Yes, we’re talking about the same thing. Net clearance only applies between items on the same layer: i.e. a track on F.Cu must not be within that distance of a pad on F.Cu.
But a track on B.Cu doesn’t have any clearance constraints against a pad on F.Cu. It’s not that aperture pads have no clearance values, but rather that non-matching copper layers don’t have clearance values. And that's the way it’s always been (unlike the behaviour of aperture pads which was just changed). > On 6 May 2018, at 00:38, Eeli Kaikkonen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Are we talking about the same thing, and have I completely understood what > "net pad clearance" means? I don't quite get what you mean. > > I'm talking about the pad-to-pad and pad-to-track clearances. Paste-only and > mask-only pads don't seem to have that at all in practice and it's not > applied to mask or paste layers even in pads which have copper layers. > > For example I have experimental footprints with separate copper, paste and > mask pads in separate locations. When they are put into a board the mask or > paste pads of two different footprints can even overlap without DRC errors > while copper pads can't be too close to each other. If in the Display Options > I check Show pad clearance, the copper pads have clearance lines around them > but paste and mask pads don't. So I think that "Net pad clearance" haven't > had any effect for non-copper pads even before these recent changes. There's > no clearance value left in these four fields which would be applied on > non-copper pads (which Wayne called "aperture pads"). > > Based on that I think it would be correct to say "clearance values are used > only for pads on copper layers". Unless "pads on copper layers" is too > inaccurate. It looks like "pads which have at least one copper layer" would > be more accurate because that seems to make the difference whether clearances > are applied or not, and only the copper layers have "net pad clearance". > Anyways, the current text leads one to think that "net pad clearance" would > be used for non-copper pads. > > > Eeli Kaikkonen > > > 2018-05-06 1:38 GMT+03:00 Jeff Young <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: > Hmmm… I actually changed that on purpose because I thought the other was > misleading. > > We build the masks for the mask layers differently depending on whether or > not the pads have any copper layers. > > We don’t treat the pad clearance differently based on that constraint. > > Now it’s true that we only check clearance between two items on the same > copper layer, but that’s subtly different than “not on any copper layer”. > > Perhaps too subtle? > > >> On 5 May 2018, at 20:19, Eeli Kaikkonen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2018-05-03 23:39 GMT+03:00 Jeff Young <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> I’m happy to clean up the dialog if JP wants to check in what he has. Just >> let me know…. >> >> It looks cleaner now, but I noticed that the information is a bit >> misleading. It says "solder mask and paste values are used only for pads on >> copper layers" while actually it seems to be true for all the clearance >> values, also the net pad clearance. That would make the text simpler and >> shorter: "clearance values are used..." >> >> I still don't know why the value fields should be editable for non-copper >> pads because they are not applied anyways. Well, this is nitpicking, so it >> can be ignored... >> >> 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
