On 6/9/2014 2:01 PM, jp charras wrote: > Le 09/06/2014 19:23, Lorenzo Marcantonio a écrit : >> On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 06:56:25PM +0200, jp charras wrote: >>> For guys who are interested by theses extensions (I am thinking a change >>> in Gerber Format should have a major interest for everybody), see: >> >> The extension in themselves are quite interesting. If only to say 'this >> is the top layer' inside the file (and not using some other method). >> Could nearly replace D356, too. >> >> The only problem will be acceptance by the tool manufacturers (i.e. will >> my fabricator accept X2 gerbers?) > > The best way is to ask them for that. > >> >> I think that *maybe* in a few years we will know the answer. > > > Gerber X2 fixes a *major issue*: the stack order. > Therefore IMHO, accepting X2 gerbers is not a matter of years.
JP, I'm sure you already thought of this but making X2 gerbers a plot option solves both problems and it shouldn't be too difficult to implement. It's probably safer this way just in case someone has a board vendor that cannot handle the X2 gerbers. Wayne > >> >> I skimmed the specs and, knowing the tools out there, X2 is *not* >> backward compatible. Most of the tools out there will probably choke >> horribly on the first %TF or %TA they encounter. The 'short header >> option' IIRC is there just to make the gerber readable anywere... It >> would be a truly backward compatible specification if they used some >> structured form of G04 (something like the structuring in postscript). >> IIRC it's not written anyway that 'any unknown mass parameter should be >> ignored' > > After loading a GERBER X2 file: > Gerbview does not choke (run fine). > Gerb does not choke ( has only some warnings) > GC-Prevue does not choke ( has only one warning) > >> >> Drill files as plots are cute but nothing extraordinary; they could have >> their use but I don't see them replacing excellon or s&m tapes... > > Excellon works fine, no need to replace this format. > >> >> I think a good way to implement attributes would be to make them >> optional (maybe putting them in a G04 block as a debug/documentation >> aid). >> >> PS: somewhere in there they say that kicad does planes in the wrong way (who >> cares... I've seen worse things:D) > > What do you mean? currently, Kicad does not know planes. > If you are talking about negative objects in Gerber files examples, I do > not see any reason to use negative objects in gerber files (at least for > copper layers): this is known as a bad practice. > >> >> PPS: in the list of the standard attributes there is a list of layer >> types; that could be very useful for the other thread! > > I agree. > In examples, there is also an idea for gerber file names. > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
