kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/4/2013 10:23 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:24:15AM -0500, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> What is missing from the board file format that is required to export to
>> IDFv3?  None the the other exporters required any changes to the board
>> file format.  I'm not thrilled about the idea of changing the board file
>> format just to satisfy exporting to another file format.
> 
> I already did some feasibility study a while ago, nothing is needed
> (except some way to convey height information for the modules, if
> wanted). Also if he picks the segment in the board instead of taking the
> bounding box he will a) handle the more-common-than-you-think case of
> nonrectangular boards and b) not need the 0.1mm reduction hack.

I didn't think any changes were required but I'm no IDFv3 expert.  I
would prefer to see the actual board outline implemented before
committing this feature to KiCad.  More than 50% of the boards that I
design are *not* rectangular so this would be a show stopper for me.

> 
> Every structure in the IDF3 is defined by wound polylines (board
> counterclockwise, cutouts clockwise), each segment can be a line or
> a circular arc segment. So nothing in pcbnew can't be represented in
> IDF3 (some math required:D)
> 
> A better work could be done for holes, since IDF distinguish between
> mechanical, tooling, via and pins... since an NPTH hole is definitely
> a mounting hole, the only doubt is the plated hole (can be a pin or
> a 'grounded' mounted). Heuristics could help, maybe. Or maybe simply
> nobody cares about the difference (like for some things in gencad).

Perhaps looking at the net connections could be used determine the
heuristics.  If it cannot be determined, prompt the user to state the
heuristics.