Polygon discretization around vias and small features

[alext1]

I'm working on an RF design that requires precise control of the copper pours around traces and vias.

Is there a way to control the discretization of polygon around vias? 

The one shown below is a 4 mil drill (the grid is 1mil) . Please see how the tool draws an octagon around the via instead of a circle.

Is there a way to control this discretization? If not, could it be added to a future revision? This is unfortunately unacceptable for a high frequency design.

Thank you in advance, I am an avid Eagle user, and would hate to have to move to another tool for this.

[edwin.robledo]

Hi alext1,

Greatly appreciate your participation, there are plans to take care of this, but I can offer you an exact timeline at this moment.  In the meantime, its a bit inconvenient, but you can draw a few arcs and give it the same name of the polygon to create the effect you are looking for.  But if you are working with tons of vias then its possible not a good solution.  

Best Regards,

Edwin

[C.Nicks]

Hi Alex,

As as RF designer, I'm curious as to what kind of frequencies you're designing for.

It would be nice to have more control over the shapes the polygon pours generate. Personally I would like to see options for how many, and shape, of thermals going into pads. I tend to use the restrict layers to control the final pour shapes.

One way to round the shape around the via is to increase the polygon width. It's strange that larger width gives you a rounder shape, but it does. If you have special RF components that you reuse often, you may consider using the method Ed has suggested and build it into a library part.

[matt.berggren]

Hi Alex --

Agree that we can make this pour process more explicit / predictable for RF.  I do (did) a lot of RF work and there is a discussion to be had here to try and improve the RF workflow.  I'd be keen to get feedback from across the community on your req's for RF Designs.  Pad / via connectivity is one area, as is stitching, better layer & impedance controls (which includes materials definition and more explicit layer definition), and a host of other things.  Keen to hear your requirements and feedback!

Best regards,

matt - autodesk.