After I generated a map file, the drill map table located under the PCB.
Is that any way I can move it to somewhere else?
I used to place something (different layers’ name) under the PCB, and the drill map table overlap with them. I think it doesn’t really matter, but it will be nice if it can be solved. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DVr_CsFRP1TFvZ-qjsiX1jvOvCXIXp4Z/view?usp=sharing
I searched around, and someone told a work-around method: generate the drill map file as dxf, then import it into a layer, and then use that layer as drill drawing layer. But I will have to do editing on this layer manually every time when I edit my layout, so I’m looking for a better way.
By location I think the OP is refering to their x-y in the GERBER files such that when you load all Gerber’s (including the map) the placement means its below ( y-axis) the PCB while the OP wants it above
@OP what I typically do is export the map as a SVG, edit in inkscape to just have the table and then import this new SVG as a graphic so I can place on a suitable layer and in a reasonable x-y within the frame.
It would be nice if there was a way to specify the co-ordinates of the table.
paulvdh, thanks for your help and detail reply. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DVr_CsFRP1TFvZ-qjsiX1jvOvCXIXp4Z/view?usp=sharing
As you can see from the above picture, the drill map table overlap with some other content (layers’ name). And I used to put the layers’ name under the PCB, and put the drill map table above the PCB, so want to know whether I can keep my style.
Naib, thanks for your answer. And I agree with you that it would be nice if there is a way to specify the co-ordinations of the table.
It offers an additional check for the fabricator if you are paying for a custom stackup.
It offers a quick summary of the finish sizes so they can respond quicker and say "those 0.31mm, can you change to 0.3mm).
Likewise if the drill table shows a different count to the actual drill file something is out of date and thus is a very nice cross check
ODB++ support might make the benefit of this vanish
I’m not familiar with real PCB production. But as it seems that Drill Files and Drill Map are generated one after the other just from the same PCB file they both have to have the same information in them. So it seems for me not being really additional check. It only can make you thinking that you give additional check but is it really that.
Since many years I was working only in mils. So for example I had a via hole of 28mils (=0.7112mm). Once I decided that I’d like to start adding new footprints in mm. Because of that I asked my PCB manufacturer do they have to use more tools if I will have 28 mils holes and also 0.7mm holes in the same PCB.
They told me that they just round each hole size to nearest 0.05mm size up to some size (don’t remember that border now, and have that info at work), and to nearest 0.1 size for bigger ones. So I need not to worry about that and both my holes are the same for them.
Since then I just think all PCB manufacturers do the same. So I suppose even if you have 0.31mm and 0.3mm holes in your design they all will be done as 0.3mm don’t asking you about it, as hole size tolerance is bigger than 0.01mm.
While they are generated one after another, they maybe contained in different documents.
GERBER files are not enough to fabricate a board and as such there is always secondary information that is required. This is either a fabricators default stackup, purchase options (ENIG vs HASL etc) or via some supporting release document
This release document might contain stale data simply because it was not updated when the GERBER pack was generated.
This seemingly trivial check is actually a good consistency check to see whether the supporting data pack is likely to be consistent with GERBER pack. The last set of PCB’s I sent out to be fabricated 6months ago had a query from the fabricator for one of them because the accompanying PPT was indicating that 1oz copper was to be used but we had been discussing 1/2 oz … I simply had not updated the stackup information but it could easily have been the other way round
Until the likes of OBD++ are generated by Kicad, there is a wealth of information required for fabrication and assembly which requires supporting documentation and every time such things are required to be updated, manually, there is a risk a step is missed
As to a fabricator blinding changing a drill size without informing you … well that might be acceptable for hobby stuff but for a few industries we ask for the artwork back to confirm what their CAM generates aligns with what was requested and as such if there is any changes they wish to make to better align with their process, such fab houses feed the recommendations back to us prior to formal release
Now you may keep dismissing this, that’s fine, but it is of use (and I look forward to ODB++ to remove such additional information). The other benefit of generating the map is it is more human readable and sometimes when you are in the thick of a design you might not have notice you have used a large variation in plated finish sizes… A bit of rationalisation is always a good thing
After your previous post I searched what OBD++ means
Change smaller then specified fabrication tolerance in my opinion is not a change. I just didn’t supposed thay have 0.7112mm drill.
Agree, but for that purpose you don’t care where the tables are located. I just never used Drill Map in any documentation. I was interested what for are drill maps so interested that they have to be in documentation as only then I suppose table position is important.
