[PEDA] Octagonal Pads

Tue Nov 28 11:16:43 CST 2006

i did not describe the wish well

 > Or have I "grabbed the wrong end of the stick" in this instance, and 
  > you actually want just two of the four corners to be rounded instead?

yes this is what i had wanted

these sorts of shapes can be very handy at times, chokes, buttons, dual
footprint compromises that customers always demand

ideally i would like to be able to define a completely arbitrary pad 
shape, e.g. a polygon with differing radiused corners

failing that then the current rounded rectangle but with 4 (or 2) 
settable corner radii

failing both of those then also acceptable would be piling up a bunch of 
junk (tracks, fills, regions, other pads) BUT without the current 
nuisance of having to update free primitives all the time

these primitives when part of a component and when touching a pad and 
when on an electrical layer should simply become children of the pad, 
sort of like a nested sub component and any child pads should lose most 
of their electrical properties such as designator so that that ambiguity 
would also be solved
solder mask and paste could be offered as a calculation of the boundary 
of the finished composite object (sort of a 'SUPER-PAD') or simply drawn 
or pasted from the conglomerate mess

DXF is high on my list to fix

Dennis Saputelli

_______________________________________________________________________
CONTACT INFORMATION:
_______________________________________________________________________
Integrated Controls, Inc.           Tel: 415-647-0480  EXT 107
2851 21st Street                    Fax: 415-647-3003
San Francisco, CA 94110             www.integratedcontrolsinc.com
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTE! TO PASS OUR SPAM FILTER PUT THE FOLLOWING IN SUBJECT LINE: I.C.I.

Geoff Harland wrote:
> Dennis Saputelli wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> I don't have a copy of AD6 (and thus can't confirm it for myself), but I
> would have thought that you could select the 'Top-Middle-Bottom' value for a
> pad's 'Padstack Mode' property, then select the 'Square' value for the Shape
> property on the Middle and Bottom layers, and the 'Rounded Rectangular'
> value instead on the Top layer.
> 
> Or have I "grabbed the wrong end of the stick" in this instance, and you
> actually want just two of the four corners to be rounded instead? (And
> perhaps on just one of the layers, such as the Top (copper) Layer.) That
> would indeed require more effort to implement, and I would appreciate you
> not wanting to do that unless there was a truly compelling reason for doing
> so.
> 
> *If* AD (eventually) acquires all of the functionality which is currently
> provided by P-CAD (2006), then you would in due course be able to define a
> shape of your own choice on each layer, which would better cater for such
> situations. (There is no guarantee that that will ever happen, but *unless*
> that happens, P-CAD users will in due course lose some of the functionality
> which is currently provided to them, as it is public knowledge that P-CAD
> 2006 will be the last major release of that application.)
> 
> 
> I would really be interested in hearing about which issues you think should
> be rectified on an ASAP basis. (One area which I regard as needing a lot of
> improvement involves DRC procedures, and especially various aspects
> involving Internal Plane layers, non-"Simple" pads, and unplated pads.)
> 
> On the matter of octagonal pads though, you are definitely entitled to your
> own POV, and I'm certainly not going to condemn you for it. And there are
> doubtless many issues (perhaps even most issues) on which different users
> would have different views (as far as the urgency in getting them rectified
> is concerned). My POV on this particular issue though is that it involves
> functionality of a core nature, and it can "catch out" users who are not in
> the know (as indeed Steve Hendrix has reported), and that users should not
> have to resort to the workaround of generating ODB++ files and then
> exporting Gerber files from the CAMtastic file displaying those ODB++ files.
> 
> I regard the existance of that workaround as a "mildly" mitigating factor as
> far as the urgency of rectifying the contents of "directly" generated Gerber
> files is concerned, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is not
> inherently obvious that "directly" generated Gerber files can be
> problematic.
> 
> To deal with that aspect of the staus quo though, Altium's programmers could
> write some code which would display a dialog box whenever users attempted to
> "directly" generate Gerber files (and the PCB file concerned contained one
> or more pads having an octagonal shape). That dialog box could alert users
> that there would be issues with "directly" generated Gerber files, while
> also notifying them of the workaround available, and also "polling" them as
> to whether they still want to continue (with generating those files
> "directly"). And the provision of that code would require less effort than
> the effort required to rectify "directly" generated Gerber files *and* the
> other simultaneous changes which I would regard as highly advisable (and
> which I described in my previous message).
> 
> OTOH, if this issue was to be rectified eventually (and all of the other
> changes recommended were either already implemented before then, or
> otherwise on a simultaneous basis), then some programming time could be
> saved by making all of those changes on an ASAP basis instead (and thus
> avoiding the need to write any code for the dialog box just described). And
> making those changes would "present" AD in a more professional manner, from
> the POV of users, than the invocation of a dialog box advising them that
> they would need to resort to a workaround to generate truly satisfactory
> Gerber files.
> 
> OTGH (On The Gripping Hand, from "motie" aliens who have three arms, as
> described within Niven and Pournelle's SF novel "The Mote in God's Eye"), it
> would not take very much effort to write the source code for the dialog box
> concerned, so the provision of that dialog box "for the time being" would at
> least alert users that there is an issue in this regard, and thus
> substantially reduce the liklihood that any PCBs which they ordered would be
> "mis-manufactured". I would still regard it as highly preferable for this
> issue to be rectified ASAP, but the provision of such a dialog box would at
> least address its "gotcha" aspect, and also advise users of the available
> workaround.
> 
> 
> I sometimes wonder whether Altium's management are working for anyone other
> than themselves, as some of their actions could be regarded as being hostile
> to the interests of their customers, their shareholders, and their
> employees. If I was to take a charitable attitude though, they probably
> really don't appreciate just how and why they have let all of those
> stakeholders down on various occasions.
> 
> ?
> 
> If support for pads having an octagonal shape was ever withdrawn, it
> probably wouldn't be regarded as a loss by anyone who has never used such
> pads. OTOH, people who have used such pads (and I have, on some occasions
> (in conjunction with some extra steps and precautions)) could be expected to
> have a very different view though.
> 
> I am definitely not hostile to the provision of the relatively new "Rounded
> Rectangular" shape for pads, but what I still do find objectionable is
> Altium's willingness to provide new features or functionality while failing
> to rectify serious defects associated with existing features and
> functionality. And in a number of cases, new features have resulted in
> regression in previously provided features, and typically because the new
> features have not been properly thought through. And for the same reason,
> and/or manifestly inadequate testing, newly provided features have
> themselves often left a lot to be desired as well (and regardless of/"over
> and above" their impact upon previously provided features).
> 
> While making changes to how new functionality and features are developed and
> implemented could potentially result in them being provided at a slower rate
> than has been the case to date, I still think that there are far too many
> cases of defects which should never have been "shipped" to users in the
> first instance, and which have all too frequently still not been rectified
> in a timely manner after users subsequently discover them (and sometimes
> only after being "bitten" by such defects). And while there are probably a
> number of users who wouldn't regard the issue involving pads with an
> octagonal shape as being a "top priority" issue, and another complicating
> factor is that it would be highly desirable (if not essential) to make some
> other changes at the same time (or else beforehand) as well, I am still of
> the view that this particular issue should still be rectified ASAP. Failing
> that, the dialog box which I described previously should be implemented on
> an ASAP basis instead, in order to at least mitigate the impact of that
> defect.
> 
> Regards,
> Geoff Harland.
> 
> 
> 
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
> 
> To Post messages:
> mailto:PEDA at techservinc.com
> 
> Unsubscribe and Other Options:
> http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
> 
> Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
>  
> Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com
> 
> 