kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[jp charras <jp.charras@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 27/04/2013 15:09, Simon Huwyler a écrit :
> > > > The first question I am thinking is:
> > > > Why a by layer constraints.
> > > > Why do not have only 2 min clearance values: one for outer layers, one
> > > > for inner layers.
> > >
> > > I also thought about that. Would also be good, yes.
> > It could fix some of issues created by multiple constraints.
> > Because there is no more multiple constraints.
>
> ok, I see that I didn't understand what you meant. Am i right that you
> mean that your idea is constraints for NETxxx on outer layers, NET xxx
> on inner layers, NETyyy on outer layer, NETyyy on inner layers... ?
> This I think is not a good idea. I thought about just removing all
> numbers for each layer an having just a set for outer and one for inner
> layers.
No.
I mean 2 values for the same parameter:
One value defined in the design rules dialog (for instance the minimal 
clearance or the minimal track width )
One other value in layers dialog, which defines the roughly same constraint.
This is not 2 constraints, this is the same define twice.
If this value is defined for all outer layers and for all inner layers 
(therefore 2 alternate values) in the same line in the same dialog, 
there is no more issue.
If there is a value defined for each layer, it should not be defined in 
design rules dialog.
But in this case you have to open 2 different dialogs to define some 
minimal parameters (for instance min via size in design rules and min 
track size in layers dialogs).
Not sure this is a good idea.
And I still think setting 2 minimal values (one for outer layers and one 
for inner layers) to meet requirement of board houses is enough.

Pad stack, constraints in net classes are an other story and have other 
criteria than board house requirements.


--
Jean-Pierre CHARRAS