I have rewritten the IDF export code to use the new IDF library. Unfortunately
the library is static at the moment since I can't get cmake to link it and I
just can't work out what's going wrong.
Changes:
+ export_idf.cpp now uses the newer IDF code base. Except for better error
reporting the
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:30:42PM -0700, Cirilo Bernardo wrote:
I have rewritten the IDF export code to use the new IDF library.
Unfortunately the library is static at the moment since I can't get cmake to
link it and I just can't work out what's going wrong.
I don't see what's wrong with a
On 05.06.2014 02:48, Jean-Paul Louis wrote:
Lorenzo and all,
I see in your last very descriptive email, that the number of copper
layers seems to be limited to 16.
Does that mean that my 20 layers backplane will have to use 4 custom
layers that really will be copper. Will the routing of those
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Dick Hollenbeck d...@softplc.com wrote:
Focusing the discussion will be the hardest part. And if that cannot be
done, then
nothing will happen.
A blueprint could help. I think any serious piece of work on KiCad
should be preceded by a blueprint submitted by
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:02:12AM +0200, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
I don't think it's possible for the moment. Defining custom via/pad stacks
is a quite big work package in itself and IMHO can be decoupled from the
layer extension WP. I'm not even sure if one can define a via without
antipads
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:26:54AM +0200, Javier Serrano wrote:
can avoid lots of wasted time for many people. So, Lorenzo, if you
agree, may I suggest you submit a blueprint and take on this work
package?
Sure, I can work on that too. Write the proposal then we decide how to
proceed. I think
On 6/4/2014 4:48 PM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
On 04.06.2014 21:35, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
On 6/4/2014 2:33 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:20:12PM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
user confusion. Where would you save them in the old kicad_pcb file
format after you made
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:50:55AM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
Since this would be in the layer definition we could shorten it without
loss of readability to:
(groups
(GROUP_NAME CANONICAL_NAME1, CANONICAL_NAME2 ... CANONICAL_NAME_N)
)
Grammar issue :P never got the original
On 05.06.2014 15:50, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
On 6/4/2014 4:48 PM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
On 04.06.2014 21:35, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
On 6/4/2014 2:33 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:20:12PM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
user confusion. Where would you save them in
I am no Software expert, but I have seen quite a few different CAD Tools during
my work life and they all have their pros and cons.
I am just an user, so I have a few questions relating to usability for the
experts.
1 - Is there a reason besides legacy to limit the number of layers?
Le 05/06/2014 08:30, Cirilo Bernardo a écrit :
I have rewritten the IDF export code to use the new IDF library.
Unfortunately the library is static at the moment since I can't get cmake to
link it and I just can't work out what's going wrong.
Changes:
+ export_idf.cpp now uses the newer
Hi Folks,
Just jumping in and saying hi and letting you know I'm looking forward to
lending a hand. Spent the last ~15 years building, selling and implementing
closed-source desktop Schematic / PCB tools (at PCAD and later Altium) and
having left (my choice), hopefully I can contribute some
On 05.06.2014 20:58, Matthew Berggren wrote:
Hi Folks,
Just jumping in and saying hi and letting you know I'm looking forward
to lending a hand. Spent the last ~15 years building, selling and
implementing closed-source desktop Schematic / PCB tools (at PCAD and
later Altium) and having left
On 6/5/2014 2:58 PM, Matthew Berggren wrote:
Hi Folks,
Just jumping in and saying hi and letting you know I'm looking forward
to lending a hand. Spent the last ~15 years building, selling and
implementing closed-source desktop Schematic / PCB tools (at PCAD and
later Altium) and having
On 6/5/2014 1:15 PM, Jean-Paul Louis wrote:
I am no Software expert, but I have seen quite a few different CAD Tools
during my work life and they all have their pros and cons.
I am just an user, so I have a few questions relating to usability for the
experts.
1 - Is there a reason besides
On 05.06.2014 02:48, Jean-Paul Louis wrote:
I don't think it's possible for the moment. Defining custom via/pad
stacks is a quite big work package in itself and IMHO can be decoupled
from the layer extension WP. I'm not even sure if one can define a via
without antipads on internal
Hi Rick,
You’re quoting me for something I didn’t write, I think it was Tom.
I think our development team could find a way to handle this by having
a via created with only a TOP and BOTTOM pad, and then during the routing,
create a inner pad only on the layer where the trace continue.
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 12:34:49PM -0700, Rick Walker wrote:
Yes it is possible. The footprint definition has a long int mask which
specifies the existance of a pad ring on each layer. There is no GUI
support. I had to write an awk script to generate my BGA footprints
textually, setting the
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:05:08PM -0400, Jean-Paul Louis wrote:
Pin escapes on large BGA are always a challenge as the annular ring
take a lot of the real estate. Same thing with decoupling caps on those BGAs.
There is not much room to place the caps real close to the point where it is
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:15:31PM -0400, Jean-Paul Louis wrote:
1 - The jumper layer to me is redundant with the component layer as a
jumper can be
described as a component, a socketed IC, a heat-sinked device or a
multipart connector can be
treated as a compound
Hi everyone,
I am playing with openPNP which is free pick-and-place software, and i am
going to create some free software and free hardware designs to make
homebrew pick and place easy (with a 3d printer as a base)
one of the volunteers of openPNP made an importer for kicad .POS files in
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:59:25PM +0200, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
I'm not really proficient with Kicad's legacy code but my gut feeling is
that impact of layer object on performance will not be as big as you're
worrying. The performance-critical areas are interactive tools and
rendering.
It
just to be a bit more specific, here is a link to the kicad .POS file
importer as it stands now. You can see that it is designed for the old
file format.
https://github.com/openpnp/openpnp/blob/develop/gui/src/main/java/org/openpnp/gui/importer/KicadPosImporter.java
here is a .POS file
Hi Jean-Paul,
You're quoting me for something I didn't write, I think it was Tom.
My apologies. Sorry about that.
I think our development team could find a way to handle this by having
a via created with only a TOP and BOTTOM pad, and then during the
routing, cr eate a inner pad only on
- Original Message -
From: Tomasz Wlostowski tomasz.wlostow...@cern.ch
To: Wayne Stambaugh stambau...@verizon.net;
kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Kicad-developers] CERN work package 4 (Extend number of layers)
[snip]
On 06.06.2014 00:58, Cirilo Bernardo wrote:
I remember your earlier work with importing STEP model data for the VRML
viewer. My opinion on using STEP models + 3D view is that we should use
a separate tool for that job. This avoids adding yet another monstrous
dependency to KiCad (OpenCascade)
Hello, hope topic not too boring for you serious devs ... :-)
I am a translator and started to look at kicad because of many
untranslated strings in italian I saw in it. Looking at the translation
strings (in it.po file) I have seen that many are missing.
I mean that, for example, I see that Open
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
I can't agree here. One of the main reasons why we did the PS router was
lack of quality interactive router *integrated* in Kicad. We'd like to
achieve the same with STEP support.
I would have no problem with an external
28 matches
Mail list logo
