Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org > [mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of rickman > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 5:11 PM > To: gEDA user mailing list > Subject: Re: gEDA-user: Thermals on Pads > > On 1/31/2011 10:33 AM, Martin Kupec wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:13:27PM -0500, rickman wrote: > >> On 1/30/2011 4:47 PM, Martin Kupec wrote: > >>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 04:37:17PM -0500, rickman wrote: > >>>> What geometry problems do you have? There are plenty of > references > >>>> in regard to thermals. I don't recall seeing any other than > >>>> bridges that span a uniform gap around the pad. The > only variation I can recall is > >>>> the number and rotation angle of the pattern. But > most, if not all > >>>> that I have seen use four bars either along the x and y > axes or at > >>>> 45 degree angles. I think there are even some built in commands > >>>> for this in the RS-274X Gerber file spec. > >>>> > >>>> Or am I missing something? > >>> We already do support bridges with rounded corners. And > what we do > >>> not support is anything suitable for TSOP package pads(long thin > >>> pads near to each other). > >>> > >>> But the big problem with you current implementations is > the size of > >>> the bridges. The size is somewhat magicaly calculated > from the size > >>> of pin and from the size of clerance. But this is > neighter working > >>> nor probably right. > >>> > >>> With big clerance the shape becomes completly bogus(at > least for the > >>> rounded versions). > >> That surprises me that the bridge width would be calculated rather > >> than specified. What's the idea behind that? Isn't it a simple > >> matter to let the designer pick the dimensions both for > the width of > >> the bridge and the width of the clearance? > > I would not argue against it. > > > > So shall we change the code in a way, that older files gets current > > calculation and newer ones has thermal specification in file? > > > > This opens discussion how/what to specify. > > > > Martin Kupec > > Is there a way to support both compatibly? If the data is to > be specified, it will need to be stored in the design file. > If that info is there, use it, if the info is not present let > the software determine the values be used? I would think the > only issue is determining a file format that would allow the > info to be optional yet compatible with existing formats > without the info. > > Rick > >
Maybe use attributes here ? Just my EUR 0.02 Kind regards, Bert Timmerman. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user