Hi Steve,
Please do post to my private e-mail as to save bandwith on the list.
TIA, and kind regards,
Bert Timmerman.
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 06:14 -0700, Steve Meier wrote:
> Bert,
>
> A high end (Diamond Quality) fab and assembly shop uses the "ascii" file
> to program their flying probe teste
I've used this part and several others in the same package. My $.02
worth...
- I would also recommend using the .01 mil resolution co-ordinate syntax.
- My experience is that most shops like the part co-ordinate origin to be
the centroid, not on pin 1. I've also had problems setting the "mark"
Bert,
A high end (Diamond Quality) fab and assembly shop uses the "ascii" file
to program their flying probe tester. There is an existing standard
which I have an example off at the office which is based upon the pads
file format. If you are interested I can probably get you an example
early next
> I tend to make my centers be the center of what ver is the first
> pad.
I try to make the snap-to points on the pads line up with the grid, so
I don't end up with snap points 0.1 mil away from grid points.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.
> I didn't need to place anything on a sub-mil location, so I didn't
> use that. Is there another advantage?
Metric parts need the extra resolution, else the pins bounce back and
forth due to the 0.025mm "grid".
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@m
> I created this for LT1764A and friends, it's a DD5. This is exactly
> their recommended footprint, plus an outline I made up. It's very
> tight to the part, more so than some I looked at on professionally
> made boards using the same package.
It's twice as far from the part as outlines I use,
Hi Steve and all,
So if I understand this correctly, you are asking for someone to write
an exporter for pcb which outputs a file with XY-values of pads(pins)
with an ID-reference to be able to check for copper conductivity etc.
and maybe even frequency related impedance/capacitance (nelma ?).
So
Ben Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:47:42PM -0700, Steve Meier wrote:
>
>> I don't see anything inherently wrong. But it is probably a little
>> dated. Were you using my doc?
>>
>
> Yes, I was using one updated by Stuart Brorson.
>
>
Using sub mill capabilities is needed as
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:54:45PM -0700, Steve Meier wrote:
> As a second thought, where do you want the center of your foot print to
> be? I tend to make my cneters be the center of what ver is the first pad.
I found that setting the mark values had no effect, I always had a mark
at the origin.
As a second thought, where do you want the center of your foot print to
be? I tend to make my cneters be the center of what ver is the first pad.
This is an issue that we need to address as board shops that have the
ability to do point to point probing are asking for files that define
the location
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:47:42PM -0700, Steve Meier wrote:
>
> I don't see anything inherently wrong. But it is probably a little
> dated. Were you using my doc?
Yes, I was using one updated by Stuart Brorson.
> For today's capabilities I would suggest that instead of working in
> units of mi
Ben,
I don't see anything inherently wrong. But it is probably a little
dated. Were you using my doc?
For today's capabilities I would suggest that instead of working in
units of mills you work in units of 0.01 mills.
I won't or don't have time to check it for correctness otherwise. But
you see
I created this for LT1764A and friends, it's a DD5. This is exactly their
recommended footprint, plus an outline I made up. It's very tight to the
part, more so than some I looked at on professionally made boards using
the same package.
I did test-fit the part on a 1:1 printout.
I initially set
13 matches
Mail list logo
