| ID: | 3685 |
| From: | ge...@igor2.repo.hu |
| Date: | Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:02:53 +0100 (CET) |
| Subject: | Re: [pcb-rnd] DRC annular ring issue |
| in-reply-to: | 3684 from pc...@cuvoodoo.info |
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, pcb-rnd@cuvoodoo.info wrote: >this is always something I never know which is meant. >when I enter the value, I never know if the diameter of the copper pad is meant, or the width of the annular ring. >because "ring" was used in the DRC settings and route style, I expected them to mean the same (that would be coherent within the software). >but as you described, they don't mean the same thing. >the DRC annular ring is real just about the ring (after drill). >but the route style ring is not the ring, it's the copper pad diameter. Well, "ring" in itself is already misleading. It did have a meaning when in the old data model you were restricted to 3, centrally symmetric shapes with concetric holes. We do not have that limitation any more. Less limitations == more features == more things the user needs to know. >you can "confirm" this when you see the via after placing one on the board. >ideally the route style ring would set the ring size, so the dimension is coherent with the name and DRC setting. >but this would need a larger rewrite of the code. The route style ring is an obsolete thing, it reflects the old, limited model. It will be removed. It will be replaced by a prototype ID. We already have a simple, few click GUI for generating whole padstacks that can be used as vias. (This will also give you fill control over tenting and non-uniform-shape-vias, e.g. when you want smaller pads on internal layers). >instead I would propose to rename via ring in the GUI to via diameter (e.g. not use the ring word), and add use "copper pad diameter" in the tooltip description (instead of via ring diameter). Thanks, but as the whole feature will be removed, I don't plan such renames. >ideally there would be a tooltip picture/diagram, but I'm not sure how feasible that it. We can have a picutre in the DRC's documentation, not in tooltips. > >still, that does not explain why it said the measured value is 0.0mm, if the ring in the via is 0.15mm. The 0 is another issue: in some of the checks we do get back the measured value, in others we don't. This is something I will handle - but not with this old DRC code, but with the new one. Since the new DRC will have a totally different architecutre, settings/configuration will be very different too, and I will make sure we get better indication/data on the violations. Regards, Igor2
Reply subtree:
3685 Re: [pcb-rnd] DRC annular ring issue from ge...@igor2.repo.hu