support double-sided boards

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Currently, the only choice is a two-sided board with thin traces and a big
routing grid.  Should have at least a few options;
* two-sided for commercial manufacture
* two-sided for home manufacture
* one-sided for commercial manufacture
* one-sided for home manufacture

Original issue reported on code.google.com by zevel...@gmail.com on 14 Nov 2007 at 11:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

changing summary and cranking up the prority

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 9 Dec 2009 at 11:09

• Changed title: support double-sided boards
• Added labels: Priority-High
• Removed labels: Priority-Low

[GoogleCodeExporter]

what individual features do we need for double-sided?

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 8 Feb 2010 at 10:23

[GoogleCodeExporter]

1. vias.  I assume a via is a part that's available from the bin.  Are there 
different 
kinds or sizes?  What's the difference between a jumper and a via?

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 8 Feb 2010 at 10:41

[GoogleCodeExporter]

2. autorouter.  I wonder if the first pass approach is:  Start out by 
autorouting one 
side as usual, even to the point of adding jumper wires.  Then for all the 
jumpered 
connections, flip to the other side and try routing from there.  Since most 
pins go 
through the board, we could draw a direct trace (is that correct?).   For pins 
that 
don't go through the board, we'd have to add a via.  

How do we know whether a pin on a given part sticks through the board?  

What about the parts that are already on the other side of the board--may need 
to 
have the basic autorouter run independently on both sides of the board, then do 
the 
jumpered connections.

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 8 Feb 2010 at 10:46

[GoogleCodeExporter]

3. how do we represent the two sides of the board?  Are they in separate views 
or just stacked as layers.  Which one is flipped w.r.t. the other, or 
is this under user control.  How can a user move parts from one side to the 
other (this is one advantage to having two views, since it would allow 
you to make the change via drag-and-drop, though in general I'd prefer the two 
sides to act as layers).

Is sidedness only relevant to PCB view?

Do we need other layers on each side beyond copper and silkscreen?

Do we need to consider ever having more than two sides?

Are all boards two-sided, or does the user have a way to select one-sided or 
two sided?

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 8 Feb 2010 at 10:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

what else?

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 8 Feb 2010 at 10:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

possibly useful sites for helping to think about it:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Two-sided-PCB-using-toner-method

http://www.instructables.com/id/Two-sided-PCB-using-toner-method

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 2 Mar 2010 at 8:34

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It might be interesting to have the view of the two sides available both as 
side-by-
side and one-underneath-the-other.  It might also be interesting to allow the 
user to 
flip both sides (perhaps independently, perhaps not). In underneath view, 
perhaps the 
user can switch which side is visually beneath (maybe that's the same as the 
flip 
option), and maybe the user can alter the transparency of the side that's on 
top, in 
order to show more-or-less of the underneath side.

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 2 Mar 2010 at 9:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Vias and holes need to be updated to have both copper0 and copper1 layers and 
connectors on both.  The same is true for 
any part with a pin (as opposed to a pad). Does this mean every part definition 
file needs to be revisited?  

Kicad and geda import need to be updated to allow parts with copper on both 
sides.

Should vias and holes be in a different layer (to give the user an easy way to 
hide/show all vias and/or holes)?  They 
would still be treated at gerber time as if they were part of the copper layer.

We are going with the scheme of having the board you select determine whether 
you're doing single-sided or double-
sided.  Therefore each board part needs to be duplicated, and a property added 
to all of them which says whether the 
board is single or double-sided.  I guess if you're using a single-sided board, 
the appropriate layers should grey out 
of the layer palette.  

If you swap a one-sided board for a two-sided board (or v.v.) then the 
connections need to be uprooted and parts may 
need to be flipped and tossed to the other side.

Right now we are only doing limited double-sided boards (and home-brew, but 
that's really still single-sided).

Aside from the autorouter work described in comment 8, anything else to 
consider?

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 2 May 2010 at 7:19

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The implication for all parts with pins--i.e. all parts with pins that can be 
connected 
either on copper0 or copper1--is that the two layers of each pin should be on 
their own 
bus.  So now I feel more strongly that it would be better to update every part 
definition file, but I think this should be scriptable.  And maybe this is the 
next 
task to do.

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 2 May 2010 at 7:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

what does this mean for the parts editor?  Connectors in the parts editor used 
to mean 
pins, but now (since the advent of geda and kicad import) there's been a tacit 
acceptance of pads.  But it was all still one-layer stuff.  What to do now?

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 2 May 2010 at 7:34

[GoogleCodeExporter]

jumper items are essentially like a pair of vias: it's a pair of through-holes. 

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

copper fill needs to work on both layers, so we need two copper fill layers

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 4 Jun 2010 at 6:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Since all the big features discussed above are now implemented in one form or 
another, closing this omnibus issue, in favor of individual issues to come.

Original comment by irasc...@gmail.com on 30 Jun 2010 at 9:01

• Changed state: Fixed