Re: gEDA-user: Random thoughts on the future interface of PCB
Cool.. yeah I've always thought the future is in sketching topology and defining constraints.. sounds awesome! I remember talking about basically the same thing a couple of times over the last few years.. I was referring to it as semi-automatic routing where you sketch the topology of a net with the mouse (or some other input device). Regards, Anthony ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Random thoughts on the future interface of PCB
I don't know. I've been told it is the Eudora email program that I still use. But it only happens with a few emails, always from one of two mailing lists. Someone in this list once tried to get to the bottom of it and found there were some things he could do to prevent it, but he doesn't always do whatever it was and I still get some of his without line breaks. I don't recall if I've seen yours that way before or not. I would switch to T'bird, but I'm just very leery of changing *anything* to do with email because I am so dependent on not just getting the mail, but retrieving old messages and even using it as a reminder and many other things. I've just got a lot invested in how I work with Eudora to try to switch until I have an extended downtime. As a first step, I am using T'bird as my calendar program, replacing the old Palm desktop. The last time I upgraded the Palm desktop lost all color, so it was time for it to go. :^( Rick At 04:06 PM 12/2/2010, you wrote: On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 15:46 -0500, Rick Collins wrote: > Was it just me that got a copy with no paragraph > breaks? Looking at the ascii art I assume it was > sent with line breaks somewhere. > > Rick I got it back with line-breaks! I've just re-installed, so it is possible some setting is off in my mail client though. It is auto-wrapping paragraphs here, but the ascii art did indeed have newlines. Looks like something (your mail reader?) has decided it knows better about the line-breaking and re-flowed the text? Are you on Windows / Linux / ...? Could it be a line-ending issue? -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: reference on good design practices for footprints
In order... 1. Do what the part's spec says to do 2. Do what your pcb fab says to do 3. Do whatever makes your life easy :-) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: reference on good design practices for footprints
I am coming from the Eagle world, and I am trying the gEDA world for the first time. In Eagle you don't need to think solder masks vs pad sizes, or other such details. They were pretty much hardwired in the program. Is there a good tutorial / reference documentation for conservative guidelines for these items. Oliver ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Random thoughts on the future interface of PCB
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote: > On Thursday 02 December 2010 21:13:47 Bob Paddock wrote: >> Peter, while all of this sounds great, could we fix the collective >> problems that we have now first? > > Like what, specifically? The 446 bugs in the tracker are a good start. > Does Peter C's OpenGL renderer help ship products? Not that I see, but it > make PCB a hell of a lot of a more pleasant experience to use. Pleasant Experience means you get the board done sooner, which is a Good Thing. -- http://blog.softwaresafety.net/ http://www.designer-iii.com/ http://www.wearablesmartsensors.com/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Random thoughts on the future interface of PCB
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 16:13 -0500, Bob Paddock wrote: > > Scrap straight line rats in favour of using the topological auto-router? > > Do different rat lines help ship products? Not that I see. I imagined (although I've not coded to verify), that more intelligent AUTO-routing of rats against existing board geometry / routed nets would be a huge time-saver (especially if combined with more powerful features to rubber-band existing nets). I forget the name used elsewhere, but the idea is akin to user-guided auto-routing, net by net. The rat-lines would show the routes each net would take (if chosen to be routed next). I was just throwing some ideas out there as food for thought (and so I don't forget them). I've got too many little .txt files lying around with one or two little ideas / design fragments, and I rarely come back to them! As I see it, PCB priorities (for me at least) are approximately: Release? Merge 2D parts of PCB+GL drawing Release? Merge 3D parts of PCB+GL drawing GUI to control PCB+GL rendering styles Release? Gather design details of file-format changes required for: 3D model support Package instantiation as offset + rotation, NOT duplication and in place modification (Also buys better rotation support) Arbitrary layer types Pad stacks Polygon pours Negative objects? Better polygon data-structures? Storage of layer colours / stack definitions Implement file-format changes (possible totally new file format?) Arbitrary layer types / stacks Arbitrary pad types / stacks Release? Pours support Release? 3D model support Release? -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Toporouter VERY slow?
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Stefan Dröge wrote: > Is my design just too complicated, or are there some dubious settings > that prevent the toporouter from beeing faster? It was probably an impossible problem to solve without vias, and vias aren't implemented yet. Regards, Anthony ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Random thoughts on the future interface of PCB
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 03:46:55PM -0500, Rick Collins wrote: > Was it just me that got a copy with no paragraph breaks? Looking at > the ascii art I assume it was sent with line breaks somewhere. > I got a copy with correct line-breaks. I think it's just you. -- 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
gEDA-user: Toporouter VERY slow?
Hi, I'm doing a layout using the toporouter of pcb. It really gives very nice results, but it takes really very long to run (about an hour). Is this "normal"? If I look at the run times on Anthony Blake's page (http://anthonix.resnet.scms.waikato.ac.nz/toporouter/), they are in the magnitude of seconds or a few minutes. Is my design just too complicated, or are there some dubious settings that prevent the toporouter from beeing faster? Here is a nice photorealistic picture of the pcb (I love this feature :-) ) http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3411/dotmatrixboard2topandbo.png Regards, Stefan ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Random thoughts on the future interface of PCB
On Thursday 02 December 2010 21:13:47 Bob Paddock wrote: > Peter, while all of this sounds great, could we fix the collective > problems that we have now first? Like what, specifically? > > Scrap straight line rats in favour of using the topological auto-router? > > Do different rat lines help ship products? Not that I see. To me that > is the criteria for any feature. Does Peter C's OpenGL renderer help ship products? Not that I see, but it make PCB a hell of a lot of a more pleasant experience to use. Peter (B) -- Peter Brett Remote Sensing Research Group Surrey Space Centre signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB: coordinates and angles of the components
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:44:34 -0500 Rick Collins wrote: > I'm not asking about the pick point. I'm asking about the > centroid. They are completely different things. As I think I said, > the centroid is to tell the assembly house where to put the > part. The pick point is a point on the part where the machine will > attach the nozzle and has nothing to do with the position where the > part is to be placed. Further, regardless of how you set your files, > the pick point is selected by the assembly house to optimize how they > pick the part. You have no way of knowing where this will be. That is good news. > The centroid needs to be a spot on the part that everyone knows > without requiring it to be explained. Unfortunately for oddly shaped > parts, it does not seem to be well understood how to select the > centroid. One document I have from "Screaming Circuits" says it is > the center of the part including the pins and the body. I have yet > to be able to find this info in an IPC document. The IPC document > seems to leave out some other important info about rotations. You > would think they would figure out this is a problem and fix it... > > I can't say if your centroids will give you trouble, but from what > you are telling me, you are not defining them correctly. From what I > have read, I'm not sure PCB does it correctly either. I found some > references on the web that says they use the geometric center of the > pins not including the package. I don't think that is right. > > Screaming circuits is not the ultimate reference for defining how > this is to be done, but they have a document that covers all the > bases and is easy to understand. In fact, when I pointed out that > they had a discrpancy with the IPC docs, they immediately fixed it > and put the updated doc on their web site. www.screamingcircuits.com Okay. Thank you for pointing out all that. I think I'll be fine with the centroids. It states that the centroid must be the center of the entire footprint. It gave me some information about the rotating angle. I go and tweak my script. Thank you again, Levente -- Levente Kovacs http://levente.logonex.eu ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Random thoughts on the future interface of PCB
Rick, I got line breaks. . On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Peter Clifton wrote: > Just thought I'd write some of this down and put it out there. I've > spent some time recently thinking way into the future about the GUI / > usability for an advanced PCB editing program. Peter, while all of this sounds great, could we fix the collective problems that we have now first? To many of us PCB is used to ship products, preferably today. The Creeping Feature Creacher is a powerful task master. What we really need is good documentation for the Meta Data that contains what a pcb really is. Once MD is documented and abstracted then it should become easy to add any kind of new GUI, Router, Scripting, or just scrap the whole thing and start over. > PCB design is a real hybrid of art, precision engineering and black > magic. It is only magic for those without documentation, or initiation. > Scrap straight line rats in favour of using the topological auto-router? Do different rat lines help ship products? Not that I see. To me that is the criteria for any feature. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Random thoughts on the future interface of PCB
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 15:46 -0500, Rick Collins wrote: > Was it just me that got a copy with no paragraph > breaks? Looking at the ascii art I assume it was > sent with line breaks somewhere. > > Rick I got it back with line-breaks! I've just re-installed, so it is possible some setting is off in my mail client though. It is auto-wrapping paragraphs here, but the ascii art did indeed have newlines. Looks like something (your mail reader?) has decided it knows better about the line-breaking and re-flowed the text? Are you on Windows / Linux / ...? Could it be a line-ending issue? -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB: coordinates and angles of the components
At 02:36 PM 12/2/2010, you wrote: On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:21:00 -0500 Rick Collins wrote: > If the XYRS file output does not output proper centroids, I see this > as a major issue. If they are not outputting the correct value for > asymmetric parts, how do you see the centroid being defined exactly? Most of my footprints are generated, and the zero point is the center of the package. I think they are OK for pick point. There are other footprints, which I made manually. In that case, I imagine the best pick point and I put the zero point there. I'm not asking about the pick point. I'm asking about the centroid. They are completely different things. As I think I said, the centroid is to tell the assembly house where to put the part. The pick point is a point on the part where the machine will attach the nozzle and has nothing to do with the position where the part is to be placed. Further, regardless of how you set your files, the pick point is selected by the assembly house to optimize how they pick the part. You have no way of knowing where this will be. The centroid needs to be a spot on the part that everyone knows without requiring it to be explained. Unfortunately for oddly shaped parts, it does not seem to be well understood how to select the centroid. One document I have from "Screaming Circuits" says it is the center of the part including the pins and the body. I have yet to be able to find this info in an IPC document. The IPC document seems to leave out some other important info about rotations. You would think they would figure out this is a problem and fix it... I can't say if your centroids will give you trouble, but from what you are telling me, you are not defining them correctly. From what I have read, I'm not sure PCB does it correctly either. I found some references on the web that says they use the geometric center of the pins not including the package. I don't think that is right. Screaming circuits is not the ultimate reference for defining how this is to be done, but they have a document that covers all the bases and is easy to understand. In fact, when I pointed out that they had a discrpancy with the IPC docs, they immediately fixed it and put the updated doc on their web site. [1]www.screamingcircuits.com Rick References 1. http://www.screamingcircuits.com/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Random thoughts on the future interface of PCB
Was it just me that got a copy with no paragraph breaks? Looking at the ascii art I assume it was sent with line breaks somewhere. Rick At 03:02 PM 12/2/2010, you wrote: Hi guys, Just thought I'd write some of this down and put it out there. I've spent some time recently thinking way into the future about the GUI / usability for an advanced PCB editing program. I started along the lines of... how would PCB design work if my input device was a graphics tablet (something akin to the Wacom Cintiq would be awesome). PCB design is a real hybrid of art, precision engineering and black magic. For laying tracks, some gestural actions, fluid drawing and possibly even multi-touch interfaces might provide user interface opportunities never before seen in this kind of CAD application. Some randomly sorted ideas: Scrap straight line rats in favour of using the topological auto-router? This is not quite the same as auto-routing a single net. Each rat would only avoid existing laid down geometry, and would be allowed to cross other rat lines. Also, I'd imagine flattening any route generated to be in the rats plane. (The rat would not jump between layers as an auto-routed trace might, even if the route taken could only be made effectively through multiple layers). Obviously this is nice, as the user can pick rat-lines which have routed well and request PCB turns the rats into solid tracking. Manually placed, rubber-banded topological tracking? How about guiding a track routing by drawing the topology you desire, weaving in and out of other components? The topology between obstacles could easily be extracted from a hand-stroked line drawn with a pen, mouse, or perhaps some high-resolution touch-screen interface. Dynamic zooming about the current touch-point / mouse cursor when drawing in amongst detailed objects, or the user is forced to slow down would aid lower resolution input devices. Rendering would have to be FAST and slick to pull this off without disorienting the user. Following topological drawing, tracks could be allowed to evolve as if they were sprung-loaded (Ã la liquid-pcb), or processed through some routine to solidify them. For "sprung loaded" tracking, I'd imagine having a virtual obstacle object the user can place on the board to constrain the tracking. Sprung loaded / pushed tracking would be updated if the user were to place and drag an obstacle: | | | | | -> | | | | | -> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ \ | | | | | | | |.\ | | | |->.| | | | | | | | | | / | | | | / / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I also imagined a stroked gesture where the user draws a ring around a bunch of tracks, as if to tie a rubber-band around them. This action would group them for operations such as re-routing. I wonder if this requires the notion of treating individualtrack-segments as a topology. This would be handy anyway, to aid manual rubber-banding. Drawing could potentially be made quicker if we had higher-level data than individual line-segments (it would reduce the number of round capped sections requiring drawing). Magnetic component placement An augmentation to the grid really - make components resist being pushed past favourable alignment points with other components? This wouldn't STOP components being placed off these points, just give some "resistance". This feature would also be quite neat for component placement, where some future addition of a courtyard / mechanical interference spec. within the package definition would constrain placement to resist motion closer to other packages than desirable. This could be absolutely enforced when placing a component, or act to PUSH the component being run into. (Obviously dependant on a good algorithm to re-track the pushed part). I was imagining this feature being useful for placing an array of parts such as resistors / capacitors. We would need the ability to semi-lock tracks I think... Obviously some tracks won't be up for auto-pushing, and their geometry will be set in copper (to adapt a metaphor). Obviously it should be possible to edit such tracks, but we might want the to be un-pushable. How about more novel ways to define planes? Full "pours" support goes without saying ;) I've looked at various commercial boards recently, and it would appear that many use negative layers to draw tracking. High power stuff, where practically everything is copper, just with some isolation between regions. The complexity of the polygons which make up these traces would be too prohibitive to use PCB's normal polygon tool. They _look_ as if someone has drawn negagtive traces to split up a plane. should we support that? Alternatively, what about defining traces / topolo
Re: gEDA-user: PCB vs. cursor position
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:41:01 -0500 DJ Delorie wrote: > src/file.c > WritePCBDataHeader() Thanks -- Levente Kovacs http://levente.logonex.eu ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB: coordinates and angles of the components
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:40:39 -0500 DJ Delorie wrote: > So change it :-) I rather write scripts than modify the source... Please note that my script now calculates placement angles as well! :-) -- Levente Kovacs http://levente.logonex.eu ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Random thoughts on the future interface of PCB
Hi guys, Just thought I'd write some of this down and put it out there. I've spent some time recently thinking way into the future about the GUI / usability for an advanced PCB editing program. I started along the lines of... how would PCB design work if my input device was a graphics tablet (something akin to the Wacom Cintiq would be awesome). PCB design is a real hybrid of art, precision engineering and black magic. For laying tracks, some gestural actions, fluid drawing and possibly even multi-touch interfaces might provide user interface opportunities never before seen in this kind of CAD application. Some randomly sorted ideas: Scrap straight line rats in favour of using the topological auto-router? This is not quite the same as auto-routing a single net. Each rat would only avoid existing laid down geometry, and would be allowed to cross other rat lines. Also, I'd imagine flattening any route generated to be in the rats plane. (The rat would not jump between layers as an auto-routed trace might, even if the route taken could only be made effectively through multiple layers). Obviously this is nice, as the user can pick rat-lines which have routed well and request PCB turns the rats into solid tracking. Manually placed, rubber-banded topological tracking? How about guiding a track routing by drawing the topology you desire, weaving in and out of other components? The topology between obstacles could easily be extracted from a hand-stroked line drawn with a pen, mouse, or perhaps some high-resolution touch-screen interface. Dynamic zooming about the current touch-point / mouse cursor when drawing in amongst detailed objects, or the user is forced to slow down would aid lower resolution input devices. Rendering would have to be FAST and slick to pull this off without disorienting the user. Following topological drawing, tracks could be allowed to evolve as if they were sprung-loaded (à la liquid-pcb), or processed through some routine to solidify them. For "sprung loaded" tracking, I'd imagine having a virtual obstacle object the user can place on the board to constrain the tracking. Sprung loaded / pushed tracking would be updated if the user were to place and drag an obstacle: | | | | | -> | | | | | -> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ \ | | | | | | | |.\ | | | |->.| | | | | | | | | | / | | | | / / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I also imagined a stroked gesture where the user draws a ring around a bunch of tracks, as if to tie a rubber-band around them. This action would group them for operations such as re-routing. I wonder if this requires the notion of treating individual track-segments as a topology. This would be handy anyway, to aid manual rubber-banding. Drawing could potentially be made quicker if we had higher-level data than individual line-segments (it would reduce the number of round capped sections requiring drawing). Magnetic component placement An augmentation to the grid really - make components resist being pushed past favourable alignment points with other components? This wouldn't STOP components being placed off these points, just give some "resistance". This feature would also be quite neat for component placement, where some future addition of a courtyard / mechanical interference spec. within the package definition would constrain placement to resist motion closer to other packages than desirable. This could be absolutely enforced when placing a component, or act to PUSH the component being run into. (Obviously dependant on a good algorithm to re-track the pushed part). I was imagining this feature being useful for placing an array of parts such as resistors / capacitors. We would need the ability to semi-lock tracks I think... Obviously some tracks won't be up for auto-pushing, and their geometry will be set in copper (to adapt a metaphor). Obviously it should be possible to edit such tracks, but we might want the to be un-pushable. How about more novel ways to define planes? Full "pours" support goes without saying ;) I've looked at various commercial boards recently, and it would appear that many use negative layers to draw tracking. High power stuff, where practically everything is copper, just with some isolation between regions. The complexity of the polygons which make up these traces would be too prohibitive to use PCB's normal polygon tool. They _look_ as if someone has drawn negagtive traces to split up a plane. should we support that? Alternatively, what about defining traces / topology for connected copper, then having a "bloat until clearance hit" mode, which fattens / fills everything? I'm still tempted to think that negative lines gives greater editing potential once the tracks are placed.
Re: gEDA-user: PCB vs. cursor position
src/file.c WritePCBDataHeader() ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB vs. cursor position
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:40:53 -0500 DJ Delorie wrote: > Aside from editing the sources? No :-P Okay... :-) Cold you tell me any point where to look? Thanks... Levente -- Levente Kovacs http://levente.logonex.eu ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB: coordinates and angles of the components
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:21:00 -0500 Rick Collins wrote: > If the XYRS file output does not output proper centroids, I see this > as a major issue. If they are not outputting the correct value for > asymmetric parts, how do you see the centroid being defined exactly? Most of my footprints are generated, and the zero point is the center of the package. I think they are OK for pick point. There are other footprints, which I made manually. In that case, I imagine the best pick point and I put the zero point there. Levente -- Levente Kovacs http://levente.logonex.eu ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB vs. cursor position
> Is there any way to get PCB *NOT* to save cursor position? Aside from editing the sources? No :-P ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB: coordinates and angles of the components
> Yes, but as I pointed out earlier, it doesn't do what I want. It averages the > coordinates of the pins/pads, and it is not good when you working with > asymmetric element such as SOT223. So change it :-) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB: coordinates and angles of the components
At 05:20 AM 12/2/2010, you wrote: On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:38:32 -0500 Ethan Swint wrote: > Sorry for my late reply - but have you tried the BOM export (File -> > Export Layout->BOM). One of the output files from that is an XYRS > (X, Y, Rotation, Side) text file. > > http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Feb-2009/msg00351.html Yes, but as I pointed out earlier, it doesn't do what I want. It averages the coordinates of the pins/pads, and it is not good when you working with asymmetric element such as SOT223. My experience is that there are two points on a pick and place package. There is the centroid, which I understood to be the center of the outline of the part and is used to define the orientation point on the part for positioning. There is also a pick point which has to be in a spot where the vacuum nozzle can lift the component. This are mostly the same spot, but on unusual parts, not always. I can't imagine the XYRS file generator is not capable of outputting the appropriate centroid position. Is it possible that you are seeing the pick point thinking it is the centroid? The feedback from my assemblers is that I should give the X and Y coordiates of the centroid of the part for placing it on the board. The rotation is nice for them to have, but they mostly don't trust them and so always go through a process of verifying both placement and rotation of each part as it is placed on the board for the first item. It may actually be a virtual dry run using the machine display. But they have told me they ignore all other info such as glue spots and pick points. They know where they want the glue spots and pick points and have no reason to trust your data for that. If the XYRS file output does not output proper centroids, I see this as a major issue. If they are not outputting the correct value for asymmetric parts, how do you see the centroid being defined exactly? Rick ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: comments on gcode generation (was: Re: exporting single pcb layers)
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:05:48AM +0100, Alberto Maccioni wrote: > > * no voronoi mode: all the "other tools" (see below) support a mode > > where they fill the unused area of the board with the closest net. > > this cuts the machining time down to less than 50%. > Can you explain more? an image probably explains this best: [1]. all the implementations i know do this by exposing the gerber files to a bitmap and doing something like a simultaneous flood fill on all the connected components; then they trace the resulting edges. this is, of course, not an option for circuits where signals are slowed down by having meandering lines, or even on circuits where small capacities added between adjacent nets, but for many boards that are not that sophisticated, it makes the manufacturing faster and the soldering easier [1] http://www.mit.edu/~vona/Visolate/ATM0PCB0-three-ways-med.jpg On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 12:48:17PM +0100, Markus Hitter wrote: > Yes, this would be a very welcome addition. Is there a pure C > library with this stuff available somewhere? Java or C++ isn't an > option for inclusion with gEDA. none at the moment, but there is some consolidation work ongoing, which might even result in a library being split off. personally, i'd rather prefer a solution where the complete program is called. for matters of integration, it could even be shipped and built together with geda. i understand why java is not an option, but would a complete c++ program be acceptable as a dependency (that is, as a standalone program instead of something linked to)? > Without code patches, lines on the outline layer are handled just > like any other traces. This is improved with some of these patches: > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/? > func=detail&aid=3100354&group_id=73743&atid=538813 > > You can apply them all without loosing anything. Outline milling is > still limited to rectangular boards without holes, though. ok, that explains a lot. i'm still using the last release, but given the number of patches available, i should probably have a look at the vcs. that way i can also have a look at how things work here. regards chrysn -- To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers. -- Bene Gesserit axiom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: comments on gcode generation (was: Re: exportingsingle pcb layers)
Am 01.12.2010 um 21:47 schrieb Bert Timmerman: * no voronoi mode: all the "other tools" (see below) support a mode where they fill the unused area of the board with the closest net. this cuts the machining time down to less than 50%. Yes, this would be a very welcome addition. Is there a pure C library with this stuff available somewhere? Java or C++ isn't an option for inclusion with gEDA. http://www.qhull.org There happens to live a git repo here: git://gitorious.org/qhull/qhull.git Thanks for the link, Bert. I fear this is a bit too complex for me to justify putting it in the next few days. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: PCB vs. cursor position
Hi, Is there any way to get PCB *NOT* to save cursor position? Thanks, Levente -- Kovacs Levente Voice: +36705071002 ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB: coordinates and angles of the components
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:38:32 -0500 Ethan Swint wrote: > Sorry for my late reply - but have you tried the BOM export (File -> > Export Layout->BOM). One of the output files from that is an XYRS > (X, Y, Rotation, Side) text file. > > http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Feb-2009/msg00351.html Yes, but as I pointed out earlier, it doesn't do what I want. It averages the coordinates of the pins/pads, and it is not good when you working with asymmetric element such as SOT223. cheers, Levente -- Kovacs Levente Voice: +36705071002 ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
