On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:19:48PM +0200, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote: > I fully agree, these are mostly general purpose layers. But we don't have > enough of them.
Notice that I said: 'something like 8 + 16 general purpose layers'... Only fabrication and courtyard have behaviour associated. Unless you want keepouts as layers for definition in modules (example: bluetooth module with mandatory copper keepout for antenna), since modules can't contain zones. > Sure. With the new geometry library, checking courtyard clearances will be > peanuts ;) Never said it's difficult, but has to be done. Even without the new lib it's nothing more than the zone clearance code to be called. > Could you share your code? I'm not concerned very much about performance. My > experiments with wrapping each flag in a static object showed that in > assembly it's a difference between: At the moment I'm doing it the Altium way: a 64 bit unsigned int (as an enum). Really the problem are the literals... my code is in my branch on launchpad, look at the include/layers_id_colors_and_visibility.h for the bulk of the definition (mostly idiotic inline functions to operate on them). Other things are some ints around converted to LAYER_NUM or LAYER_MSK and the necessary I/O routine changes.o At the moment no changeable name or 'new layer' features (I only needed assembly and courtyard). However it's a starting point (for up to total 64 layers) > Layer IDs and predefined purposes are not changeable in Altium. In fact, it > stores layer sets as 64-bit hex numbers. By layer name I mean what is shown It has mechanical 1, mechanical 2, mechanical 3... :D in the video tutorial the first thing they make you do is a table with the meaning of them:P > on the screen. We would be completely satisfied with the possibility to > change the general purpose (Eco1, Eco2, Dwgs, Cmts, F.Adhes, B.Adhes) and > copper layer names. Last time they rejected even the idea of *localizing* them. > Also a possibility to display shortened names in the selector widget would > be nice, it takes a bit too much space. Layer grouping would be most useful for the sidebar, since it would be quite full with a lot of layers (and at the moment it can't be scrolled, either). > Photoshop 5.0 from 1998 was richer in features than gimp is in 2014. I don't > think saying that "gimp survived without something for so long" is a valid > argument here. What I meant is that it's desiderable but I could survive without... Without a fabrication it's a big problem to make assembly drawings from silk (because refdes need to be relocated). -- Lorenzo Marcantonio Logos Srl _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
