kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/26/2017 9:47 AM, hauptmech wrote:
> This is a nice concept. A more generic constraint system.
> 
> What I'll be doing and was asking if there was others needing, is the
> pre-net-class approach of a single clearance that is easily adjusted
> while laying tracks.

What you want is a change to the router to allow you do this not change
the actual netclass.  Changing the netclass in the middle of a route if
fraught with peril.  If you start out with a netclass with a larger
clearance and then change to a netclass with a smaller clearance, the
DRC will fail every time.  I suppose you could add a context menu action
to allow you to increase the route clearance specified by the current
netclass (along with trace width, via, via drill etc as long as the
project minimums are not violated).  Allowing the user to decrease the
clearance would result in a DRC violation.

> 
> I think this used to be there. Having it would not affect netclass
> behaviour or drc behaviour, but would allow manual control of clearance
> for the situations where useful.
> 
> On 27/07/17 01:17, Maciej Sumiński wrote:
>> Hi hauptmech,
>>
>> I am sure there are many users who would benefit from the suggested DRC
>> improvements, so I would say it is an interesting idea. There is a plan
>> to upgrade it, but I am afraid you will have you board finished before
>> this happens.
>>
>> It is not entirely clear to me what do you propose. At the moment there
>> is an option to set clearance per net class, so I assume you want to be
>> able to set clearance per [net class,layer] pair. How do you want to
>> modify the user interface (Design Rules Editor dialog)?
>>
>> I am not sure how much time are you willing to spend on this, but if I
>> were to implement such feature, then I would:
>> - in the "Net Classes Editor" remove the grid widget where you specify
>> the constraints (clearance, track width, etc.)
>> - add a new tab "Constraints" with a list widget and two buttons: "Add"
>> and "Remove"
>> - the "Add" button invokes a dialog where you can specify the target for
>> the rule (Net/Net Class/Layer) and the type of constraint you want to
>> apply (clearance, track width, etc). For each category used to specify
>> the target (Net/Net Class/Layer) one selects 'Any' or a concrete value.
>>
>> This way the design rules definition become very flexible as you may
>> easily specify exact targets. In case there is more than one rule for an
>> item, the strictest one applies. For items that do not trigger any of
>> the rules, the global design rules are used.
>>
>> To give an rule set example with your case:
>> - global design rules: whatever your PCB house is able to manufacture
>> - inner layers, any net: 0.1 mm width
>> - outer layers, any net: 0.3 mm width
>>
>> Regards,
>> Orson
>>
>> On 07/26/2017 10:05 AM, hauptmech wrote:
>>> I have nets that have different clearance requirements depending on
>>> where they are. There are two situations that are in my designs:
>>>
>>> 1) Technical/Manufacturing limitations: Trace and space limitations
>>> depend on layer copper thickness and whether it's an inner layer or
>>> outer layer. For instance, my current project has 0.1mm trace and space
>>> and a 15um thick copper layer on one pair of inner layers. Outer layers
>>> are 30um and use 0.125mm minimum trace and space because 0.1 can't be
>>> done at that copper thickness.
>>>
>>> 2) Designers preference: I like to move to larger traces and spaces when
>>> the component spacing allows. Apart from a mild optimization on current
>>> carrying capacity and capacitive coupling, there is not a big technical
>>> reason; it's just the way I like to do things.
>>>
>>> Both of these things have me manually changing the default netclass
>>> clearance constantly, and when I forget to change it back to the larger
>>> trace and space I have to redo chunks of layout. Happens more often that
>>> I'd like to admit. A sign of aging I guess.
>>>
>>> Running the DRC I first do a pass at the lowest clearance, and then
>>> (doing this now) run the same DRC on a larger clearance and check each
>>> error to see if it's real (many are) or allowed for the layer and
>>> location manually.
>>>
>>> There's a lot of ways to approach this issue and a 'good' way to do this
>>> has not occured to me yet. Meanwhile I have work to do. I'm seeing a big
>>> chunk of work in 2013 by Dick on the netclass and vaguely remember
>>> clearance being as settable as trace width once upon a time.
>>>
>>> Pulling forward the old clearance setting widgets and possibly allow
>>> specifying layers for the DRC are what I'm looking at doing in my
>>> personal branch. Probably add a 'netclass' default entry in the
>>> clearance dropdown I am remembering
>>>
>>> All this to ask, does anyone else have issues with the netclass approach
>>> to clearance and would the mainline want an integration of both netclass
>>> and manually set clearances?
>>>
>>> -hauptmech
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>