| ID: | 4376 |
| From: | N <ni...@gmail.com> |
| Date: | Sat, 19 Sep 2020 11:19:20 +0200 |
| Subject: | Re: [pcb-rnd] DRC: different clearance for padstack (Was: Re: plan |
| in-reply-to: | 4374 from Majenko Technologies <ma...@majenko.co.uk> |
You are right, did not think about taht. Also forgot, usually then there is enough space I add some margin to the minimum and manually adjust to the minimum values then absolutely needed. > For traces you can pack them nice and close. For pads you may want more > clearance to allow for inaccuracies in the mask alignment which would be > irrelevant for traces. > > On Sat, 19 Sep 2020, 09:13 N, <nicklas.karlsson17@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > Of course, that makes > > > >deciding on the right clearance tricky when you have a trace alongside a > > > >pad... the trace would need to be 0.3mm away from the pad, even though > > it's > > > >specified as having 0.15mm clearance. Something that, if I read your > > > >reasoning right, is not possible to display with the new DRC "on the > > fly", > > > >so could never be represented in the clearance cursor display. > > > > > > Exactly, not possible to indicate or enforce while editing, but trivial > > to > > > check by the DRC script. > > > > As I understand it. To display on the fly there must be some function > > calculating clearance value on the fly. There is no such function now and > > DRC is run afterwards. > > > > Are a little bit uncertain why there need to be specific distance between > > different types of features, for me it make sense to set distance between > > nets except possible in some special cases. > > > > > > Adding a note to avoid confusion. In high voltage circuit clearance is > > measured thru air while creepage is measured on circuit board. > > > > > > Nicklas Karlsson
Reply subtree:
4376 Re: [pcb-rnd] DRC: different clearance for padstack (Was: Re: plan from N <ni...@gmail.com>