Library Pad Grows when p laced on Board?

On 26.04.2016 13:26, Rachael wrote:

James Morrison wrote on Tue, 26 April 2016 04:42

EAGLE's concept of DRC is a mix between dynamic settings that effect

the design and static rules that get checked.  I would personally prefer

if they would break those two apart because I think it leads to more

confusion.

 

I agree with this, I would prefer these to be separated out too. DRC does

stand for Design Rule Check after all!

 

Rachael

 

Maybe its as easy as renaming the DRC window to "Design & Rule settings"

or similar

James Morrison wrote on Tue, 26 April 2016 04:42

EAGLE's concept of DRC is a mix between dynamic settings that effect

the design and static rules that get checked.  I would personally prefer

if they would break those two apart because I think it leads to more

confusion.

I agree with this, I would prefer these to be separated out too. DRC does

stand for Design Rule Check after all!

Rachael

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 25 April 2016 11:10

On 23.04.2016 18:28, Rob Pearce wrote:

On 23/04/16 09:55, René König wrote:

Am 23.04.2016 um 10:21 schrieb Rob Pearce:

you still want larger values in DRC to override it.

No, not at all. A check is a check is a check and should not modify

the

board. I want the DRC to issue warnings. Then, I'm free to approve

these

warnings or rework the part definition in the library.

 

I disagree.

 

Your absolutist stance is based purely on the presence of the "C"

in

DRC. You should stand back and ask yourself, "given that I have a

set of

Design Rules, do I want them applied?" I would posit that the

answer is

"yes". So then, having defined these rules, "Do I want to check

against

them?" Again, probably yes.

 

Sure, there may be some corner cases where, for obscure reasons

of

perversity, you want to check against a different set of design

rules to

the ones you're building to. But that's not the normal behaviour

of most

people.

 

Just to add to the understanding of the DRC (and rest-rings).

The DRC is actually a check of the board's manufacturability and you

should ask (download) the manufacturers settings.

 

When it comes to parameters like the rest-rings (also alot of the other

 

parameters), these are important for the board manufacturer (not the

part!) to get the job done right. Too small rest-ring may be too tight

 

for the manufacturer's equipment tolerances.

 

A pro manufacturer will also run the gerbers through their own DRC and

 

give you feedback if there are problems.

This is related the discussion we had about vias recently:

http://www.eaglecentral.ca/index.php/m/165366/1f249bff7c718debc0a920f11ebc283e/#msg_165366

Follow that same line of thinking if you want your pad diameters set in the

library to be exactly that in your PCB.  EAGLE's concept of DRC is a mix

between dynamic settings that effect the design and static rules that get

checked.  I would personally prefer if they would break those two apart

because I think it leads to more confusion.

James.

--

James Morrison  ~~~  Stratford Digital

Order your EAGLE license from Stratford Digital at

http://www.eaglelicenses.com

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 25 April 2016 11:10

On 23.04.2016 18:28, Rob Pearce wrote:

On 23/04/16 09:55, René König wrote:

Am 23.04.2016 um 10:21 schrieb Rob Pearce:

you still want larger values in DRC to override it.

No, not at all. A check is a check is a check and should not modify

the

board. I want the DRC to issue warnings. Then, I'm free to approve

these

warnings or rework the part definition in the library.

 

I disagree.

 

Your absolutist stance is based purely on the presence of the "C"

in

DRC. You should stand back and ask yourself, "given that I have a

set of

Design Rules, do I want them applied?" I would posit that the

answer is

"yes". So then, having defined these rules, "Do I want to check

against

them?" Again, probably yes.

 

Sure, there may be some corner cases where, for obscure reasons

of

perversity, you want to check against a different set of design

rules to

the ones you're building to. But that's not the normal behaviour

of most

people.

 

Just to add to the understanding of the DRC (and rest-rings).

The DRC is actually a check of the board's manufacturability and you

should ask (download) the manufacturers settings.

 

When it comes to parameters like the rest-rings (also alot of the other

 

parameters), these are important for the board manufacturer (not the

part!) to get the job done right. Too small rest-ring may be too tight

 

for the manufacturer's equipment tolerances.

 

A pro manufacturer will also run the gerbers through their own DRC and

 

give you feedback if there are problems.

This is related the discussion we had about vias recently:

http://www.eaglecentral.ca/index.php/m/165366/1f249bff7c718debc0a920f11ebc283e/#msg_165366

Follow that same line of thinking if you want your pad diameters set in the

library to be exactly that in your PCB.  EAGLE's concept of DRC is a mix

between dynamic settings that effect the design and static rules that get

checked.  I would personally prefer if they would break those two apart

because I think it leads to more confusion.

James.

--

James Morrison  ~~~  Stratford Digital

Order your EAGLE license from Stratford Digital at

http://www.eaglelicenses.com

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 25 April 2016 11:10

On 23.04.2016 18:28, Rob Pearce wrote:

On 23/04/16 09:55, René König wrote:

Am 23.04.2016 um 10:21 schrieb Rob Pearce:

you still want larger values in DRC to override it.

No, not at all. A check is a check is a check and should not modify

the

board. I want the DRC to issue warnings. Then, I'm free to approve

these

warnings or rework the part definition in the library.

 

I disagree.

 

Your absolutist stance is based purely on the presence of the "C"

in

DRC. You should stand back and ask yourself, "given that I have a

set of

Design Rules, do I want them applied?" I would posit that the

answer is

"yes". So then, having defined these rules, "Do I want to check

against

them?" Again, probably yes.

 

Sure, there may be some corner cases where, for obscure reasons

of

perversity, you want to check against a different set of design

rules to

the ones you're building to. But that's not the normal behaviour

of most

people.

 

Just to add to the understanding of the DRC (and rest-rings).

The DRC is actually a check of the board's manufacturability and you

should ask (download) the manufacturers settings.

 

When it comes to parameters like the rest-rings (also alot of the other

 

parameters), these are important for the board manufacturer (not the

part!) to get the job done right. Too small rest-ring may be too tight

 

for the manufacturer's equipment tolerances.

 

A pro manufacturer will also run the gerbers through their own DRC and

 

give you feedback if there are problems.

This is related the discussion we had about vias recently:

http://www.eaglecentral.ca/index.php/m/165366/1f249bff7c718debc0a920f11ebc283e/#msg_165366

Follow that same line of thinking if you want your pad diameters set in the

library to be exactly that in your PCB.  EAGLE's concept of DRC is a mix

between dynamic settings that effect the design and static rules that get

checked.  I would personally prefer if they would break those two apart

because I think it leads to more confusion.

James.

--

James Morrison  ~~~  Stratford Digital

Order your EAGLE license from Stratford Digital at

http://www.eaglelicenses.com

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

On 23.04.2016 18:28, Rob Pearce wrote:

On 23/04/16 09:55, René König wrote:

Am 23.04.2016 um 10:21 schrieb Rob Pearce:

you still want larger values in DRC to override it.

No, not at all. A check is a check is a check and should not modify the

board. I want the DRC to issue warnings. Then, I'm free to approve these

warnings or rework the part definition in the library.

 

I disagree.

 

Your absolutist stance is based purely on the presence of the "C" in

DRC. You should stand back and ask yourself, "given that I have a set of

Design Rules, do I want them applied?" I would posit that the answer is

"yes". So then, having defined these rules, "Do I want to check against

them?" Again, probably yes.

 

Sure, there may be some corner cases where, for obscure reasons of

perversity, you want to check against a different set of design rules to

the ones you're building to. But that's not the normal behaviour of most

people.

Just to add to the understanding of the DRC (and rest-rings).

The DRC is actually a check of the board's manufacturability and you

should ask (download) the manufacturers settings.

When it comes to parameters like the rest-rings (also alot of the other

parameters), these are important for the board manufacturer (not the

part!) to get the job done right. Too small rest-ring may be too tight

for the manufacturer's equipment tolerances.

A pro manufacturer will also run the gerbers through their own DRC and

give you feedback if there are problems.

On 23/04/16 09:55, René König wrote:

Am 23.04.2016 um 10:21 schrieb Rob Pearce:

you still want larger values in DRC to override it.

No, not at all. A check is a check is a check and should not modify the

board. I want the DRC to issue warnings. Then, I'm free to approve these

warnings or rework the part definition in the library.

I disagree.

Your absolutist stance is based purely on the presence of the "C" in

DRC. You should stand back and ask yourself, "given that I have a set of

Design Rules, do I want them applied?" I would posit that the answer is

"yes". So then, having defined these rules, "Do I want to check against

them?" Again, probably yes.

Sure, there may be some corner cases where, for obscure reasons of

perversity, you want to check against a different set of design rules to

the ones you're building to. But that's not the normal behaviour of most

people.

On 23/04/16 09:55, René König wrote:

Am 23.04.2016 um 10:21 schrieb Rob Pearce:

you still want larger values in DRC to override it.

No, not at all. A check is a check is a check and should not modify the

board. I want the DRC to issue warnings. Then, I'm free to approve these

warnings or rework the part definition in the library.

I disagree.

Your absolutist stance is based purely on the presence of the "C" in

DRC. You should stand back and ask yourself, "given that I have a set of

Design Rules, do I want them applied?" I would posit that the answer is

"yes". So then, having defined these rules, "Do I want to check against

them?" Again, probably yes.

Sure, there may be some corner cases where, for obscure reasons of

perversity, you want to check against a different set of design rules to

the ones you're building to. But that's not the normal behaviour of most

people.

On 23/04/16 09:55, René König wrote:

Am 23.04.2016 um 10:21 schrieb Rob Pearce:

you still want larger values in DRC to override it.

No, not at all. A check is a check is a check and should not modify the

board. I want the DRC to issue warnings. Then, I'm free to approve these

warnings or rework the part definition in the library.

I disagree.

Your absolutist stance is based purely on the presence of the "C" in

DRC. You should stand back and ask yourself, "given that I have a set of

Design Rules, do I want them applied?" I would posit that the answer is

"yes". So then, having defined these rules, "Do I want to check against

them?" Again, probably yes.

Sure, there may be some corner cases where, for obscure reasons of

perversity, you want to check against a different set of design rules to

the ones you're building to. But that's not the normal behaviour of most

people.

Am 23.04.2016 um 10:21 schrieb Rob Pearce:

you still want larger values in DRC to override it.

No, not at all. A check is a check is a check and should not modify the

board. I want the DRC to issue warnings. Then, I'm free to approve these

warnings or rework the part definition in the library.

I imagine a world where we have a second set of rules which get applied

on auto parameters, and on auto parameters only.

That's at least what I want (and probably never get).

Rene