On 9/18/2018 7:20 AM, Jeff Young wrote: > When calculating obstacles we currently use the diff-pair gap as a > clearance between a diff-pair trace and a diff-pair pad. > > I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. I’m just not sure how wrong. > > I suspect the diff-pair gap shouldn’t be used as a clearance /at all/. > It’s the gap between the traces, not a clearance.
Why wouldn't you use the netclass clearance or the default netclass clearance if a netclass is not defined? It seems to me that the gap has nothing to do with the clearances other than the gap between the diff pair traces. > > But maybe we should consider it a clearance between two /tracks/ of a > diff-pair. This would allow you to manually route each wire. But if > you do that, should we consider it a diff-pair or not? (Even if we use > the gap as a clearance, it’s only going to enforce minimum distance; it > won’t keep the tracks gap-width apart. And I imagine you won’t be able > to tune it. So I’m not sure it’s really a diff-pair.) > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Jeff. > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1789690 > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp