--- In [email protected], Robert <birmingham_spi...@...> wrote: > > > I understand, I thought the width of your footprints would have been a > > lot bigger than the default trace width. In this case my suggestion > > would have worked. > > Actually the autorouter has also some automatic neckdown capability. > > But that does not seem to work either in your situation. > > The pads on an MLF footprint are pretty much the same width as the > tracks. For information, the pin widths are 0.23mm, and the pin pitch > is 0.5mm. > > It's possible that the neckdown feature is not available on the latest > version of freerouter that works on my PCs (please see > http://www.freerouting.net/fen/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9&p=54#p54). > However, given the dimensions I'm not sure necking down would be a good > idea :). > > What do you think of my idea of defining board areas where the > autorouter can fallback to using alternate (smaller) clearance classes? > I appreciate that's work for you, but if you have the time and > inclination is it a good solution or is there a better one? For the > moment the best workaround I've come up with is to manually fanout the > tracks from the MLF like the legs on a spider. > > Regards, > > Robert. > The automatic neckdown seems to work also on the older version you are using. If you want me to analyse the problem you can sent an example .dsn-file containing the problem to the Email address in the Impressum of www.freerouting.net. Unfortunately it is not likely that I will do major extensions to the router in the near future. Have you already tried switching the rule selection from automatic to manual in the Route Parameter sheet? Then you have complete flexibility with trace widths and clearances in interactive routing.
Regards, Alfons
