hi Geoff yes i have avoided octagonal pads due to the reported issues over the years
BUT i must say that in my own view i can easily live without them case in point: at today's dimensions, if i turn over a soldered board i have to do a double look to identify even a square pad from a round one (much easier to spot one before they are soldered) so an octagonal pad after soldered is not in my view easily identified as an indicator of say something like PIN 1 as it would look pretty much like a round one now if the purpose of an octagonal pad is to make room for a trace turning around it then altium (and i am not trying to be an apologist here) have solved that (AT LAST!) with the new rounded rectangle with defined corner radii, almost as good as the old razor blade on the light table to shave the edge of a pad to make a bit of clearance, but just today i wished i could have square corners at the bottom and radiused at the top without resorting to piled on primitives so i guess i don't really care if they have been remiss in fixing this problem and i am sure you are correct that it is fixable, i just think there are much bigger fish to fry i don't care a whit about gaining or losing altium's favor as i am a paying customer and as far as i am concerned they are working for me and yes they should have fixed this octagonal pad issue or killed it long ago, i don't think it is even offered as a possibility anymore, is it ? Dennis Saputelli _______________________________________________________________________ CONTACT INFORMATION: _______________________________________________________________________ Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 2851 21st Street Fax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 www.integratedcontrolsinc.com _______________________________________________________________________ NOTE! TO PASS OUR SPAM FILTER PUT THE FOLLOWING IN SUBJECT LINE: I.C.I. Geoff Harland wrote: > As nobody has responded to a previous message which I sent to this mailing > list (almost a week ago), I am currently inferring that there is almost > certainly *still* an outstanding issue concerning how pads with an Octagonal > shape are depicted within Gerber files. > > Had that issue actually been rectified by now, I would have expected that at > least one other member of this mailing list would have pointed that out > before now (and perhaps with some glee at the time). > > I don't know whether other users are avoiding the use of such pads (having > an octagonal shape) because they are aware that there are (or at least have > been) issues with such pads, or whether they genuinely have no requirement > to ever use such pads; for all that though, the way that such pads are > depicted is still a "gotcha" for any user who is not fully "up to speed" on > that matter (unless of course that issue actually has been rectified by > now). > > And it is not as though Altium can claim that it is not possible to > correctly depict such pads within Gerber files, as *any* pad with an > Octagonal shape property can be properly depicted within Gerber files. And > if "Outline" type "Aperture Macros" were *always* used (and *never* > Polygonal Aperture Definitions instead, including even when using them would > in fact be possible), the matter concerning how Polygonal Aperture > Definitions should be interpreted would also be avoided. > > Assuming that there really still is an issue concerning how such pads are > depicted within Gerber files, perhaps other members of this mailing list > have been reluctant to publicly confirm that because they suspect that > actually doing so could result in them falling out of Altium's favour. > > So if anyone is prepared to correspond with me in private on this matter, I > solemnly give my word, here and now, that I will not subsequently publicly > identify anyone who actually does so. > > And if this matter really still hasn't been rectified, it can only be > described as a scandalous disgrace. Altium is well aware that there is an > issue in this regard, they have also been aware of that issue for many many > years, and they are also aware (and have been for at least a year) of what > can and should be done to fully rectify it. > > It would still be appropriate to mention at this point though that it would > be highly advisable, and arguably even necessary, to make four other changes > at the same time (as rectifying this issue). > > First off (if not already implemented), all Gerber files should incorporate > a comment which identifies the version of the application which was used to > create those files. (If it is not obvious as to *why* that should be done, > read on...) > > Secondly, the source code associated with *importing* Gerber files > *directly* into *PCB* files should be updated so that "Outline" type > "Aperture Macros" which depict octagonal shapes are correctly interpreted. > (Amongst other requirements, that software should determine that the nine > pairs of coordinates provided within each "Outline" type "Aperture Macro" of > such a nature are *all* consistent with the vertices of a pad having an > octagonal shape, with one of the associated requirements being that the > location of the ninth coordinate pair listed should exactly match the > location of the first coordinate pair listed. And furthermore, that analysis > should be done regardless of whether or not each Gerber file also > incorporates "CAMtastic-friendly" comments for the purpose of describing the > properties of such apertures; if in fact such comments actually were > provided, they would then facilitate the task of fully parsing the contents > of each "Outline" type "Aperture Macro" (as the details within each such > comment would effectively specify what to expect within the corresponding > "Aperture Macro").) > > Thirdly, to cater for Gerber files which were created by earlier versions > (prior to this issue being rectified), the same source code (for importing > Gerber files directly into PCB files) should also parse the comments within > the Gerber files to determine whether those Gerber files were created by an > earlier version of the application, so that it can subsequently be > determined whether any of the embedded aperture definitions contained within > those files could be "suspect". (Note of course that the *absence* of any > such comments would imply that there could be "suspect" embedded aperture > definitions within the Gerber file concerned - and hence the reason for > identifying the version of the application used to generate the Gerber files > from now on.) And in the event that any "suspect" embedded aperture > definitions are in fact detected, then the user should be notified of that > fact (by a dialog box), and "polled" (within the same dialog box) as to > whether those embedded aperture definitions should then be interpreted in > the same way that they had *previously* been interpreted (while using > earlier versions of the application). > > And fourthly, the source code for importing Gerber files into *CAMtastic* > files should also be updated so that it similarly determines whether any > "suspect" embedded aperture definitions contained within a Gerber file could > have been created by an earlier version of the application. (And it would > also be important to similarly "poll" the user as to how such aperture > definitions should be interpreted, as the Gerber file(s) concerned *could* > have been created by a *different* application which has not had the same > issues concerning pads with an octagonal shape.) > > I am not claiming to be omniscient, so if anyone can think of any *other* > changes which should *also* be made at the same time, then they should "sing > out", and ASAP (and if they consider it appropriate, within a private > message sent just to me). On their form to date, it would be very unwise to > assume that Altium's management would be capable of figuring out for > themselves as to whether any other changes would also be required, as there > has been a regrettably large number of occasions when new features have been > provided which have not been fully thought through, and which have > subsequently made many users' experience in using AD far more disagreeable > and frustrating than what it really should be. > > Regards, > Geoff Harland. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Geoff Harland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Discussion List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 4:16 PM > Subject: Octagonal Pads (was Re: moving to ad6) > > <snip> > > > <snip> > > <snip> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum > > To Post messages: > mailto:[email protected] > > Unsubscribe and Other Options: > http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com > > Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
