Could you not just replace the fill with a polygon? Since the polygons are
tracks, it wouldn't be a large aperture.
Thanks,
Amy Nolen
PCB Layout Technician
RF Micro Devices
7914 Piedmont Triad Parkway
Greensboro NC 27409
(336) 931-7099
-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 8:26 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Problem with large Gerber D-Codes
At 09:27 PM 5/17/01 +0000, Jon Elson wrote:
>Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
>Yes, this is close to a solution, although it takes manual intervention and
>iteration until the plot outputs OK from Protel.
Mr. Cardone made a good suggestion, if one wants to supply RS-274X with
limited-size apertures, of using CAMtastic to read an aperture-table based
set of plots which would then be output as RS-274X. Once one had the
procedure set up, I would expect it to be pretty easy. But, from the other
end, eliminating large fills:
> But, because some fills
>might
>be 10" x .150", a 1" square fill will not work. A .150" square fill would
>work though.
In this case one would use 150x1000 mil fills, ten of them. (There should
be no need for overlap, but the fills may overlap without harm).
> You would have to search the entire aperture list for large
>apertures,
>delete them, and then add a few apertures that would satisfy the board
house's
>
>software and Protel's need for apertures that would fit within the fills
that
>are
>actually present on the board.
Protel, at present, would not use these square apertures. Yes, looking
through an aperture table for large apertures would be one way of detecting
large fills that would need to be broken down.
> I often put long, narrow fills around the edge
>of
>the power and ground planes to keep the planes from extending to the edge
of
>the board.
I simply place a track of the appropriate width coincident with the board
outline. If I want 25 mil clearance, I'll place a 50 mil track, or
sometimes I select the existing outline track and copy it to the plane
layers, then edit it to the desired width (double the clearance). I can see
no reason to prefer fills for this and several reasons in the other
direction.
I actually use fills pretty rarely, which may explain why I never
encountered the size restriction for some plotters that is being reported
here. It is beyond me why a manufacturer of a raster plotter would
incorporate a size restriction on apertures, what were they thinking?
It may have been that they were simply imitating the vector plotters.
"Vector plotters have a restriction, so we have to have a restriction too,
can't let them have a feature we don't have.
"Unlike obsolete vector plotters, our RasterMaster supports new, larger 1
inch apertures! Don't be fooled by our competition's advertising: they
don't specify their aperture limitation!" :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
