Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 13 replies
  • Subscribers 179 subscribers
  • Views 1412 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Pads

autodeskguest

Hi again,

Sorry for the newbie question but I'm really at my wit's end.

I would like to change the diameter of the pads to the passive components on

the already routed board image but the CHANGE command won't let me, even if

the Pads layer is active. All I get is a rude noise, even while the status

bar tells me to left-click on the component I want to change.

Also, it would make my life a lot easier if I could duplicate a section of

the board elsewhere on the same board without having to do it in the

schematic editor. Imagine 2 channels of a stereo system placed side by side

with interconnecting circuitry routed manually. This would look neater, not

to mention making trouble-shooting a lot easier on the actual physical

hardware.

Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

Thanks,

Martin

 

 

 

 

Parents

  • Travis,

    What you are "learning" is how to work around limitations. . You could just

    as easily be learning how to reduce a single pad.  All programs have

    limitations and little anomolies.

     

    Tillman,

    It's not just painting. Other programs have the option. EWB,Orcad, etc.You

    are not changing libraries, you are simply modifying a part on a specific

    board.

    I have production runs of pro boards that I have done this on and my board

    house asked me if they could use me as a reference for people who need PCBs

    generated.

    Here's a an example when it is beneficial:

    Let's say we have a DIL16 package on a board and we want to bring a trace

    between two unused pins BUT we want the trace to be wider for current

    reasons than the original pad sizes allow for DRC. If we have the ability to

    reduce the size of just those two unused pads we can bring the trace through

    without shrinking it and can save money by not havingto go to  2oz. copper.

    It's not about using another program (I do by the way use several). It's

    about a good program (Eagle) becoming a better program. It's how a program

    gets better. And by the way, I gave this to Eagle a while ago and they said

    they would incorporate it into future programs but never did. Perhaps it is

    in the books.

    Rob

    "Andrew Sterian" <steriana@gvsu.edu> wrote in message

    news:hbn0kf$tco$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

    Tilmann Reh wrote:

    Rob schrieb:

    The inability to easily modify pads without digging through libraries in

    this program drives me nuts! I've used several programs that are much

    shorter and easier. It's why I didn't buy the pro version.

    Please fix it!

     

    Sorry, that's nonsense. Doing PCB layouts is more than sketching

    something with Paint. Please keep the whole PCB production process in

    mind, and understand that (correct) libraries serve you best for

    generating working production data.

     

    Well, the OP does have a bit of a point. There are times when you just

    want to make the pads of this one device just 1 mil smaller, and it's not

    a production board, just a one-off prototype, etc. Having to go into your

    library, make another package variant, call it something meaningful so

    you'll remember what you did and why, go back and update the library, then

    change the package....that's a lot of effort for something that sounds

    like it should be simple.

     

    I don't believe it is a tool's responsibility to enforce a particular

    workflow so that customers have to do things "the right way". I believe a

    tool should allow customers to work the way they want to work.

     

    Andrew.

     

     

     

Reply

  • Travis,

    What you are "learning" is how to work around limitations. . You could just

    as easily be learning how to reduce a single pad.  All programs have

    limitations and little anomolies.

     

    Tillman,

    It's not just painting. Other programs have the option. EWB,Orcad, etc.You

    are not changing libraries, you are simply modifying a part on a specific

    board.

    I have production runs of pro boards that I have done this on and my board

    house asked me if they could use me as a reference for people who need PCBs

    generated.

    Here's a an example when it is beneficial:

    Let's say we have a DIL16 package on a board and we want to bring a trace

    between two unused pins BUT we want the trace to be wider for current

    reasons than the original pad sizes allow for DRC. If we have the ability to

    reduce the size of just those two unused pads we can bring the trace through

    without shrinking it and can save money by not havingto go to  2oz. copper.

    It's not about using another program (I do by the way use several). It's

    about a good program (Eagle) becoming a better program. It's how a program

    gets better. And by the way, I gave this to Eagle a while ago and they said

    they would incorporate it into future programs but never did. Perhaps it is

    in the books.

    Rob

    "Andrew Sterian" <steriana@gvsu.edu> wrote in message

    news:hbn0kf$tco$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

    Tilmann Reh wrote:

    Rob schrieb:

    The inability to easily modify pads without digging through libraries in

    this program drives me nuts! I've used several programs that are much

    shorter and easier. It's why I didn't buy the pro version.

    Please fix it!

     

    Sorry, that's nonsense. Doing PCB layouts is more than sketching

    something with Paint. Please keep the whole PCB production process in

    mind, and understand that (correct) libraries serve you best for

    generating working production data.

     

    Well, the OP does have a bit of a point. There are times when you just

    want to make the pads of this one device just 1 mil smaller, and it's not

    a production board, just a one-off prototype, etc. Having to go into your

    library, make another package variant, call it something meaningful so

    you'll remember what you did and why, go back and update the library, then

    change the package....that's a lot of effort for something that sounds

    like it should be simple.

     

    I don't believe it is a tool's responsibility to enforce a particular

    workflow so that customers have to do things "the right way". I believe a

    tool should allow customers to work the way they want to work.

     

    Andrew.

     

     

     

Children
No Data