This screenshot shows a DRC error that I think is a DRCBot artifact:
http://www.mersenne.com/images/DRCErr2.png
The two circled portions are the more-or-less the same, but the top one is rotated 45 degrees or so. (There are two more similar layouts, at zero degrees and 90 degrees, that are both OK.) Is there some way to get a pass on this error? I can’t really do much about the 45-degree SOT-363 pads that the Bot is complaining about.
I believe I am having the same issue. The pads are ~20 mil x 9 mil, well larger than the 8 mil limit. Is there anyway to deal with this?
http://dboyer.us/images/bottom.png
EDIT:
[This post seems to have a solution. It’s a side effect of eagle simulating a rotated rectangle with a series of small orthogonal lines. I will play with it and come back to post a solution if I figure it out.](Rotated TQFP parts? - SparkFun Electronics Forum)
Greetings (No First Name Supplied),
Really? I think the two circled areas are fundamentallyspacewrench:
The two circled portions are the more-or-less the same, but the top one is rotated 45 degrees or so.
quite different. One has elements orthogonal to the
major and minor axis, the other has those elements
rotated.
The Gerber files likely have line segments that violate
the design rules of the Bot.
You may need to redesign the rotated part to make
one that is Bot friendly.
You may find it easier to move or un-rotate the
parts to be orthogonal to the major and minor axis
of your PCB.
Comments Welcome!
bigglez:
You may need to redesign the rotated part to makeone that is Bot friendly.
This strikes you as an acceptable solution?
The thread I linked recommended rounding the pads to pass the DRC check - rounding them did not help, and I ran up to 95% to see if it would have any effect. Still looking for solutions…
Greetings (No First Name Supplied),
dboyer:
bigglez:
You may need to redesign the rotated part to makeone that is Bot friendly.
This strikes you as an acceptable solution?
Yes of course, Why would I suggest something that
I wouldn’t do for myself?
dboyer:
Still looking for solutions…
Duh…
Comments Welcome!
bigglez:
Greetings (No First Name Supplied),
dboyer:
bigglez:
You may need to redesign the rotated part to makeone that is Bot friendly.
This strikes you as an acceptable solution?
Yes of course, Why would I suggest something that
I wouldn’t do for myself?
I guess it seems weird to declare my design ‘impossible’ (at least at the formfactor I was aiming at) because of bugs as opposed to design limitations.
It turns out 95% roundness was insufficient, but 100% (not a visible change) changed the number of strokes and it passed. Hurray I guess.
dboyer:
Greetings (Still No First Name Supplied),I guess it seems weird to declare my design ‘impossible’ (at least at the formfactor I was aiming at) because of bugs as opposed to design limitations.
I guess it seems wierd that you think the BatchPCB bot is buggy
(with regard to your design submission).
You have a component that was rotated, and the new
structure has elements that violate the bot rules.
Another PCB house might be able to use your design,
but for BatchPCB you have to correct the errors.
dboyer:
Hurray I guess.
Hurray indeed!
What is your first name?
Comments Welcome!
bigglez:
I guess it seems wierd that you think the BatchPCB bot is buggy(with regard to your design submission).
You have a component that was rotated, and the new
structure has elements that violate the bot rules.
Another PCB house might be able to use your design,
but for BatchPCB you have to correct the errors.
Who said anything about a bug in BatchPCB? It would be nice if it could take garbage data and figure it out, but I think that is expecting too much. I feel this is mostly Eagle’s fault - not a bug per se, but a really poor method of outputting the CAM job.
What is your first name?
Comments Welcome!
In most places on the internet it is considered acceptable to go by your chosen psuedonym.
