I have been discussing the advantages of a common CAD format for all
manufacturing data for printed circuit boards.  IPC-2581 is a new
standard that is being developed for this.

Does anyone know much about this standard?  I know that it has no
current support from the tool vendors.  Is this at all likely to be
accepted in the industry?  Are any vendors considering adopting it?
Is there any interest from users or manufacturers?

rickman wrote:
> I have been discussing the advantages of a common CAD format for all
> manufacturing data for printed circuit boards.  IPC-2581 is a new
> standard that is being developed for this.
> 
> Does anyone know much about this standard?  I know that it has no
> current support from the tool vendors.  Is this at all likely to be
> accepted in the industry?  Are any vendors considering adopting it?
> Is there any interest from users or manufacturers?


[
"details sufficient for tooling, manufacturing, assembly, and inspection 
requirements. This format may be used for transmitting information 
between a printed board designer and a manufacturing or assembly facility."

     *  Eliminate the use of Gerber & related old, non-intelligent 
formats for data exchange
     * Unite IPC/NEMI/Valor behind a single industry standard for data 
exchange
     * Make the new standard XML compliant
     * Combine the best of ODB++(X) from Valor and GenCAMX from IPC
     * Focus on providing solutions as well as standards
     * Formalize the converged standard using ANSI procedures
]

Seems it is a downstream, manufacturing data format, not a 
design-database format - tho some simple CAD programs could
probably use this, just like some packages are trying to use SVG as a 
database.

There IS a drawback in having 'intelligent' data exchanges.

Even something as seemingly 'safe' as the fill
command in Gerber, opens a can of worms : you abdicate the
final design control, to software that is NOT ON YOUR DESK.
You CAD package can give a 100% design pass, but if the
downstream SW handles fill even slightly differently,
you have a broken design. KISS is not a bad thing.

So, such intelligent standards need to be treated with the right
degree of caution, and care.

-jg

Another IPC boondoggle. They failed at GenCAM and they will fail again with 
this attempt.
Design by committee just doesn't work and the IPC doesn't realize this. 
Along with the fact that they have nothing that industry (CAD design 
industry) wants and actually everything that the industry doesn't want, it 
ends up being transferable designs through a backdoor.

-- 
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"rickman" <g...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:8...@y79g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>I have been discussing the advantages of a common CAD format for all
> manufacturing data for printed circuit boards.  IPC-2581 is a new
> standard that is being developed for this.
>
> Does anyone know much about this standard?  I know that it has no
> current support from the tool vendors.  Is this at all likely to be
> accepted in the industry?  Are any vendors considering adopting it?
> Is there any interest from users or manufacturers? 

Brad Velander wrote:  *** and top-posted - fixed ***
> "rickman" <g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> I have been discussing the advantages of a common CAD format for
>> all manufacturing data for printed circuit boards.  IPC-2581 is
>> a new standard that is being developed for this.
>>
>> Does anyone know much about this standard?  I know that it has
>> no current support from the tool vendors.  Is this at all likely
>> to be accepted in the industry?  Are any vendors considering
>> adopting it? Is there any interest from users or manufacturers?
> 
> Another IPC boondoggle. They failed at GenCAM and they will fail
> again with this attempt.  Design by committee just doesn't work
> and the IPC doesn't realize this.  Along with the fact that they
> have nothing that industry (CAD design industry) wants and
> actually everything that the industry doesn't want, it ends up
> being transferable designs through a backdoor.

Please do not top-post.  Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material.  I fixed this one.  See the following links:

  <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>;
  <http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>;
  <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>;
  <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>;  (taming google)
  <http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/>;  (newusers)

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;
            Try the download section.

CBFalconer,
    Who appointed you to the Usenet etiquette police? Got a problem with it, 
take it up with Usenet. You know how far you will get! Gee, I don't see a 
single Usenet source amongst your irrelevant material, why not?
-- 
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"CBFalconer" <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:4...@yahoo.com...
> Brad Velander wrote:  *** and top-posted - fixed ***
>> "rickman" <g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> I have been discussing the advantages of a common CAD format for
>>> all manufacturing data for printed circuit boards.  IPC-2581 is
>>> a new standard that is being developed for this.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know much about this standard?  I know that it has
>>> no current support from the tool vendors.  Is this at all likely
>>> to be accepted in the industry?  Are any vendors considering
>>> adopting it? Is there any interest from users or manufacturers?
>>
>> Another IPC boondoggle. They failed at GenCAM and they will fail
>> again with this attempt.  Design by committee just doesn't work
>> and the IPC doesn't realize this.  Along with the fact that they
>> have nothing that industry (CAD design industry) wants and
>> actually everything that the industry doesn't want, it ends up
>> being transferable designs through a backdoor.
>
> Please do not top-post.  Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
> with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
> irrelevant material.  I fixed this one.  See the following links:
>
>  <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>;
>  <http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>;
>  <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>;
>  <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>;  (taming google)
>  <http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/>;  (newusers)
>
> -- 
> [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
> [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;
>            Try the download section. 

It is best to just ignore CB's postings on this.  Just as his posts
have no impact on top posting, asking CBF to stop his posts has no
effect.  It is just better to live and let live in the wilderness we
call the Internet.



On Oct 3, 2:25=A0am, "Brad Velander" <bvel...@SpamThis.com> wrote:
> CBFalconer,
> =A0 =A0 Who appointed you to the Usenet etiquette police? Got a problem w=
ith it,
> take it up with Usenet. You know how far you will get! Gee, I don't see a
> single Usenet source amongst your irrelevant material, why not?
> --
> Sincerely,
> Brad Velander.
>
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4...@yahoo.com...
>
> > Brad Velander wrote: =A0*** and top-posted - fixed ***
> >> "rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> I have been discussing the advantages of a common CAD format for
> >>> all manufacturing data for printed circuit boards. =A0IPC-2581 is
> >>> a new standard that is being developed for this.
>
> >>> Does anyone know much about this standard? =A0I know that it has
> >>> no current support from the tool vendors. =A0Is this at all likely
> >>> to be accepted in the industry? =A0Are any vendors considering
> >>> adopting it? Is there any interest from users or manufacturers?
>
> >> Another IPC boondoggle. They failed at GenCAM and they will fail
> >> again with this attempt. =A0Design by committee just doesn't work
> >> and the IPC doesn't realize this. =A0Along with the fact that they
> >> have nothing that industry (CAD design industry) wants and
> >> actually everything that the industry doesn't want, it ends up
> >> being transferable designs through a backdoor.
>
> > Please do not top-post. =A0Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
> > with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
> > irrelevant material. =A0I fixed this one. =A0See the following links:
>
> > =A0<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>;
> > =A0<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>;
> > =A0<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>;
> > =A0<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>; =A0(taming google)
> > =A0<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/>; =A0(newusers)
>
> > --
> > [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
> > [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Try the download section.
>
>

I am aware that an earlier attempt was no successful.  But why does
that mean this attempt will automatically fail?  Your statement that
"design by committee just doesn't work" does not seem accurate.
Aren't most standards done by committees?  It is the rare standard
that a single person (or a small design group) produces and then
becomes a standard.  Most are deliberate, thought out, significant
efforts by representatives from the major stakeholders.  The IPC
standards are no exception in that area.  The "committee" is made up
of representatives from many of the largest companies in the field.

If this standard included nothing that the industry wants, then why
are they developing it?

Yes, one of the reasons that the initial attempt failed is that the
spec is inclusive enough that a design can be fully represented and
therefor imported into any layout package as well as other tools.
That is the power of it to the user and of course that is a concern by
the tool vendors.  But it is the users who buy the tools the the
vendors create.  I wonder how long the tool vendors can hold out if
open source tools pick up the idea and carry it forward.

Rick

On Oct 2, 12:58=A0am, "Brad Velander" <bvel...@SpamThis.com> wrote:
> Another IPC boondoggle. They failed at GenCAM and they will fail again wi=
th
> this attempt.
> Design by committee just doesn't work and the IPC doesn't realize this.
> Along with the fact that they have nothing that industry (CAD design
> industry) wants and actually everything that the industry doesn't want, i=
t
> ends up being transferable designs through a backdoor.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Brad Velander.
>
> "rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8...@y79g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I have been discussing the advantages of a common CAD format for all
> > manufacturing data for printed circuit boards. =A0IPC-2581 is a new
> > standard that is being developed for this.
>
> > Does anyone know much about this standard? =A0I know that it has no
> > current support from the tool vendors. =A0Is this at all likely to be
> > accepted in the industry? =A0Are any vendors considering adopting it?
> > Is there any interest from users or manufacturers?

Rick,
    I hear your points but how many successful companies or products are 
created by committees? Let alone committees that meet only several times per 
year. There is a reason for saying s like a camel is a horse designed by 
committee. Yes committees can write the standards but what the IPC is trying 
here goes beyond the standard just as GenCAM did.

    It really doesn't matter what the customer wants, we (a majority of CAD 
designers) have wanted portability for decades now, nobody has written it 
into their code yet. I have seen it presented to the tool vendors so many 
times. And the tool vendors simply ignore it, they write a new import wizard 
to assist in converting your files to their software but these days I even 
see less and less export netlist formats from the schematic tools. Reducing 
or eliminating even working with a best of Schematic tool and a best PCB 
tool. The CAD tool vendors just won't implement it because they see it as a 
quick escape route for customers they otherwise view as having a significant 
impediment to changing tools when they might desire.

    Maybe I have just become too much of a pessimist as the years go by but 
I prefer to look at it as realism since my experience shows me this is the 
way it is. I am also an IPC member, just so that you know I am not just 
ditzing them for some unfounded reason. They are a good organization but 
sometimes they reach too far and are looking through rose colored glasses. 
Maybe the members of this standard committee just refuse to acknowledge the 
vendors hardened stance against portability and keep hoping. I feel they 
would be best served to concentrate their efforts on working with Valor on 
ODB++ to improve it's facilities and commonality across the industry. And 
with the other vendors to have them more fully and correctly implement ODB++ 
within their tools, then you could work on an ODB++ import tool with those 
vendors as though it was a path for them to obtain new customers through 
providing that import capability to prospective customers. Same horse just 
dyed a different color.

-- 
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"rickman" <g...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:b...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I am aware that an earlier attempt was no successful.  But why does
that mean this attempt will automatically fail?  Your statement that
"design by committee just doesn't work" does not seem accurate.
Aren't most standards done by committees?  It is the rare standard
that a single person (or a small design group) produces and then
becomes a standard.  Most are deliberate, thought out, significant
efforts by representatives from the major stakeholders.  The IPC
standards are no exception in that area.  The "committee" is made up
of representatives from many of the largest companies in the field.

If this standard included nothing that the industry wants, then why
are they developing it?

Yes, one of the reasons that the initial attempt failed is that the
spec is inclusive enough that a design can be fully represented and
therefor imported into any layout package as well as other tools.
That is the power of it to the user and of course that is a concern by
the tool vendors.  But it is the users who buy the tools the the
vendors create.  I wonder how long the tool vendors can hold out if
open source tools pick up the idea and carry it forward.

Rick

In article <kViFk.21739$Y...@newsfe08.iad>,
Brad Velander <b...@SpamThis.com> wrote:
>    Who appointed you to the Usenet etiquette police? Got a problem with it, 
>take it up with Usenet. You know how far you will get! Gee, I don't see a 
>single Usenet source amongst your irrelevant material, why not?

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or if you just don't have any
clue about Usenet. At any rate, you're free to continue top-posting,
but it makes you look obnoxious, and makes your posts harder to read.


-- 
   Wim Lewis <w...@hhhh.org>, Seattle, WA, USA. PGP keyID 27F772C1
  "We learn from history that we do not learn from history." -Hegel

Wim
    Sorry if you have really have some difficulty reading text posted at the 
top of a message. What happens if there is no quoted message? Do you still 
have problems? Sorry that this message must obviously pose a problem for you 
also. Idiot!

    Obnoxious is the minority that pretends there are these rules and codes 
of conduct restricting the free flow of information without culturally and 
educationally restrictive artificial boundaries. As for Usenet, it is those 
that keep posting these artficial silly rules and conduct and bullying 
others (sometimes culturally unfamiliar or just plain not well educated ro 
familiar with Usenet) that don't understand Usenet. Usenet is for the free 
and open exchange of ideas and discussion, not for a bunch of silly 
self-appointed dweebs to inflict their artificial rules and conduct upon 
other by bullying people into conforming to their artificial standards.

-- 
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.