > the logistics of using virtual layers. > > What I think we've been meaning as we talk about virtual layers is > either a layer group of two or three that has vias between, or a > subset of that for a special purpose. > > A very useful subset of 3 board layers > that are going to have vias between would be a power routing group > that has all the same size traces. The same 3 board layers > that are going to have vias between could also have virtual groups > with narrower traces. > > another virtual group could be controlled impedance traces that use > only two of the above three physical layers because they have the > correct thickness and relative positions. Then one could happily > route with vias and trying to route out of the virtual group would > not work, and probably remind you of the rules you wrote for the > virtual layer. >
This sounds very cool. But how are route styles linked to layer groups? We can't require each group to have a single route-style - even in your power supply example, you would need to route power to different components. Would each layer group have its own "mini-environment" that remembers its route-style settings? When creating new route styles, would you need to choose "only this layer group" or "all layer groups"? Andrew _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user