On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:29:59AM -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:50:23 +0200 > Kai-Martin Knaak <kn...@iqo.uni-hannover.de> wrote: > > > Gus Fantanas wrote: > > > > > Is it a bug or > > > did I do something wrong when I created the footprint? > > > > It is half a bug. Exactly square pads are defined by two points that > > coincide. There is no orientation attached to this. So PCB assumes > > the square shape should be aligened along the axis of the grid. After > > the rotation transform was applied to the two points, they still > > coincide. Consequently PCB insists to render them like before. > > > > The work-around is to make the pads slightly non-square. Then > > There are rounding glitches, though. If the two points differ by too > > little distance, the resulting shape renders not quite in the > > expected angle. > > Because of this bug (it is completely a bug from the user's point of > view), as you suggested I always make my nominally-square pads slightly > non-square. Usually by +/- 0.01 mil or +/- 0.02 mil, but that might not > be enough for good rotation... hopefully nanometer conversion will > improve that significantly with no extra effort for us footprint > designers. >
The problem is that the file-format still saves in cmils. (You can use a text-editor to put the new units in, but then you have problems with backward-compatibility.) But I second "this is a bug". It is just a bug with no non-breaking solution. -- Andrew Poelstra Email: asp11 at sfu.ca OR apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew/ _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user