3D Viewer resolution


Here is rendered with raytracing without the board body

And without raytracing

The inner layers are rendered, but looks like the soldermask is too opaque.


You said that you desactivated the ā€œfloor planeā€ but I can see on the image on the left the shadows on the ā€œfloor planeā€.


yeah I know it is not perfect the refractions / transparenciesā€¦ :confused:


Maybe its only a matter to bring the inner layers much closer to the outer layers. Right now the 3d shows them 0.5/0.5/0.5mm apart, but the real board has a stackup of 0.15mm / 1.2mm / 0.15mm (its a 4 layer pcb)


strange stackupā€¦


I deactivated it, but that didnā€™t stick it seems, got it working now. Thx for patience! :+1:


Altium updated 3D Movie option. I hope Kicad will be update this option on 3D viewer :smiley:


This should be possible to do using some 3rd part software that will capture the 3DViewer window. You may be able to create videos and GIFs.


While this is a completely unhelpful statement it is also completely false. There is absolutely nothing strange about the stackup dimensions he posted and they are certainly far more realistic than 0.5/0.5/0.5mm. There are many different combinations of pre-preg used in stackups depending on the desired board specifications. The example you posted would not be an ideal stackup.

A quote from ICD AN2011_2:

To improve the EMC performance of a four layer board, it is best to space the signal
layers as close to the planes as possible (< 10 MIL), and use a large core (~ 40 MIL)
between the power and ground plane keeping the overall thickness of the substrate to ~
62 MIL. The close trace to plane coupling will decrease the crosstalk between traces and
allow us to maintain the impedance at an acceptable value.

To return to the topic, changing the inner spacing to something like 0.2/1.2/0.2mm or even 0.3/1.0/0.3mm would be more realistic but it remains to be seen if it would change the 3D rendering at all. But I assume the 3D spacing is derived simply from 1.6mm / (number of layers - 1) so using sensible values for more than 4 layers would require a slightly better algorithm.


please be politeā€¦ this is not the first time I see it

I posted a stackup I found from a PCB supplierā€¦ so my post it is useful because is based on a real user case.

If you have more info then it will be useful too


I wasnā€™t being impolite, just frank, if it was a little too forthright for you cā€™est la vie. But I donā€™t see how it was any more frank than your comment:

Which supplier was that?

Youā€™re suggesting @marcos example was not a user case?

I posted it already. I donā€™t use the 3D feature much but I know that you do, perhaps it would be more helpful to indicate if changing the inner layer spacing would have any effect on the 3D rendering? Regardless of what you want to consider a typical stackup the current values are certainly not very realistic.


For the record, I am actually quite impressed with the rendering @marcos posted at post #14 and I donā€™t really see any need to try to improve it at all. Well done to all the people who worked on both the 3D viewer and the 3D models!!

If changing the spacing of just the outer most 4 layers would make a noticeable difference with minimal effort then perhaps itā€™s worth pursuing, but either way it looks like some excellent renders can be created with KiCad.


AFAIK those would be mario, maui and cirilo. :slight_smile:

And me! I made a couple of those models with mauiā€™s scripts, mostly to avoid footprint screwups.


Nice model and nice to see more hw based on the Vesc :slight_smile: I had the pleasure of having Benjamin Vedder visiting a few times :slight_smile: really smart and cool guy


I didnā€™t list names because I donā€™t know everyone who contributed and I didnā€™t want to offend those whose names where missed. But I do know that @kammutierspule, @Shack and @Rene_Poschl should also be included.


@kammutierspule I tried configuring the board as a 20 layer pcb, so the first inner layer is very close to the top copper layer (~0.085mm) and it made no difference in the top view of the raytracing. I guess the soldermask is just very opaque.


Or the board material has a fixed opacity regardless of itā€™s thickness. Probably not worth spending a lot of time on.


Nope, the board body was not shown in the test, so it not about the fr4 but about the soldermask