Restring Tolerance Compliance

Jon Hanlon wrote:

I've been spending the better part of today wasting tons of my company's

money trying to save a buck - it's not making much sense for this

one-time, but I am also hoping this investment will increase my

understanding and either find me a more cost-effective board house or

give me the ability to better test my boards against the various houses

to see who is cheaper in each case.

 

On to the real problem at hand.  I've perused the board and found a few

complaints about the DRC's insistence on CHANGING restrings (annular

ring - as it SHOULD be called because I never stringed anything in the

first place in order to need to REstring it!).  Apparently the DRC even

does this if you have NOT set your pads in your libraries to AUTO.  Even

more dumber.  All this being really bad, to add insult to injury I

really do not CARE what percentage of annular ring I have aorund my

pads, every board house I've look at simply cares about the differential

diameter.  It wouldn't matter to them if I had a via the diameter of a

human hair or one the size of the Himalayans - they want one thing: a

specified amount of diameter LARGER than the drill.  It's not a

percentage, its a hard and fast number.  Why can't EAGLE accept a

percentage, a calculation, or a hard-and-fast value??

 

Suggestion for change?!

 

-Jon

Then set the minimum restring to the 'differential diameter' and percentage

to 0%, for example, 6mil min and 0% generates an annular ring 12mil larger

than the drill diameter in all cases, unless a larger diameter was set in

the library device.

Robert Johnson wrote:

 

Then set the minimum restring to the 'differential diameter' and percentage

to 0%, for example, 6mil min and 0% generates an annular ring 12mil larger

than the drill diameter in all cases, unless a larger diameter was set in

the library device.

 

I had some designs where I "gave up" and modified just the min/max

restring instead of percentages and found it much easier as well.

BillW

Jon Hanlon schreef:

CHANGING restrings (annular ring - as it SHOULD be called because I never stringed anything in the

first place in order to need to REstring it!).

Not sure if you are serious, but it is rest-ring NOT re-string. (?)

Regards,

Richard

Unfortunately I was serious... but in either case this seems like so

many things in the world where someone didn't come up with an effective

name, and about 8 people came up with 8 different ineffective names for

something.  Annular ring makes the most sense.  I don't know why you

would want to call it the "REST" ring... what's resting?  Or does it

mean the "rest" of the ring that's not a hole?!  Annular kinda tells me

intuitively that it is the ring AROUND something else, or in this case,

the ring of copper around a drill hole.

In any case, thanks for the correction.  It's a bit of a pet-peeve of

mine that the collective "we" does not have a better vocabulary.  It's

really hard to discuss some things when I call something an apple that

you call an orange that might in fact be an elephant!

yours,

jon

Richard Herman wrote:

Jon Hanlon schreef:

 

<snip>

 

CHANGING restrings (annular ring - as it SHOULD be called because I

never stringed anything in the first place in order to need to

REstring it!).

 

<snip>

 

Not sure if you are serious, but it is rest-ring NOT re-string. (?)

 

Regards,

 

Richard

Rob and Bill:

I came to that conclusion myself.  It sounds like EAGLE and Microsoft

have similar programming mentalities.  Write the program any old way and

make the user find work-arounds.

I guess the reason for my post was to see if I understood what was going

on correctly, and if I did to complain about it profusely.  IMHO this is

a really poor way of handling annular rings, and I will explain:

1)The DRC is a design rule CHECKER... I don't see anything in that title

that suggests CHANGING anything.  If it's to change my annular rings,

(or RESTrings, thanks Richard) then why not also change my routing

choices, or me board dimensions, or move my components so they match

some setting.

2)What if I want one part to be different from another?  If it worked

the way I think it should I simply update one library and voila, my new

annular ring sizes are changed only how and where I want them to.

3)What in the world is the point in defining pad size in a library if

the DRC is going to handle it as it sees fit?  Why wouldn't I just name

an X,Y point for the center and a diameter for the hole in the library

leaving the diameter for the ring a non-option here because the DRC is

going to change it anyway!

4)Has anyone EVER used this feature in the DRC to an ADVANTAGE?  Or are

we all cussing at it and figuring out how to work around it so our

pads/via and their annular rings are showing up as we created them to?

May I suggest: get rid of the percentage option.  This is the one thing

that is implementing a change on this page.  Change the Max/Min to

CHECKS only!  (gee, golly, since the DRC is a CHECKER after all, maybe

it should just CHECK things and report!)

Bill Westfield wrote:

Robert Johnson wrote:

 

Then set the minimum restring to the 'differential diameter' and

percentage

to 0%, for example, 6mil min and 0% generates an annular ring 12mil

larger

than the drill diameter in all cases, unless a larger diameter was set in

the library device.

 

I had some designs where I "gave up" and modified just the min/max

restring instead of percentages and found it much easier as well.

 

BillW