Wayne,
I think it is an acceptable solution for V5 because this shouldn't get
in the way of a V5 release.
For V6, would it be feasible to define 0.000001/0.00001% to be a special
value (like zero) which means "effectively zero" and then the pad gui
can be updated with this special knowledge so that users don't look at a
pad and say "Why is this set to 0.000001??" and then change it thinking
its a rounding error or something.
I am not a fan of coded values in gui's because the whole idea of a gui
is to abstract the implementation details into something human friendly.
And 0 meaning "inherit", and 0.000001 meaning "effectively zero" is an
implementation issue and not something the user should have to know or
think about.
Actually, it would be nice in the pad gui, if it IS set to inherit that
the field display a READ ONLY value that would be used NOW based on the
current global/parent settings, and which is it (a global value or a
parent value).
Steven
On 28/04/18 23:35, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
Just to be clear, the library developers are asking for the ability to
ignore clearance and ratio settings when creating solder mask and
solder paste only pads. If this is the case, it will require a board
file format change to add a flag to ignore the global and footprint
level settings. I would be opposed to changing the code to just
assume that if it's a solder mask or solder paste only pad that no
tolerance or ratio is applied. This would break an existing pads
defined this way and silently change existing boards. Given that we
are deep into feature freeze, the least painful solution would be to
set the tolerance to 1nm and the ratio (as JP suggested) to 0.00001%
for the footprints that need to maintain the dimensions of solder mask
and solder paste only boards. The change to the overall pad
dimensions using this method would be far below any board
manufacturer's tolerance capabilities. Is this not an acceptable
solution?
Cheers,
Wayne
On 04/28/2018 08:44 AM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
2018-04-28 15:04 GMT+03:00 Rene Pöschl <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
The global settings here are less for ensuring correct alignment and
more for a global paste reduction.
That's right, that's what I meant. In the example datasheet you have
0.05mm tolerance for the location of the mask in relation to the
copper because. But making the mask openings larger or smaller by
0.05mm would be against the recommendation.
It just doesn't make sense to apply global paste and solder mask
clearance values to "pads" which don't have copper. The whole reason
why non-copper pads can exist is that you need control over the size,
shape and location of paste or mask, right? Changing the behavior
could lead to problems but luckily the current behavior can be
circumvented by adding to clearance fields a very small value which
is negligible in practice.
Eeli Kaikkonen
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
