Le 04/12/2013 16:40, Wayne Stambaugh a écrit : > 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.
Extracting actual board outlines is now very easy. see void EDA_3D_CANVAS::BuildBoard3DView() which uses them to show the 3D view of the epoxy. The requirement is (obvioulsy): a closed valid polygon exists. But a valid polygon (needed for 3D viewer and specctra export) can be created only if a full board outline exists and was created using the same grid for all lines or arcs. Therefore a footprint which includes a partial board outline (i.e. having edges cutout) will certainly break this requirement. This is the reason why edge cut outlines are not allowed in footprints. > >> >> 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Jean-Pierre CHARRAS _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
