| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mike Warren |
Posted - 21 Apr 2013 : 06:04:43
When I produce manufacturing outputs I get a file called Drill Data - Through Hole.drl and one called Drill Data - Through Hole (Unplated).drl
Is there any way to make EPC include (Plated) on the plated file? I'm always worried that unless absolutely everything is spelled out explicitly mistakes will be made.
As a result, I always manually rename the plated drill file, but I'm concerned that I might forget one day. |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 21 Apr 2013 : 21:38:31
Hi Mike,
Plating is the norm .... If anything that confusion might cause is for unplated holes to be plated by mistake, rather than the other way round. Manufactuers will check all this, its in their own interests in as much as they will need to electrically test the boards and if there are unplated holes that should be plated ( that are on nets), then they will fail and have to be scrapped. Now they don't want that to happen.
Iain |
| Mike Warren |
Posted - 21 Apr 2013 : 21:23:53
quote:
Originally posted by Iain Wilkie
I cannot see how there can be any confusion in the file naming ?
I've had too may things happen over the years when dealing with Chinese manufacturers and suppliers to be confident of anything that's not spelled out.
If the file doesn't indicate plated holes, then they could argue that they were following instructions by not plating them.
Logic and common sense don't come into it.
I'll just keep doing what I have always done. I figured it wasn't possible to make EPC do it automatically, but just thought I'd make sure.
Thanks for the replies.
|
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 21 Apr 2013 : 20:18:25
Normally holes are considered as plated .... This is the norm, even on single sided. These holes are drilled at the beginning of the process. The unplated holes tend to be mounting holes where no plating is needed (although for simplicity these can be plated as well). Unplated holes are drilled near the end of the process.
I cannot see how there can be any confusion in the file naming ?
Iain |
| wprov |
Posted - 21 Apr 2013 : 14:24:06
I would imagine not quite true.
For single layer copper then default would be unplated (no other copper to link).
For two or more layers then assume plated. Unplated then would be either a gerber layer with instructions (pointers/hole code) to not to plate or in this case a seperate drill file for unplated.
As said above a normal titled drill file for 2+ copper layers would assume plated as default and a second drill file with addition title (unplated) would be for unplated holes.
In all cases the manufacture will quiery any problems since using a unplated drill file will not interconnect via's etc and flag an error !.
As said it would be nice for the package to follow a uniform format though there is the human error aspect in any format :).
|
| Benno |
Posted - 21 Apr 2013 : 11:59:14
I think the default for holes in manufacturing is plated, so there seems to be some logic in current naming.
Most companies I have my PCB's produced ask a txt file (often readme.txt) that has a list of all files, with description of the files and if needed additional instructions. That would also solve this issue. |
| wprov |
Posted - 21 Apr 2013 : 11:19:28
Okay there seems to be no proper method of forcing the unplated file name at least in V11 !.
As a possible work arround you might want to try clicking on the drill title, then edit the title to add (Plated) then save as a job !.
This will produce both files with (Plated) & (Plated) (Unplated). Thus still have to edit the file title to remove (Plated) from the unplated title !.
Not sure about current V16 but I'm sure Peter or Forum will say or if not already a "Feature" then might get added to make the format of seperated drill files the same !. But do not hold your breath :).
Wprov |
