One method which comes to mind is to add yet another hole definition in software, and that may be the best way to address the problem; this way we can also ensure the correct thickness of the annulus and check the chosen number/size of vias.
- Cirilo On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio < [email protected]> wrote: > Having troubles getting an useable workflow with a common usage: the > mounting > hole with satellite vias (see attachment). > > Rationale: when you have a big hole for a screw and need to have plane > connectivity, a PTH supported pad is often not a good choice. Mostly > because on > the wave solder machine they tend to get clogged (requiring an expensive > peel > mask). There are other reason, like ground plane impedance, but > manufacturing > convenience is the biggest one :P > > So I did the following thing: > > (module "HOLE-M4-NPTH" (layer "F.Cu") (tedit 557548BB) > (descr "Mechanical Hole, M4") > (attr virtual) > (fp_text reference "HOLE-M4-NPTH" (at 0 0) (layer "F.Fab") > (effects (font (size 1.2 1.2) (thickness 0.12)))) > (fp_text value "HOLE-M4-NPTH" (at 0 0) (layer "F.Fab") hide > (effects (font (size 1.2 1.2) (thickness 0.12)))) > (fp_circle (center 0 0) (end 5.85 0) (layer "F.CrtYd") (width > 0.01)) > (fp_circle (center 0 0) (end 5.85 0) (layer "B.CrtYd") (width > 0.01)) > (fp_circle (center 0 0) (end 5.5 0) (layer "F.SilkS") (width 0.12)) > (fp_circle (center 0 0) (end 2.2 0) (layer "F.Fab") (width 0.12)) > (fp_circle (center 0 0) (end 2.2 0) (layer "B.Fab") (width 0.12)) > (fp_circle (center 0 0) (end 2.2 0) (layer "Dwgs.User") (width > 0.12)) > (pad "" np_thru_hole circle (at 0 0) (size 4.4 4.4) (drill 4.4) > (layers "*.Cu")) > (pad "HOLE" smd circle (at 0 0) (size 8.35 8.35) (layers "*.Cu")) > (pad "HOLE" thru_hole circle (at 3.2 0) (size 0.8 0.8) (drill 0.4) > (layers "*.Cu") > (zone_connect 2)) > (pad "HOLE" thru_hole circle (at -3.2 0) (size 0.8 0.8) (drill > 0.4) (layers "*.Cu") > (zone_connect 2)) > (pad "HOLE" thru_hole circle (at 1.6 -2.8) (size 0.8 0.8) (drill > 0.4) (layers "*.Cu") > (zone_connect 2)) > (pad "HOLE" thru_hole circle (at -1.6 -2.8) (size 0.8 0.8) (drill > 0.4) (layers "*.Cu") > (zone_connect 2)) > (pad "HOLE" thru_hole circle (at -1.6 2.8) (size 0.8 0.8) (drill > 0.4) (layers "*.Cu") > (zone_connect 2)) > (pad "HOLE" thru_hole circle (at 1.6 2.8) (size 0.8 0.8) (drill > 0.4) (layers "*.Cu") > (zone_connect 2))) > > I have a big SMD round pad on all layers for the support copper, an NPTH > hole > for the drill tape, and common pads for the satellite vias. The > zone_connect forces solid fill, not that it would have really mattered > (since there is the big pad covering all). Less cruft in the gerbers... > > Problem #1: pad snap always pick the big SMD pad and the track get > rejected because it falls into the NPTH hole; workaround: disable pad > snap and locate it by hands. Not a big issue since usually these are > tied to fills and they attach correctly. > > Problem #2: the big pad and the NPTH hole are conflicting in the DRC > (quite correctly, in theory). However that's a PITA because the message > can 'obscure' more severe errors. > > Any idea on how to solve this? > > -- > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
