re-touch:More than 16 layers

On 02.05.2016 21:14, warrenbrayshaw wrote:

On 3/05/2016 3:28 a.m., Richard Hammerl wrote:

Am 29.04.2016 um 08:41 schrieb Morten Leikvoll:

With the project I am working on, I'm starting to feel some pain about

the lack of more than 16 layers. I know I can most likely virtualize

some inner gnd-only layers (cloning the gerbers) but I'd like to ask

about the plans for this feature.

 

At the same time I know there are some challenges for the ones that work

with that many layers. First of all I'm thinking about polygon

processing speeds causing reluctance to do ratsnest until absolutely

necessary, but when doing power routing, it will need frequent fill

tests, but even doing ratsnest on a single net takes time. I wish this

function became more "live", so airwires would appeare instantly as you

place a via. My gut feeling as a programmer is that this is possbile to

speed up alot.

 

 

Currently we have no fixed plans for this. But we already put your

request into our bugzilla system as a possible feature for V8.

 

 

 

The discussion from Sept 2010 is well worth re-reading on this subject.

Particularly James's words on the decision making process to purchase.

 

http://www.eaglecentral.ca/index.php/mv/msg/38634/129058/736ed5d7e6ef3b087cee2f741a79e2e5/#msg_129058

Thanks for linking this old thread. I was the actual first one to

respond to this thread[, apparently with a too complex solution].

If Klaus worries are still the main worry, I have a much simpler

solution that allows Cadsoft wants to keep the old structure, and

addresses some concerns from the old thread.

New projects on a new buture version could have an checkable "extended

layer" mode in the stack setup. This feature will shift layers like

Klaus suggested in the old thread. If this checkbox is not set,

everything should work as before. When old projects are loaded/imported,

this checkbox will ofcourse be cleared.

For projects in "extended layer mode", all ULP's that work with extended

layer modes would need a "#using extended_layermode" at the top. If an

ULP without this key is run on a board in extended mode, an error like

"This ULP is unsuitable for extended layer mode." should pop up. An old

ULP would run as before on a non-extended layermode design.

If you wonder why I need 16+, its because I'm working on a rather dense

design with a 1500+ pin FPGA, more than 9 rather high current voltage

rails (0.95V, 1.00V, 1.2v, 1.5v, 1.8v, 2.5v, 3.3v, 5v and 12v) , 256 bit

(16x16) wide DDR4 memory at state of the art speed, 48 gigabit

tranceivers (diff lanes of 8 gigabit), and you simply dont experiment

with layer crossing with that kind of routing, especially not whe using

Eagle where the simulation is not built in. (Yes I do have some ULP's to

help me out here)

I will probably manage to crowbar this in to 16 layers on this project,

but the added comfort and time and blood saved in trial and error would

be much valuable. Switching to a new tool is even more painful/time

consuming. I would have to replace the man drawing it too.

On 02.05.2016 21:14, warrenbrayshaw wrote:

On 3/05/2016 3:28 a.m., Richard Hammerl wrote:

Am 29.04.2016 um 08:41 schrieb Morten Leikvoll:

With the project I am working on, I'm starting to feel some pain about

the lack of more than 16 layers. I know I can most likely virtualize

some inner gnd-only layers (cloning the gerbers) but I'd like to ask

about the plans for this feature.

 

At the same time I know there are some challenges for the ones that work

with that many layers. First of all I'm thinking about polygon

processing speeds causing reluctance to do ratsnest until absolutely

necessary, but when doing power routing, it will need frequent fill

tests, but even doing ratsnest on a single net takes time. I wish this

function became more "live", so airwires would appeare instantly as you

place a via. My gut feeling as a programmer is that this is possbile to

speed up alot.

 

 

Currently we have no fixed plans for this. But we already put your

request into our bugzilla system as a possible feature for V8.

 

 

 

The discussion from Sept 2010 is well worth re-reading on this subject.

Particularly James's words on the decision making process to purchase.

 

http://www.eaglecentral.ca/index.php/mv/msg/38634/129058/736ed5d7e6ef3b087cee2f741a79e2e5/#msg_129058

Thanks for linking this old thread. I was the actual first one to

respond to this thread[, apparently with a too complex solution].

If Klaus worries are still the main worry, I have a much simpler

solution that allows Cadsoft wants to keep the old structure, and

addresses some concerns from the old thread.

New projects on a new buture version could have an checkable "extended

layer" mode in the stack setup. This feature will shift layers like

Klaus suggested in the old thread. If this checkbox is not set,

everything should work as before. When old projects are loaded/imported,

this checkbox will ofcourse be cleared.

For projects in "extended layer mode", all ULP's that work with extended

layer modes would need a "#using extended_layermode" at the top. If an

ULP without this key is run on a board in extended mode, an error like

"This ULP is unsuitable for extended layer mode." should pop up. An old

ULP would run as before on a non-extended layermode design.

If you wonder why I need 16+, its because I'm working on a rather dense

design with a 1500+ pin FPGA, more than 9 rather high current voltage

rails (0.95V, 1.00V, 1.2v, 1.5v, 1.8v, 2.5v, 3.3v, 5v and 12v) , 256 bit

(16x16) wide DDR4 memory at state of the art speed, 48 gigabit

tranceivers (diff lanes of 8 gigabit), and you simply dont experiment

with layer crossing with that kind of routing, especially not whe using

Eagle where the simulation is not built in. (Yes I do have some ULP's to

help me out here)

I will probably manage to crowbar this in to 16 layers on this project,

but the added comfort and time and blood saved in trial and error would

be much valuable. Switching to a new tool is even more painful/time

consuming. I would have to replace the man drawing it too.