On Mar 19, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Martin Kupec <martin.ku...@kupson.cz> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:14:54AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Martin Kupec wrote:
>>
>>> If layers types would be defined by attributes, someone would be able to
>>> declare one layer both as conductive and as silk for example. That could
>>> cause me a nighmares. That is why I insist on 'typed' layers, not
>>> 'tagged' layer.
>>
>> No. The nightmare is classification.
>>
>> It's perfectly possible to put conductive ink on a board with a silkscreen
>> process.
> No problem here. Just define that conductive ink as copper or conductive
> type layer. I don't care how that layer happens to be manufactured.
>
Simulation! As long as the parameters can be specified then were good.
And when I say simulation it can be either a exporter to a field solver for
antennas, or a trace width calculator for current limits used while specifying
line widths. i.e. Not an exporter.
Imagine drawing a trace with a width of 50 ohms single ended to ground. When
you move layers it would make the correct via with the proper clearances to the
plane. The realtime DRC prevents you from crossing the edge of your reference
plane. And when your top layer is separated from the ground plane by .2 mm of
FR4 it know the width, and when it dropped to layer 3 between 2 planes it
asked how to calculate the trace. Referenced to one or both. Or it could have
Known that the separation of 1mm from layer 4 plane was enough not to consider
it.
Ahh, that would be fantastic!
> Martin Kupec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@moria.seul.org
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
