On 23 Jun 2019, at 10:01, jp charras <jp.charras@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Le 22/06/2019 à 20:23, Jeff Young a écrit :
Hi JP,
Can you point me to some of the clearance violation issues?
I’m aware of the one where a track that goes within the thermal
clearance radius can produce a DRC error, but I’d consider that
what DRC is for. But it sounds like there are others?
Thanks,
Jeff.
Hi Jeff,
I attached a board that exhibit a DRC error between a pad and a
thermal
stub.
See U2, pads 6 and 7.
The clearance is roughly 0.22 mm, but the GND min clearance is
0.28mm
and the zone clearance is 0.5mm
On 22 Jun 2019, at 18:58, jp charras <jp.charras@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Le 22/06/2019 à 18:37, Jeff Young a écrit :
New, higher-performance bits in, with some (perhaps all) of the bugs
fixed.
Testing would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Jeff.
Hi Jeff,
Usually, when 2 bugs are fixed, one new bug is created.
Thermal stubs are missing for pads having a different size in X and
Y
direction.
They are missing for the biggest direction.
Apart from that:
* The calculation time is bigger than the current algo, but no
longer
blocking (for instance 2 sec instead of less than 1 sec in a bad
case).
* Much more annoying, the thermal stubs can create DRC issues:
They do not always respect the zone clearance, and in some cases do
not
respect the netclass clearance.
They also create some shape artifacts.
They are of course not the same as the current algo, but they exist.
--
Jean-Pierre CHARRAS
