I think the following is part of the assumptions of everyone ideas so
far, but I just want to state it explicitly as it's a really fundamental
assumption for me.
The purpose of pcbnew is to generate manufacturing data for pcb
manufacture. Users should be limited only by their imagination
On 7/27/2017 8:47 AM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
> On 27.07.2017 14:33, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 7/26/2017 4:30 PM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
>>> On 26.07.2017 22:01, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
On 7/26/2017 9:47 AM, hauptmech wrote:
> This is a nice concept. A more generic constraint system.
On 27.07.2017 14:33, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 7/26/2017 4:30 PM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
>> On 26.07.2017 22:01, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2017 9:47 AM, hauptmech wrote:
This is a nice concept. A more generic constraint system.
What I'll be doing and was asking if there
On 26.07.2017 22:01, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 7/26/2017 9:47 AM, hauptmech wrote:
>> This is a nice concept. A more generic constraint system.
>>
>> What I'll be doing and was asking if there was others needing, is the
>> pre-net-class approach of a single clearance that is easily adjusted
>>
A couple of examples of extra clearance options requested
https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1510742
And the following one really bugs me for high power igbt drivers
https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/983230
This board would benefit from this.
On 7/26/2017 9:47 AM, hauptmech wrote:
> This is a nice concept. A more generic constraint system.
>
> What I'll be doing and was asking if there was others needing, is the
> pre-net-class approach of a single clearance that is easily adjusted
> while laying tracks.
What you want is a change to
This is a nice concept. A more generic constraint system.
What I'll be doing and was asking if there was others needing, is the
pre-net-class approach of a single clearance that is easily adjusted
while laying tracks.
I think this used to be there. Having it would not affect netclass
I would not be opposed to adding more complex constraints to net classes
but I would ask that the DRC changes to test any new constraints be
added at the same time. Users (myself included) will expect the DRC to
validate these constraints.
On 7/26/2017 9:17 AM, Maciej Sumiński wrote:
> Hi
Hi hauptmech,
I am sure there are many users who would benefit from the suggested DRC
improvements, so I would say it is an interesting idea. There is a plan
to upgrade it, but I am afraid you will have you board finished before
this happens.
It is not entirely clear to me what do you propose.
I have nets that have different clearance requirements depending on
where they are. There are two situations that are in my designs:
1) Technical/Manufacturing limitations: Trace and space limitations
depend on layer copper thickness and whether it's an inner layer or
outer layer. For
10 matches
Mail list logo
