The writer may assume that a valid file will be processed correctly.Ī Gerber file reader must render a valid Gerber file according to this specification. A writer is not required to take into account limitations or errors in particular readers.
A current conforming Gerber file writer cannot use deprecated constructs. The latest version of the gerber specification defines the conformance for the writer as following:Ī conforming Gerber file writer must write files according to this specification. I find this proposition “The image shall match the CAM Program A view of the data” a bit strange because how do you know that the CAM program A views it correctly? Use this more complex construction only if there is a good reason not to use the anti-pad method.ĭoes anyone know if it is possible to select between cut-in and anti-pad methods in KiCad?Īs far as I understood the problem with my file had nothing to do with rotation of primitive shapes but this is also really interesting. The cut-ins are rather complex to create on output on input in CAM the cut-ins must be removed and the original clearances restored, again rather complex. Contours must be constructed robustly so that allowed perturbations due to this rounding do not turn an otherwise valid contour in a self-intersecting one. Processing Gerber files is inevitably subject to rounding errors.
#FREE GERBER FILE VIEWER WINDOWS 7 SOFTWARE#
We urge all providers of Gerber software to review their handling of G36/G37 and to use layers to create holes in areas rather than using cut-ins.
#FREE GERBER FILE VIEWER WINDOWS 7 HOW TO#
An example was added to illustrate how to use of polarities to make holes in areas, a method superior to cut-ins. The whole section is now much more specific. I also read The Gerber File Format Specification: Īnd found some interesting revision note from December 2012 on page 15: I got confirmation from Pentalogix that their program indeed interprets that incorrectly as self-intersecting polygon.
0 kommentar(er)
