I've never used Zenit, but there is a collection of files that normally go under the heading of "manufacturing plots" or gerber files, which normally include all the typical layers you mentioned, plus some others (solder mask, paste mask), as well as drill files and aperture data. But more to your point, you shouldn't have to worry too much about accidentally leaving out something critical. Any board house, upon getting a set of files, will go through them and let you know if you left something out. Pcbway, for example, quickly let me know that I forgot to send them a bottom layer paste mask. Now it you forget a non critical layer that they couldn't possibly know about (like a top or bottom silkscreen layer), then that will be missing.
AS far as the file naming convention goes, there are already standard names and extensions that your software should output along with the project name. For example, a recent project I updated was named "DigAudioCtrlTransmitter", so my software (DesignSparkPCB) outputted names like:
"DigAudioCtrlTransmitter - Bottom Copper.gbr".
That "BottomCopper " in the file name is all the description they need. I have run into some boardhouses (dumb in my opinion) that insisted on some wierd filename conventions. Honestly, a company like that that makes you re-submit without spelling out special requirements like that is one I'd avoid. Also, be aware that its almost expected you include a "README.TXT" or "INSTRUCTIONS.TXT" file, where you clearly spell out anything that could be questionable. For example, "
BOARD OUTLINE IS ON TOP COPPER LAYER", or "PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF MY PADS ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE EDGE", or anything you might be concerned with. The English may be broken, but they will contact you to resolve anything at issue. In other words, a human always goes over the job before any fabrication is done.
AS far as the file naming convention goes, there are already standard names and extensions that your software should output along with the project name. For example, a recent project I updated was named "DigAudioCtrlTransmitter", so my software (DesignSparkPCB) outputted names like:
"DigAudioCtrlTransmitter - Bottom Copper.gbr".
That "BottomCopper " in the file name is all the description they need. I have run into some boardhouses (dumb in my opinion) that insisted on some wierd filename conventions. Honestly, a company like that that makes you re-submit without spelling out special requirements like that is one I'd avoid. Also, be aware that its almost expected you include a "README.TXT" or "INSTRUCTIONS.TXT" file, where you clearly spell out anything that could be questionable. For example, "
BOARD OUTLINE IS ON TOP COPPER LAYER", or "PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF MY PADS ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE EDGE", or anything you might be concerned with. The English may be broken, but they will contact you to resolve anything at issue. In other words, a human always goes over the job before any fabrication is done.
Ahh thanks Peter.
I guess you're right: you shouldn't have to confirm to a specific file naming because that would suggest it might be automated and not have a human eye cast a quick look and do a sanity check!
The only reason I used Zenit was to have some free software that could output industry-standard gerber files. A lot of "free" software I found refused to give you standard files and suggested you go through their manufacturing plant... Plus, learning with gerber can only get me into good practices 🙂 It's been quite an educational experience so far - learning how Zenit works (not that obvious at first between the multiple apps for decals, symbols on the circuit, some issues with netlists, etc). But I'm just about there now.
One thing I do want them to do and will explicitly ask is if my board can be split into two: I really want two boards made up, but both put together are rectangular and less than the 100x100mm. For now, I've just put a line on the silkscreen to indicate the cut...
I'll have a look here in case there's a thread where I can post just screenshots of my PCB for comment in case I've made any typical newbie errors.
Thanks again for your detailed answer 🙂
I guess you're right: you shouldn't have to confirm to a specific file naming because that would suggest it might be automated and not have a human eye cast a quick look and do a sanity check!
The only reason I used Zenit was to have some free software that could output industry-standard gerber files. A lot of "free" software I found refused to give you standard files and suggested you go through their manufacturing plant... Plus, learning with gerber can only get me into good practices 🙂 It's been quite an educational experience so far - learning how Zenit works (not that obvious at first between the multiple apps for decals, symbols on the circuit, some issues with netlists, etc). But I'm just about there now.
One thing I do want them to do and will explicitly ask is if my board can be split into two: I really want two boards made up, but both put together are rectangular and less than the 100x100mm. For now, I've just put a line on the silkscreen to indicate the cut...
I'll have a look here in case there's a thread where I can post just screenshots of my PCB for comment in case I've made any typical newbie errors.
Thanks again for your detailed answer 🙂
I've placed a few orders through them now. This is all they have required. I think they actually assemble the gerbers in software and verify them before they approve and move forward. They also add a number to your silkscreen somewhere to help them identify your boards. They will contact you if they see anything that doesn't look right.
I do have to tell you that as somewhat of a "lifer" when it comes to elctronics, as well as a confirmed "cheapskate", DesignSparkPCB has been a breath of fresh air. It is totally free and open source, and as i understand it was created by engineers who were sick of being held hostage to the normally high prices associated with good PC Cads. Its a complete SCAD and PCB layout program, produces professional results with little limitations if any. You should definitely check it out when you're between projects and have some time to explore. Like all such software, there is learning curve and initial frustrations understanding its work flow philosophy, and its "finer" operational points. But after using it for about 2-3 years now, I can safely say that every issue I've had with it was addressed, and at least 90% of the time just came down to my learning hout to use it (as opposed to a bug). I don't remeber the last time I could say that about any PAID software tools I've had. Try it, and I'll bet you'll come back and thank me! 🙂
Yeah, but I won't thank you - I already tried it 😉 It's probably too good - I found it a little too complex to get my head around for what is essentially (for the moment), just a prototype board, but may become commercial which is what I wanted it on a PCB rather than just a breadboard (which I've used to build and test it).
I was also baulking at the x100MB install... But it is nice that it links back to the RS catalog so pretty much everything you might need already exists as a part and decal which isn't the case with Zenit, but I've made up my own components now and, as you've said, once you've understood how it's designed and its philosophy, it's not too bad.
A drawing program that can't produce these standard files shouldn't call itself a "PCB Layout Program". (There are actually several variants of the "Gerber file" syntax, dating back to the 1960's before the advent of automated PCB fabrication technologies. The current version is called "RS-274X" and has been around since the mid 1990's. From your perspective, a notable feature of RS-274X (versus previous versions) is that the "aperture" information is integrated into the Gerber file itself rather than a separate file.) Your software should also give you control over the kind of information that goes into each of the Gerber files. E.g.,
- Whether or not the board outline is included in the file
- Whether or not the thru-hole pads show the true-size center hole, or a minimal-size dot at the hole's center location, or no hole at all
- Whether two or more "layers" in the layout drawing can be combined into a single Gerber file
For this external observer, it looks like the PWB fabrication industry is a very competitive, almost cut-throat, business. The vendors WANT you to be successful with their products, and will make reasonable efforts to ensure that, as well as impress you with their good service. They will try to identify significant errors or possible errors.
They may, or may not, catch subtle mistakes such as pads that become shorted during PWB manufacturing because they are too close together; silkscreen legends that fall on top of what should be bare pads; traces that are so close to board edges or slots that the traces are damaged when the slot or edge is cut; etc. These are all conditions that should be identified by the "design rule check" (DRC) feature of your layout software. You are being foolish if your software lacks effective DRC, or you don't use it.
No, the names and extensions are NOT standardized. That is a nuisance across the industry, but effective solutions are easily applied. Each software vendor may have a set of default extensions based on default assumptions for the files' contents - you can see examples from three commercial layout programs at https://www.protoexpress.com/content/gerber_extensions.jsp. Likewise, a PWB fabricator may ask for specific filename extensions to indicate particular layers. This doesn't necessarily mean that no live human will ever look at the file. Errors are less likely to happen when the buyer and seller use a common, mutually understood file naming system. For example, does a file extension "*.gst" indicate "Gerber file for the top layer silkscreen", or "Gerber file for the top soldermask layer"? When fabricators have requirements like this, I have always seen them spelled out on their web sites - though sometimes you have to dig a little to find them.
In many cases, this file is REQUIRED - and not just for "questionable" information. I have attached a template for this file, based on an actual README.TXT file I recently submitted with a PWB order.
Dale
The situation you describe isn't exactly the same as "panelization", though many fabricators may call it that - or else, "multiple designs in one board". The low-cost, quick-turn services typically prohibit it - which looks like an arbitrary ruling designed to protect profits. However, "Seeedstudio" ( Fusion PCB Specification ? Feedback & Ideas for seeed ) and "Iteadmall" ( ITEAD Studio 2Layer Green PCB 5cm x 5cm Max ) permit panelization of low-cost, quick-turn PWB's.
Dale
I have never used either Zenit, nor DesignSparkPCB. I HAVE used at least half a dozen other layout programs, including several of the commercial, multi-kilobuck, products. They are ALL "too complex", or at least "too different from each other" until you have worked with them for a while. The learning-curve period before you can efficiently do even the most basic useful work is probably a couple dozen hours for the first program you learn - regardless of whose it is. Allow half a day to a day to learn a new program after you are thoroughly familiar with another, and picking up a program you haven't used for a month or more will require a couple hours to get re-acquainted.
Dale
Thanks Dale for your comprehensive comments, they're much appreciated 🙂
Do you mind if I take your file as a template and tweak for my design?
Zenit can produce RS274x files in both mm and inches, 2.4 and 3.4 formats. I'm tempted to stick to mm as that's the unit pcbway use for their boards and use 3.4 as the version.
My other thought / concern with PCBway is there's no mention at all of holes. As my design is PTH, there are a lot of holes and I guess quite a few more than your typical SMD design.
Also, I have 8 different hole diameters used. This is all explained in the further pairs of text files: one with the hole specs (hole size reference, size, tolerance) and the other .DRL file with the actual hole coordinates (also in mm!) for each size. These are in Excellon 3.4 format.
Out of interest, for these fab labs which PCBway are part of, are the holes made by a normal computerised drill which moves the head or PCB around and drills the holes? If so, there will need to be 8 different drill bit sizes, and I wonder if this is a no-no?
I'm learning so much with this and really enjoying it. The learning curve on the software was a bit frustrating at times, partly because of my lack of understanding of the design process, partly because of the quirks of the way the software is written, but I've overcome those and have tried to use common sense best practices (most of which you've mentioned in your post or in your readme file) so I hope I'm OK...
Do you mind if I take your file as a template and tweak for my design?
Zenit can produce RS274x files in both mm and inches, 2.4 and 3.4 formats. I'm tempted to stick to mm as that's the unit pcbway use for their boards and use 3.4 as the version.
My other thought / concern with PCBway is there's no mention at all of holes. As my design is PTH, there are a lot of holes and I guess quite a few more than your typical SMD design.
Also, I have 8 different hole diameters used. This is all explained in the further pairs of text files: one with the hole specs (hole size reference, size, tolerance) and the other .DRL file with the actual hole coordinates (also in mm!) for each size. These are in Excellon 3.4 format.
Out of interest, for these fab labs which PCBway are part of, are the holes made by a normal computerised drill which moves the head or PCB around and drills the holes? If so, there will need to be 8 different drill bit sizes, and I wonder if this is a no-no?
I'm learning so much with this and really enjoying it. The learning curve on the software was a bit frustrating at times, partly because of my lack of understanding of the design process, partly because of the quirks of the way the software is written, but I've overcome those and have tried to use common sense best practices (most of which you've mentioned in your post or in your readme file) so I hope I'm OK...
Just noticed your comment on them adding a number. I presume this is just a code and nothing that clearly states "these boards are made by PCBway" or "produced by lab xyz"? I would like the boards to stay as mark-free and anonymous as possible.
I've never had an issue yet with multiple drill hole sizes from them. I doubt they actually drill the holes to finish size. They more likely machine them to finish diameter with an end mill to save bit changes.
It's just a small 10(?) digit number in an inconspicuous spot. You actually need to look for it, it's usually hidden by a large component on assembly.
They seem to get faster all the time. I just placed an order Friday evening (36 hours ago). I see it was completed and ready to ship a couple hours ago.
Last edited:
I presume you always pay for the DHL shipping? Has anyone tried their cheap / free "non DHL" shipping? If so, please state how long it took and where you are. Thanks.
I'm in no real rush, so if it takes a couple of weeks to arrive with their standard shipping, I'm fine with that as long as it eventually gets here. I'm paying more for the shipping than the boards otherwise with DHL...
I'm in no real rush, so if it takes a couple of weeks to arrive with their standard shipping, I'm fine with that as long as it eventually gets here. I'm paying more for the shipping than the boards otherwise with DHL...
I always use DHL. I don't trust any shipping service that doesn't provide online tracking. The other sometimes even larger expense is taxes, duties and brokerage. DHL is reasonable and can be prepaid online. I deal with an import broker that seems to think it's okay to charge me $100 to tell me I owe $5 in taxes and stall my order at customs for a week while I do all their paperwork for them so I jump at any chance to have someone else broker it. I also usually try to do multiple board purchases at the same time. All the extra costs are close to the same. Split them between 3 or 4 different board orders and their cost isn't as significant.
As I received an email from Alice at PCBway suggesting she would be my contact / account manager, I have now sent her off the various files of my design for her to check and confirm it's OK. I'm particularly interested if they can split PCB into two (one large rectangle, one smaller rectangle). If they can, then I'll give them a go.
I'll report back what they say.
I'll report back what they say.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.