 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> Gibbions Files? PCB Design
There are 17 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 17.
|
Author: Chull13Date: 20:41 31-08-07
|
|
Ok - I talked with a PCB design house and he said that if I could send
him a Gibbions file of my design that would be what he needed.
I'm not sure If I'm speeling what he said correctly in my web
searches.
How far off am I?
Thanks
My design is Very Simple whereas Egale's free software would more than
cover what I need.
|
|
|
|
Author: Randy DayDate: 21:21 31-08-07
|
|
Chull13 wrote:
>
> Ok - I talked with a PCB design house and he said that if I could send
> him a Gibbions file of my design that would be what he needed.
> I'm not sure If I'm speeling what he said correctly in my web
> searches.
> How far off am I?
>
> Thanks
>
> My design is Very Simple whereas Egale's free software would more than
> cover what I need.
You mean Gerber and/or Excellon?
--
Remove any occurrence of the letter 'x'
from my email address to send me email.
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreDate: 21:30 31-08-07
|
|
Chull13 wrote:
> Ok - I talked with a PCB design house and he said that if I could send
> him a Gibbions file of my design that would be what he needed.
> I'm not sure If I'm speeling what he said correctly in my web
> searches.
> How far off am I?
I imagine he asked you for the Gerber files.
Since you're unfamilar with them, I'll advise you right now that supplying
Gerber files is full of potential pitfalls. I still don't understand them fully
myself, but be aware in particular of the 'aperture file'. You'll be better off
finding a supplier who can read your cad's native file format to be honest.
Graham
|
|
|
|
Author: Chull13Date: 21:45 31-08-07
|
|
Thanks!
It was Gerber he said!
I'll see if they can take what Eagle puts out.
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 22:48 31-08-07
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:45:59 -0700, Chull13 <chull13@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thanks!
>It was Gerber he said!
>I'll see if they can take what Eagle puts out.
>
There should be a Gerber file for each layer, an aperature file, and a
drill file. Eagle should make them all.
John
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreDate: 22:56 31-08-07
|
|
John Larkin wrote:
> Chull13 <chull13@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks!
> >It was Gerber he said!
> >I'll see if they can take what Eagle puts out.
>
> There should be a Gerber file for each layer, an aperature file, and a
> drill file. Eagle should make them all.
However, my understanding is that making sure they are 100% correct is not a
trivial task.
At the very least you should preview your gerber files.
http://www.graphicode.com/pages/home.cfm?variable=18#_GC-Prevue
Graham
|
|
|
|
Author: Al in DallasDate: 20:58 01-09-07
|
|
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 01:21:43 GMT, Randy Day <randy.day@shaw.cax>
wrote:
>Chull13 wrote:
>>
>> Ok - I talked with a PCB design house and he said that if I could send
>> him a Gibbions file of my design that would be what he needed.
>> I'm not sure If I'm speeling what he said correctly in my web
>> searches.
>> How far off am I?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> My design is Very Simple whereas Egale's free software would more than
>> cover what I need.
>
>You mean Gerber and/or Excellon?
I've only heard of Gerber files, not Gibbons.
--
Al in St. Lou
|
|
|
|
Author: PeteSDate: 11:12 02-09-07
|
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> John Larkin wrote:
>
>> Chull13 <chull13@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> It was Gerber he said!
>>> I'll see if they can take what Eagle puts out.
>> There should be a Gerber file for each layer, an aperature file, and a
>> drill file. Eagle should make them all.
>
> However, my understanding is that making sure they are 100% correct is not a
> trivial task.
Agreed
>
> At the very least you should preview your gerber files.
> http://www.graphicode.com/pages/home.cfm?variable=18#_GC-Prevue
>
> Graham
>
I have not used Eagle for the entire design process, so I am not aware
of the options available, but in the packages I _have_ used, there are
numerous (and to the untrained eye confusing) options for gerber
(RS174X, incidentally) outputs. Some manual tweaking of the output
options is often required.
Having said that, every layout package I've used had an output option to
generate gerbers using the layout settings (for such things as inverse
layers etc).
The OP could try the automatic generation from Eagle and then look with
the gerber viewer from Graphicode.
Cheers
PeteS
|
|
|
|
Author: Al in DallasDate: 19:40 02-09-07
|
|
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:12:53 -0400, PeteS <axkz70@dsl.pipex.com>
wrote:
>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> Chull13 <chull13@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> It was Gerber he said!
>>>> I'll see if they can take what Eagle puts out.
>>> There should be a Gerber file for each layer, an aperature file, and a
>>> drill file. Eagle should make them all.
>>
>> However, my understanding is that making sure they are 100% correct is not a
>> trivial task.
>
>Agreed
>
>>
>> At the very least you should preview your gerber files.
>> http://www.graphicode.com/pages/home.cfm?variable=18#_GC-Prevue
>>
>> Graham
>>
>
>I have not used Eagle for the entire design process, so I am not aware
>of the options available, but in the packages I _have_ used, there are
>numerous (and to the untrained eye confusing) options for gerber
>(RS174X, incidentally) outputs. Some manual tweaking of the output
>options is often required.
>Having said that, every layout package I've used had an output option to
>generate gerbers using the layout settings (for such things as inverse
>layers etc).
>
>The OP could try the automatic generation from Eagle and then look with
>the gerber viewer from Graphicode.
IIRC, the output of our CAD layout system was reviewed by two
engineers for three-to-five days before we sent them to the PCB
manufacturer. I don't know what's so tricky about the Gerber files,
but there seems to be something tricky about them.
--
Al in St. Lou
|
|
|
|
Author: Rich WebbDate: 20:39 02-09-07
|
|
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:40:03 -0500, Al in Dallas
<alfargnoli@yahoo.com> wrote:
>IIRC, the output of our CAD layout system was reviewed by two
>engineers for three-to-five days before we sent them to the PCB
>manufacturer. I don't know what's so tricky about the Gerber files,
>but there seems to be something tricky about them.
Indeed, for the best results, the reviewers should not be disturbed at
all for that five day period (no boring^H^H^H^H^H^H distracting
department meetings, for example) and should be amply supplied with
their chosen energy boosters, such as fresh doughnuts, hot coffee, the
occasional pizza, and so on. Optimally, they should have exclusive use
of the "big conference room" - the one with the really giant display -
for that period as well, the better to view the projected Gerbers.
Any outbursts that might be overheard like "Damn! Nice shot!" should
be interpreted to mean that somebody pointed out where a mis-placed
via punched into a ground plane.
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 22:35 02-09-07
|
|
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:40:03 -0500, Al in Dallas
<alfargnoli@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:12:53 -0400, PeteS <axkz70@dsl.pipex.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chull13 <chull13@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> It was Gerber he said!
>>>>> I'll see if they can take what Eagle puts out.
>>>> There should be a Gerber file for each layer, an aperature file, and a
>>>> drill file. Eagle should make them all.
>>>
>>> However, my understanding is that making sure they are 100% correct is not
a
>>> trivial task.
>>
>>Agreed
>>
>>>
>>> At the very least you should preview your gerber files.
>>> http://www.graphicode.com/pages/home.cfm?variable=18#_GC-Prevue
>>>
>>> Graham
>>>
>>
>>I have not used Eagle for the entire design process, so I am not aware
>>of the options available, but in the packages I _have_ used, there are
>>numerous (and to the untrained eye confusing) options for gerber
>>(RS174X, incidentally) outputs. Some manual tweaking of the output
>>options is often required.
>>Having said that, every layout package I've used had an output option to
>>generate gerbers using the layout settings (for such things as inverse
>>layers etc).
>>
>>The OP could try the automatic generation from Eagle and then look with
>>the gerber viewer from Graphicode.
>
>IIRC, the output of our CAD layout system was reviewed by two
>engineers for three-to-five days before we sent them to the PCB
>manufacturer. I don't know what's so tricky about the Gerber files,
>but there seems to be something tricky about them.
We never look at our Gerber files... we just email them to the board
house. Occasionally the board shop will come back with a question...
apparently they have their own, probably automated, checks. Dead-end
guard traces especially freak them out. They also don't approve of
inner planes that go all the way to the board edge, and sometimes ask
our permission to pull them back a tad.
It's very rare that we have any board problems that weren't obvious on
the schematic.
John
|
|
|
|
Author: Fred BartoliDate: 03:43 03-09-07
|
|
Le Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:35:31 -0700, John Larkin a écrit:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:40:03 -0500, Al in Dallas <alfargnoli@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:12:53 -0400, PeteS <axkz70@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Chull13 <chull13@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> It was Gerber he said!
>>>>>> I'll see if they can take what Eagle puts out.
>>>>> There should be a Gerber file for each layer, an aperature file,
and
>>>>> a drill file. Eagle should make them all.
>>>>
>>>> However, my understanding is that making sure they are 100% correct
>>>> is not a trivial task.
>>>
>>>Agreed
>>>
>>>
>>>> At the very least you should preview your gerber files.
>>>> http://www.graphicode.com/pages/home.cfm?variable=18#_GC-Prevue
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I have not used Eagle for the entire design process, so I am not aware
>>>of the options available, but in the packages I _have_ used, there are
>>>numerous (and to the untrained eye confusing) options for gerber
>>>(RS174X, incidentally) outputs. Some manual tweaking of the output
>>>options is often required.
>>>Having said that, every layout package I've used had an output option
>>>to generate gerbers using the layout settings (for such things as
>>>inverse layers etc).
>>>
>>>The OP could try the automatic generation from Eagle and then look with
>>>the gerber viewer from Graphicode.
>>
>>IIRC, the output of our CAD layout system was reviewed by two engineers
>>for three-to-five days before we sent them to the PCB manufacturer. I
>>don't know what's so tricky about the Gerber files, but there seems to
>>be something tricky about them.
>
> We never look at our Gerber files... we just email them to the board
> house. Occasionally the board shop will come back with a question...
> apparently they have their own, probably automated, checks. Dead-end
> guard traces especially freak them out. They also don't approve of inner
> planes that go all the way to the board edge, and sometimes ask our
> permission to pull them back a tad.
>
> It's very rare that we have any board problems that weren't obvious on
> the schematic.
>
Yup. I really wonder too. Never had or heard of the tiniest problem about
gerber files in 20 years.
--
Thanks,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreDate: 04:01 03-09-07
|
|
Fred Bartoli wrote:
> Le Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:35:31 -0700, John Larkin a écrit:
> >
> > We never look at our Gerber files... we just email them to the board
> > house. Occasionally the board shop will come back with a question...
> > apparently they have their own, probably automated, checks. Dead-end
> > guard traces especially freak them out. They also don't approve of inner
> > planes that go all the way to the board edge, and sometimes ask our
> > permission to pull them back a tad.
> >
> > It's very rare that we have any board problems that weren't obvious on
> > the schematic.
>
>
> Yup. I really wonder too. Never had or heard of the tiniest problem about
> gerber files in 20 years.
I've been (indirectly) caught out by it for sure in 1999.
It was an aperture file problem IIRC. Maybe it was Cadstar's fault that it
didn't translate properly but the board certainly didn't match the layout. Note
this the problem related to an elongated pad.
You have to know that Gerber's a bit like HPGL in that it calls 'primitive' draw
functions and that gives plenty of scope for fuck-ups.
Be careful about your drill file too.
Graham
|
|
|
|
Author: Fred BartoliDate: 04:34 03-09-07
|
|
Le Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:01:48 +0100, Eeyore a écrit:
> Fred Bartoli wrote:
>
>> Le Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:35:31 -0700, John Larkin a écrit:
>> >
>> > We never look at our Gerber files... we just email them to the board
>> > house. Occasionally the board shop will come back with a question...
>> > apparently they have their own, probably automated, checks. Dead-end
>> > guard traces especially freak them out. They also don't approve of
>> > inner planes that go all the way to the board edge, and sometimes ask
>> > our permission to pull them back a tad.
>> >
>> > It's very rare that we have any board problems that weren't obvious
>> > on the schematic.
>>
>>
>> Yup. I really wonder too. Never had or heard of the tiniest problem
>> about gerber files in 20 years.
>
> I've been (indirectly) caught out by it for sure in 1999.
>
> It was an aperture file problem IIRC. Maybe it was Cadstar's fault that
> it didn't translate properly but the board certainly didn't match the
> layout. Note this the problem related to an elongated pad.
>
> You have to know that Gerber's a bit like HPGL in that it calls
> 'primitive' draw functions and that gives plenty of scope for fuck-ups.
>
> Be careful about your drill file too.
>
I've for long, as I guess almost everybody, switched to the extended
gerber format which carries the apertures within the drawing files. No
mix up possible there.
CAD packages can still possibly do errors, but it's a software related
problem. Don't blame the file format for this. And I don't see how this
(SW bug) can last long or the vendor has just to die.
--
Thanks,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Author: Fred BartoliDate: 04:34 03-09-07
|
|
Le Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:01:48 +0100, Eeyore a écrit:
> Fred Bartoli wrote:
>
>> Le Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:35:31 -0700, John Larkin a écrit:
>> >
>> > We never look at our Gerber files... we just email them to the board
>> > house. Occasionally the board shop will come back with a question...
>> > apparently they have their own, probably automated, checks. Dead-end
>> > guard traces especially freak them out. They also don't approve of
>> > inner planes that go all the way to the board edge, and sometimes ask
>> > our permission to pull them back a tad.
>> >
>> > It's very rare that we have any board problems that weren't obvious
>> > on the schematic.
>>
>>
>> Yup. I really wonder too. Never had or heard of the tiniest problem
>> about gerber files in 20 years.
>
> I've been (indirectly) caught out by it for sure in 1999.
>
> It was an aperture file problem IIRC. Maybe it was Cadstar's fault that
> it didn't translate properly but the board certainly didn't match the
> layout. Note this the problem related to an elongated pad.
>
> You have to know that Gerber's a bit like HPGL in that it calls
> 'primitive' draw functions and that gives plenty of scope for fuck-ups.
>
> Be careful about your drill file too.
>
I've for long, as I guess almost everybody, switched to the extended
gerber format which carries the apertures within the drawing files. No
mix up possible there.
CAD packages can still possibly do errors, but it's a software related
problem. Don't blame the file format for this. And I don't see how this
(SW bug) can last long or the vendor has just to die.
--
Thanks,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreDate: 05:06 03-09-07
|
|
Fred Bartoli wrote:
> Eeyore a écrit:
> > Fred Bartoli wrote:
> >> John Larkin a écrit
> >> >
> >> > It's very rare that we have any board problems that weren't obvious
> >> > on the schematic.
> >>
> >> Yup. I really wonder too. Never had or heard of the tiniest problem
> >> about gerber files in 20 years.
> >
> > I've been (indirectly) caught out by it for sure in 1999.
> >
> > It was an aperture file problem IIRC. Maybe it was Cadstar's fault that
> > it didn't translate properly but the board certainly didn't match the
> > layout. Note this the problem related to an elongated pad.
> >
> > You have to know that Gerber's a bit like HPGL in that it calls
> > 'primitive' draw functions and that gives plenty of scope for fuck-ups.
> >
> > Be careful about your drill file too.
>
>
> I've for long, as I guess almost everybody, switched to the extended
> gerber format which carries the apertures within the drawing files. No
> mix up possible there.
> CAD packages can still possibly do errors, but it's a software related
> problem. Don't blame the file format for this. And I don't see how this
> (SW bug) can last long or the vendor has just to die.
That there is this 'extended Gerber format' that embeds the aperture file has to
be good news.
This wasn't the case when I had my big problem with Gerbers.
How does one know which standard one's CAD package outputs Gerber data in ?
Graham
|
|
|
|
Author: Fred BartoliDate: 08:13 03-09-07
|
|
Le Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:06:41 +0100, Eeyore a écrit:
> Fred Bartoli wrote:
>
>> Eeyore a écrit:
>> > Fred Bartoli wrote:
>> >> John Larkin a écrit
>> >> >
>> >> > It's very rare that we have any board problems that weren't
>> >> > obvious on the schematic.
>> >>
>> >> Yup. I really wonder too. Never had or heard of the tiniest problem
>> >> about gerber files in 20 years.
>> >
>> > I've been (indirectly) caught out by it for sure in 1999.
>> >
>> > It was an aperture file problem IIRC. Maybe it was Cadstar's fault
>> > that it didn't translate properly but the board certainly didn't
>> > match the layout. Note this the problem related to an elongated pad.
>> >
>> > You have to know that Gerber's a bit like HPGL in that it calls
>> > 'primitive' draw functions and that gives plenty of scope for
>> > fuck-ups.
>> >
>> > Be careful about your drill file too.
>>
>>
>> I've for long, as I guess almost everybody, switched to the extended
>> gerber format which carries the apertures within the drawing files. No
>> mix up possible there.
>> CAD packages can still possibly do errors, but it's a software related
>> problem. Don't blame the file format for this. And I don't see how this
>> (SW bug) can last long or the vendor has just to die.
>
> That there is this 'extended Gerber format' that embeds the aperture
> file has to be good news.
>
> This wasn't the case when I had my big problem with Gerbers.
>
> How does one know which standard one's CAD package outputs Gerber data
> in ?
>
Select the format when setting/generating your gerber output.
RS-274D for the standard separated gerber/apertures files
RS-274X for the extended format.
Obviously if you look at your files, you should find an aperture
definition section in the 274X file.
--
Thanks,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
