kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Brian Sidebotham <brian.sidebotham@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 8 April 2012 13:14, Edwin van den Oetelaar
<oetelaar.automatisering@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Edwin van den Oetelaar <oetelaar.automatisering@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM
> Subject: remarks about the internal nanometer resolution
> To: KiCad Developers <kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> First of, I have not followed the discussion about the NanoMeter.
> I do have some remarks.
> >From an engineering standpoint the NanoMeter makes little sense to me.
> If the smallest item represented is a nano-meter, in a 32 bit integer
> this means the largest board can be only 2.14 meters in size. (-/+ of
> the origin)
> >From my viewpoint this is not enough. (I know of CNC machines much
> larger than 2 meters)

But +/- 2.15m is ~ 4.3m

I don't see any point in changing anything that has already been done
in order to support a PCB larger than 4 metres. The patch would simply
be to move coordinates to a 64-bit int anyway, so it would not be too
difficult should someone come along with this as a requirement.

Best Regards,

Brian.