A few months ago I blasted several discussion forums with questions
about the process of moving data from CAD to CAM
I got a lot of interesting and informative responses, and I just wanted
to thank everyone for taking the time to help out.
It hasn't been published yet, but I compiled everything I learned about
this subject into a PDF that you can read if you are interested.
http://www.frontdoor.biz/PCBportal/CAD2CAM.pdf
If you have any other comments or suggestions, please don't hesitate
to write back (its not too late to make changes)
Thanks again,
Jack
[log in to unmask]
.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Jack Olson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I've recently had the opportunity to spend some time with "the CAM guy" at
> our primary circuit board supplier, and now a magazine has expressed an
> interest in publishing an article about what happens to data as it moves
> from CAD through CAM. If any of you are involved in this process, here is
> a golden opportunity to voice your concerns (or your "wish list"). I already
> have my notes for what happens to OUR data, but I would like to be more
> generic for the magazine.
>
> If you aren't doing CAM work but know someone who might like a shot at
> this, PLEASE forward this to them.
>
> The most surprising thing I learned this week was the extremely low
> percentage of jobs being submitted in an intelligant format. For example,
> we've been told for years to move to something like ODB++ or GENCAM, but I'm
> hearing that maybe only a few percent of the jobs are anything other than
> regular old Gerber. Is that true? Would it help you significantly to get
> some alternative to Gerber?
>
> I'm also interested to hear anyone's thoughts on the note that can be found
> on many drawings that says:
> "DATA SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL".
> Where do we draw the line on that?
> Plot film with data "AS IS"?
> How does it apply to
> etch compensation?
> removal of non-functional pads?
> teardropping?
> silkscreen clipping?
> What is "standard" editing, and what really should be pre-approved?
>
> We've been told to always place the origin on a tooling hole. Does it
> really matter?
> Would you rather have the soldermask 1:1 with the pad size and enlarge it
> yourself?
> Would it help you much to have positive planes drawn with unique aperture
> sizes?
> Does the format matter? inches? metric? consistent with drill?
> Would it help to have better README files that explain more of our
> intentions?
> (like a known netlist discrepancy, for example)
>
> What do you wish more people would do to make your life easier?
>
> Maybe its inconvenient to answer so many questions, but if we have a chance
> to teach designers what we want, shouldn't we try?
> (I'm gonna write it with you or without you, so don't complain if what gets
> published is off-grid)
> Also, If I didn't ask the question you want to answer, don't hesitate to
> add to the list!
>
> If YOU were King of the World for a day, what would you change?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> I'll try my best to write a fair and thorough article
>
> Jack
> [log in to unmask]
>
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------
|
