kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/10/2012 11:40 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> 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.

On 64-bit builds, integers are 64 bits so it becomes meaningless at that
point.  Even on 32 bit hardware, there are much more pressing issues
that need to be resolved.

Wayne