I have not asked for a refund yet but I assume they are saying it's my fault and want to see if you think so.
Rotating patterns seems like a totally basic function to me but apparently not? The ''custom'' pad shape seems to result from rotating the pattern at a 45* angle, some of the first caps I placed were rotated 45 and all subsequent caps were copied from this one and some rotated back to 90 degrees, so they all ended up with a ''custom'' shape setting. I had to edit the pad to force it to look like this, it should always be square when viewed from this angle so it seems they used one single custom (and incorrect) pattern and not just a single custom pad You can view the ''custom'' pad shape for a given pad and they will differ depending on the angle in my software, some are diamond shaped (e.g in caps rotated 45*) but others are the typical square when the pattern is at 90 degree angle.i.e there was more than one custom shape but JLC only seemed to register one.Īlso not a single one of these pads actually printed correctly, every single one were diamond shaped (i.e angled 45*) relative to the pattern itself and not relative to the rotation of the pattern on the board. There was some SMD pads rotated 45* which ended up with a ''custom'' pad shape and these printed ok, seems like its only the square throughhole pads.
Gerber files are essentially just a text file with a list of paintbrushes of various shapes (called apertures), that are blinked on, or swept over wherever they need to be. Sweep a circle along a line and you have a PCB trace. Take an aperture that’s a square, and pulse it on, and you get a square pad.īased on their very poorly written response, it sounds like when you rotated the pad, Diptrace set up a custom aperture to deal with it in the gerber. This should be fine, but some programs read files slightly differently, and it sounds (or rather it looks to me based on the boards you got) like what should have been the un-rotated square aperture was also interpreted as the custom, rotated square aperture, so it put that where the regular square pad should have been.
Basically, it sounds to me like they have a poorly written gerber interpreter. If you post the gerber, I can take a look at the aperture settings to see if that’s actually what happened. Or you can look up the gerber file format standard and check yourself! If it conforms to the standard that they request, you should be able to make an argument for a refund. If you look at the pad at the bottom of the picture you originally posted of the PCB, right under the 3.3 on the silkscreen.īut they will likely ignore you, and send more poorly written responses until you give up.
This pad is created on lines 1845 of the gerber file (D180* and X555433Y1964882D3*).
0 kommentar(er)
