> > hmm. Thats a good idea. I don't think it quite gets you 100% there > because if you compare a typical pad on an SO to something like one of > the larger smt resistors I think the pads are 90 degrees out. But I do > think that perhaps combining your idea with the current code might do > it. In other words, we figure out what quadrant we're in with the > current code and then use the angle of the pad to figure out where > within the quadrant. What do you think? > > Of course with a DIP or other 100% leaded you're sunk but then again > I'll bet these days almost no one is machine stuffing leaded parts. If > they are, they get what they deserve ;) > > With regards to square pads, how about this. Add an extra rule that > says if you have square pads then look to see if it is a 2 pin > footprint. If so, figure out rotation from the line formed between the > 2 pins. I'll bet this captures most (but of course not all) of the > square pad cases. >
Oddly enough, after drawing this idea out, it looks like it all works out as the perpendicular to the stroke of pin 1 i had nice drawings till X11 crashed... first rule, use centroid and orientation data from footprint. second rule, the perpendicular vector of the stroke of pad 1 away from the centroid. provided it does not conflict with the first rule third rule, when pads are square/circle or pins only the vector from pin/pad 2 to pin/pad 1, provided that pin/pad 2 and pin/pad 1 share a common axis, provided it dose not conflict with the first or second rule. Golden rule, ask user on export. We could even show this data on a layer in PCB, or view this in gerbv as a ball at the centroid with a stick and arrow in the direction of the axis. This would allow a human to verify the axis and rotation. For pick and place if we are consistent than that is half of the battle. Hardkrash _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
