Converting a custom CAD program over to a standard.

[Jamie]

We have a major CAD program that does Electrical, Electronic, Panels,
cabinets, wire bundles, circuit boards and prints..

This program is an in house app and was created in the days of
Windows 3.x and has advanced, of course.

Some conversion programs have been written to make the files some
what compatible when shipping off circuit boards for fabing...

what is going on now is, every one wants to use tools that the world
is using. We are now dealing with a lot of people that are not directly
linked with us...

I was the original developer of this tool, I am now the last one and
it has been release to me to do as I please with it..


Is there a PDF file or some kind of guide line published out there
that can give me the terms used in the editing of items so that I can
match these. Also, items like defining line width, scaling, through
holes in circuit boards, file formats expected etc....

I have used several programs over the years from various authors and
have collected some basic commonality between them...

I guess what I am after is mostly the circuit board lay out file
formats, Node routing formats, schematic file formats and routing
formats for those also..

I really don't think every one uses AutoCad/AutoDesk with DWG files
etc...
I do have some gerber translations but those are part of the external
converter programs which I plan to integrate into the package.

Any nice listing of what is expected and how to manipulate the tool
for circuits and circuit board designing would be nice...

The most tool I have used other than our own for circuits is Eagle
how ever, there are things that I kind of curl my eyebrow on there.

I plan in releasing this as a cheap all around CAD tool.

This package was once release to me in the past and when I started to
change things around in it, they decided to keep it longer because they
liked what I was doing in it. This time, I have it in writing!!!!!!!!!

 

[mickgeyver]

On Mar 27, 2:14 pm, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:

  We have a major CAD program that does Electrical, Electronic, Panels,
cabinets, wire bundles, circuit boards and prints..

    This program is an in house app and was created in the days of
Windows 3.x and has advanced, of course.

     Some conversion programs have been written to make the files some
what compatible when shipping off circuit boards for fabing...

    what is going on now is, every one wants to use tools that the world
is using. We are now dealing with a lot of people that are not directly
linked with us...

    I was the original developer of this tool, I am now the last one and
it has been release to me to do as I please with it..

   Is there a PDF file or some kind of guide line published out there
that can give me the terms used in the editing of items so that I can
match these. Also, items like defining line width, scaling, through
holes in circuit boards, file formats expected etc....

   I have used several programs over the years from various authors and
have collected some basic commonality between them...

   I guess what I am after is mostly the circuit board lay out file
formats, Node routing formats, schematic file formats and routing
formats for those also..

   I really don't think every one uses AutoCad/AutoDesk  with DWG files
etc...
   I do have some gerber translations but those are part of the external
converter programs which I plan to integrate into the package.

   Any nice listing of what is expected and how to manipulate the tool
for circuits and circuit board designing would be nice...

    The most tool I have used other than our own for circuits is Eagle
how ever, there are things that I kind of curl my eyebrow on there.

   I plan in releasing this as a cheap all around CAD tool.

  This package was once release to me in the past and when I started to
change things around in it, they decided to keep it longer because they
liked what I was doing in it. This time, I have it in writing!!!!!!!!!

sounds like you need the latest in gerber file definition rs-274x and
the
description for ipc-365 files. this should get you circuit boards at
least.
having a schematic to board checker would be a plus.
i have not the slightest idea what to do for cable bundles.
regards,
al

 

[Jamie]

mickgeyver wrote:

--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

The most tool I have used other than our own for circuits is Eagle
how ever, there are things that I kind of curl my eyebrow on there.

I plan in releasing this as a cheap all around CAD tool.

This package was once release to me in the past and when I started to
change things around in it, they decided to keep it longer because they
liked what I was doing in it. This time, I have it in writing!!!!!!!!!


sounds like you need the latest in gerber file definition rs-274x and
the
description for ipc-365 files. this should get you circuit boards at
least.
having a schematic to board checker would be a plus.
i have not the slightest idea what to do for cable bundles.
regards,
al
Thanks for the reply, I'll have to see what is involved for integrating

the ipc-365 files with my exiting format..
Currently, I can do a schematic to board cross check, as it helps in
the routing process.

It looks like I may need to remove a few operations from the software
because it's so far different from what is out there, I don't think it'd
be easy to convert for many.. I should be able to use methods those are
used too, to produce those operations.

Thanks..
Jamie.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:35:34 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
<macy@california.com> wrote:

On Apr 5, 2:16 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
mickgeyver wrote:

--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"







   The most tool I have used other than our own for circuits is Eagle
how ever, there are things that I kind of curl my eyebrow on there.

  I plan in releasing this as a cheap all around CAD tool.

 This package was once release to me in the past and when I started to
change things around in it, they decided to keep it longer because they
liked what I was doing in it. This time, I have it in writing!!!!!!!!!

sounds like you need the latest in gerber file definition rs-274x and
the
description for ipc-365 files. this should get you circuit boards at
least.
 having a schematic to board checker  would be a plus.
i have not the slightest idea what to do for cable bundles.
regards,
al

Thanks for the reply, I'll have to see what is involved for integrating
the ipc-365 files with my exiting format..
   Currently, I can do a schematic to board cross check, as it helps in
the routing process.

   It looks like I may need to remove a few operations from the software
because it's so far different from what is out there, I don't think it'd
be easy to convert for many.. I should be able to use methods those are
used too, to produce those operations.

   Thanks..
   Jamie.

from memory, the most used around here are OrCAD, PCPads, and Allegro

Everytime we sent a new board to PCB Fab houses, they would ALWAYS
check the gerbers. They said that often there would be
inconsistencies they would manually change, usually at no additional
cost. They considered this checking/modification just to be part of
doing business.

Made me wonder if the gerber standard was indeed a standard, or just
guidelines.

If you could have your program 'learn' the manufacturing rules [based
upon their specs *and* upon your experiences from using them] for any
specific PCB fab house, that would be incredible! It would be nice to
have the rules adjusted for which house we would like to use. We have
super cheap houses, but not so good at better than gross tolerances
and then we have some medium priced and higher priced down to
incredibly tight tolerance, and even have capability to laser trim.
Plus, each house has different 'rules' for vias, too. some like
certain pad sizes surrounding certain hole sizes, some can easily make
tiny vias, just depends.

I would like to have a library of rules that relate to each potential
vendor that can be applied to the layout. I know the houses try to be
uniform, but that just doesn't quite happen. Historically, as we use
vendors and boards come back, we throw away the experiences learned,
only because there has been no place to keep the knowledge. We can
only keep a gross level of experience [pass/fail] and lose a potential
edge to be able to move faster.

thoughts?

Are there _conflicting_ versions of Gerber in play? I don't think so.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

 

[Robert Macy]

On Apr 5, 2:16 am, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:

mickgeyver wrote:

--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"







   The most tool I have used other than our own for circuits is Eagle
how ever, there are things that I kind of curl my eyebrow on there.

  I plan in releasing this as a cheap all around CAD tool.

 This package was once release to me in the past and when I started to
change things around in it, they decided to keep it longer because they
liked what I was doing in it. This time, I have it in writing!!!!!!!!!

sounds like you need the latest in gerber file definition rs-274x and
the
description for ipc-365 files. this should get you circuit boards at
least.
 having a schematic to board checker  would be a plus.
i have not the slightest idea what to do for cable bundles.
regards,
al

Thanks for the reply, I'll have to see what is involved for integrating
the ipc-365 files with my exiting format..
   Currently, I can do a schematic to board cross check, as it helps in
the routing process.

   It looks like I may need to remove a few operations from the software
because it's so far different from what is out there, I don't think it'd
be easy to convert for many.. I should be able to use methods those are
used too, to produce those operations.

   Thanks..
   Jamie.

from memory, the most used around here are OrCAD, PCPads, and Allegro

Everytime we sent a new board to PCB Fab houses, they would ALWAYS
check the gerbers. They said that often there would be
inconsistencies they would manually change, usually at no additional
cost. They considered this checking/modification just to be part of
doing business.

Made me wonder if the gerber standard was indeed a standard, or just
guidelines.

If you could have your program 'learn' the manufacturing rules [based
upon their specs *and* upon your experiences from using them] for any
specific PCB fab house, that would be incredible! It would be nice to
have the rules adjusted for which house we would like to use. We have
super cheap houses, but not so good at better than gross tolerances
and then we have some medium priced and higher priced down to
incredibly tight tolerance, and even have capability to laser trim.
Plus, each house has different 'rules' for vias, too. some like
certain pad sizes surrounding certain hole sizes, some can easily make
tiny vias, just depends.

I would like to have a library of rules that relate to each potential
vendor that can be applied to the layout. I know the houses try to be
uniform, but that just doesn't quite happen. Historically, as we use
vendors and boards come back, we throw away the experiences learned,
only because there has been no place to keep the knowledge. We can
only keep a gross level of experience [pass/fail] and lose a potential
edge to be able to move faster.

thoughts?

 

[Charlie E.]

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
<macy@california.com> wrote:

On Apr 5, 3:08 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:35:34 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy





m...@california.com> wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:16 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
mickgeyver wrote:

--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

   The most tool I have used other than our own for circuits is Eagle
how ever, there are things that I kind of curl my eyebrow on there.

  I plan in releasing this as a cheap all around CAD tool.

 This package was once release to me in the past and when I started to
change things around in it, they decided to keep it longer because they
liked what I was doing in it. This time, I have it in writing!!!!!!!!!

sounds like you need the latest in gerber file definition rs-274x and
the
description for ipc-365 files. this should get you circuit boards at
least.
 having a schematic to board checker  would be a plus.
i have not the slightest idea what to do for cable bundles.
regards,
al

Thanks for the reply, I'll have to see what is involved for integrating
the ipc-365 files with my exiting format..
   Currently, I can do a schematic to board cross check, as it helps in
the routing process.

   It looks like I may need to remove a few operations from the software
because it's so far different from what is out there, I don't think it'd
be easy to convert for many.. I should be able to use methods those are
used too, to produce those operations.

   Thanks..
   Jamie.

from memory, the most used around here are OrCAD, PCPads, and Allegro

Everytime we sent a new board to PCB Fab houses, they would ALWAYS
check the gerbers.  They said that often there would be
inconsistencies they would manually change, usually at no additional
cost.  They considered this checking/modification just to be part of
doing business.

Made me wonder if the gerber standard was indeed a standard, or just
guidelines.

If you could have your program 'learn' the manufacturing rules [based
upon their specs *and* upon your experiences from using them] for any
specific PCB fab house, that would be incredible!  It would be nice to
have the rules adjusted for which house we would like to use.  We have
super cheap houses, but not so good at better than gross tolerances
and then we have some medium priced and higher priced down to
incredibly tight tolerance, and even have capability to laser trim.
Plus, each house has different 'rules' for vias, too. some like
certain pad sizes surrounding certain hole sizes, some can easily make
tiny vias, just depends.

I would like to have a library of rules that relate to each potential
vendor that can be applied to the layout.  I know the houses try to be
uniform, but that just doesn't quite happen.  Historically, as we use
vendors and boards come back, we throw away the experiences learned,
only because there has been no place to keep the knowledge.  We can
only keep a gross level of experience [pass/fail] and lose a potential
edge to be able to move faster.

thoughts?

Are there _conflicting_ versions of Gerber in play?  I don't think so.

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

      The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

That would be good. Not sure how catastrophic the 'nonstandard'
causes, but one example I saw was some form of 'overlay' with
information from different layers getting mushed together, with
resulting metallization that was just garbage.

I'm just relating what I've been told by several fab houses. They
also said all this rework is done at every house and customers usually
don't ask, like I did, so they don't show it to them. I got the
feeling that each house thought they were doing something wrong, had
to make corrections for their 'error', and therefore kept the
requirement for modifications a secret from the customers - made them
look bad. Out of sight, out of mind. They always presented to the
customer the attitude of 'send us your gerber and we make you a
perfect PCB'.

One nice thing about www.4pcb.com is their auto-DFM service. You send
in your gerbers, and they will do an automatic DFM check and TELL you
what changes they will make automatically, as well as problems that
they found. Had been invaluable as I have been learning the reality
vs. the theory of PCB layout. It has several times warned me when a
footprint's solder mask wasn't correctly spec'd!

Charlie

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
<macy@california.com> wrote:

On Apr 5, 3:08 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:35:34 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy





m...@california.com> wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:16 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
mickgeyver wrote:

--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

   The most tool I have used other than our own for circuits is Eagle
how ever, there are things that I kind of curl my eyebrow on there.

  I plan in releasing this as a cheap all around CAD tool.

 This package was once release to me in the past and when I started to
change things around in it, they decided to keep it longer because they
liked what I was doing in it. This time, I have it in writing!!!!!!!!!

sounds like you need the latest in gerber file definition rs-274x and
the
description for ipc-365 files. this should get you circuit boards at
least.
 having a schematic to board checker  would be a plus.
i have not the slightest idea what to do for cable bundles.
regards,
al

Thanks for the reply, I'll have to see what is involved for integrating
the ipc-365 files with my exiting format..
   Currently, I can do a schematic to board cross check, as it helps in
the routing process.

   It looks like I may need to remove a few operations from the software
because it's so far different from what is out there, I don't think it'd
be easy to convert for many.. I should be able to use methods those are
used too, to produce those operations.

   Thanks..
   Jamie.

from memory, the most used around here are OrCAD, PCPads, and Allegro

Everytime we sent a new board to PCB Fab houses, they would ALWAYS
check the gerbers.  They said that often there would be
inconsistencies they would manually change, usually at no additional
cost.  They considered this checking/modification just to be part of
doing business.

Made me wonder if the gerber standard was indeed a standard, or just
guidelines.

If you could have your program 'learn' the manufacturing rules [based
upon their specs *and* upon your experiences from using them] for any
specific PCB fab house, that would be incredible!  It would be nice to
have the rules adjusted for which house we would like to use.  We have
super cheap houses, but not so good at better than gross tolerances
and then we have some medium priced and higher priced down to
incredibly tight tolerance, and even have capability to laser trim.
Plus, each house has different 'rules' for vias, too. some like
certain pad sizes surrounding certain hole sizes, some can easily make
tiny vias, just depends.

I would like to have a library of rules that relate to each potential
vendor that can be applied to the layout.  I know the houses try to be
uniform, but that just doesn't quite happen.  Historically, as we use
vendors and boards come back, we throw away the experiences learned,
only because there has been no place to keep the knowledge.  We can
only keep a gross level of experience [pass/fail] and lose a potential
edge to be able to move faster.

thoughts?

Are there _conflicting_ versions of Gerber in play?  I don't think so.

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

      The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

That would be good. Not sure how catastrophic the 'nonstandard'
causes, but one example I saw was some form of 'overlay' with
information from different layers getting mushed together, with
resulting metallization that was just garbage.

I'm just relating what I've been told by several fab houses. They
also said all this rework is done at every house and customers usually
don't ask, like I did, so they don't show it to them. I got the
feeling that each house thought they were doing something wrong, had
to make corrections for their 'error', and therefore kept the
requirement for modifications a secret from the customers - made them
look bad. Out of sight, out of mind. They always presented to the
customer the attitude of 'send us your gerber and we make you a
perfect PCB'.

I don't do layout, so my experience with GDSII is strictly as a
viewer. I do know that you need a layers "map" separately to set up
your viewer.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

 

[Robert Macy]

On Apr 5, 3:08 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:35:34 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy





m...@california.com> wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:16 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
mickgeyver wrote:

--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

   The most tool I have used other than our own for circuits is Eagle
how ever, there are things that I kind of curl my eyebrow on there.

  I plan in releasing this as a cheap all around CAD tool.

 This package was once release to me in the past and when I started to
change things around in it, they decided to keep it longer because they
liked what I was doing in it. This time, I have it in writing!!!!!!!!!

sounds like you need the latest in gerber file definition rs-274x and
the
description for ipc-365 files. this should get you circuit boards at
least.
 having a schematic to board checker  would be a plus.
i have not the slightest idea what to do for cable bundles.
regards,
al

Thanks for the reply, I'll have to see what is involved for integrating
the ipc-365 files with my exiting format..
   Currently, I can do a schematic to board cross check, as it helps in
the routing process.

   It looks like I may need to remove a few operations from the software
because it's so far different from what is out there, I don't think it'd
be easy to convert for many.. I should be able to use methods those are
used too, to produce those operations.

   Thanks..
   Jamie.

from memory, the most used around here are OrCAD, PCPads, and Allegro

Everytime we sent a new board to PCB Fab houses, they would ALWAYS
check the gerbers.  They said that often there would be
inconsistencies they would manually change, usually at no additional
cost.  They considered this checking/modification just to be part of
doing business.

Made me wonder if the gerber standard was indeed a standard, or just
guidelines.

If you could have your program 'learn' the manufacturing rules [based
upon their specs *and* upon your experiences from using them] for any
specific PCB fab house, that would be incredible!  It would be nice to
have the rules adjusted for which house we would like to use.  We have
super cheap houses, but not so good at better than gross tolerances
and then we have some medium priced and higher priced down to
incredibly tight tolerance, and even have capability to laser trim.
Plus, each house has different 'rules' for vias, too. some like
certain pad sizes surrounding certain hole sizes, some can easily make
tiny vias, just depends.

I would like to have a library of rules that relate to each potential
vendor that can be applied to the layout.  I know the houses try to be
uniform, but that just doesn't quite happen.  Historically, as we use
vendors and boards come back, we throw away the experiences learned,
only because there has been no place to keep the knowledge.  We can
only keep a gross level of experience [pass/fail] and lose a potential
edge to be able to move faster.

thoughts?

Are there _conflicting_ versions of Gerber in play?  I don't think so.

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

      The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

That would be good. Not sure how catastrophic the 'nonstandard'
causes, but one example I saw was some form of 'overlay' with
information from different layers getting mushed together, with
resulting metallization that was just garbage.

I'm just relating what I've been told by several fab houses. They
also said all this rework is done at every house and customers usually
don't ask, like I did, so they don't show it to them. I got the
feeling that each house thought they were doing something wrong, had
to make corrections for their 'error', and therefore kept the
requirement for modifications a secret from the customers - made them
look bad. Out of sight, out of mind. They always presented to the
customer the attitude of 'send us your gerber and we make you a
perfect PCB'.

 

[Robert Macy]

On Apr 6, 10:18 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy





m...@california.com> wrote:
On Apr 5, 3:08 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:35:34 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy

m...@california.com> wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:16 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
mickgeyver wrote:

--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

   The most tool I have used other than our own for circuits is Eagle
how ever, there are things that I kind of curl my eyebrow on there.

  I plan in releasing this as a cheap all around CAD tool.

 This package was once release to me in the past and when I started to
change things around in it, they decided to keep it longer because they
liked what I was doing in it. This time, I have it in writing!!!!!!!!!

sounds like you need the latest in gerber file definition rs-274x and
the
description for ipc-365 files. this should get you circuit boards at
least.
 having a schematic to board checker  would be a plus.
i have not the slightest idea what to do for cable bundles.
regards,
al

Thanks for the reply, I'll have to see what is involved for integrating
the ipc-365 files with my exiting format..
   Currently, I can do a schematic to board cross check, as it helps in
the routing process.

   It looks like I may need to remove a few operations from the software
because it's so far different from what is out there, I don't think it'd
be easy to convert for many.. I should be able to use methods those are
used too, to produce those operations.

   Thanks..
   Jamie.

from memory, the most used around here are OrCAD, PCPads, and Allegro

Everytime we sent a new board to PCB Fab houses, they would ALWAYS
check the gerbers.  They said that often there would be
inconsistencies they would manually change, usually at no additional
cost.  They considered this checking/modification just to be part of
doing business.

Made me wonder if the gerber standard was indeed a standard, or just
guidelines.

If you could have your program 'learn' the manufacturing rules [based
upon their specs *and* upon your experiences from using them] for any
specific PCB fab house, that would be incredible!  It would be nice to
have the rules adjusted for which house we would like to use.  We have
super cheap houses, but not so good at better than gross tolerances
and then we have some medium priced and higher priced down to
incredibly tight tolerance, and even have capability to laser trim.
Plus, each house has different 'rules' for vias, too. some like
certain pad sizes surrounding certain hole sizes, some can easily make
tiny vias, just depends.

I would like to have a library of rules that relate to each potential
vendor that can be applied to the layout.  I know the houses try to be
uniform, but that just doesn't quite happen.  Historically, as we use
vendors and boards come back, we throw away the experiences learned,
only because there has been no place to keep the knowledge.  We can
only keep a gross level of experience [pass/fail] and lose a potential
edge to be able to move faster.

thoughts?

Are there _conflicting_ versions of Gerber in play?  I don't think so.

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|   1962     |

      The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

That would be good.  Not sure how catastrophic the 'nonstandard'
causes, but one example I saw was some form of 'overlay' with
information from different layers getting mushed together, with
resulting metallization that was just garbage.

I'm just relating what I've been told by several fab houses.  They
also said all this rework is done at every house and customers usually
don't ask, like I did, so they don't show it to them.  I got the
feeling that each house thought they were doing something wrong, had
to make corrections for their 'error', and therefore kept the
requirement for modifications a secret from the customers - made them
look bad. Out of sight, out of mind.  They always presented to the
customer the attitude of 'send us your gerber and we make you a
perfect PCB'.

I don't do layout, so my experience with GDSII is strictly as a
viewer.  I do know that you need a layers "map" separately to set up
your viewer.

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

      The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

I use gerber magic for viewing
http://www.bronzware.com/
allows pretty good tools for viewing.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:14:57 -0500, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

We have a major CAD program that does Electrical, Electronic, Panels,
cabinets, wire bundles, circuit boards and prints..

This program is an in house app and was created in the days of
Windows 3.x and has advanced, of course.

Some conversion programs have been written to make the files some
what compatible when shipping off circuit boards for fabing...

what is going on now is, every one wants to use tools that the world
is using. We are now dealing with a lot of people that are not directly
linked with us...

I was the original developer of this tool, I am now the last one and
it has been release to me to do as I please with it..


Is there a PDF file or some kind of guide line published out there
that can give me the terms used in the editing of items so that I can
match these. Also, items like defining line width, scaling, through
holes in circuit boards, file formats expected etc....

I have used several programs over the years from various authors and
have collected some basic commonality between them...

I guess what I am after is mostly the circuit board lay out file
formats, Node routing formats, schematic file formats and routing
formats for those also..

I really don't think every one uses AutoCad/AutoDesk with DWG files
etc...
I do have some gerber translations but those are part of the external
converter programs which I plan to integrate into the package.

Any nice listing of what is expected and how to manipulate the tool
for circuits and circuit board designing would be nice...

The most tool I have used other than our own for circuits is Eagle
how ever, there are things that I kind of curl my eyebrow on there.

I plan in releasing this as a cheap all around CAD tool.

This package was once release to me in the past and when I started to
change things around in it, they decided to keep it longer because they
liked what I was doing in it. This time, I have it in writing!!!!!!!!!

Don't forget the Excelon drill file. Nobody else mentioned it.
And yes, there are many slight "flavorings" of rs-274x, most, maybe
all, popular EDA / PCB vendors have slight variations, but none dare
vary more than slightly. DRC (design rule checking) is usually considered
to be quite valuable, especially if you can specify relative generic
sets of rules.