tkeepout behaviour broken

[robert.martinUKYP4]

tkeepout seems to have literally no effect. I have examples where resistors are clearly sat in a keepout area.

This was only picked up because all layers were shown on another board that was being checked before manufacture.

Please fix this or explain what layer I should be using instead of tkeepout

[jesper8W75R]

Works fine for me. 
Same behavior as with EAGLE 9.6.2
You will get DRC errors (assuming you have a tKeepout frame around your component  (which you should)).

Can you show an example?

[robert.martinUKYP4]

I see, I've just tried it with another library which does have a keepout area. My personal libraries I use do have a keepout but due to time constraints, downloaded libraries have had to suffice and a lot of these do not appear to have a keepout. Seems like a missed feature from Autodesk.

[jesper8W75R]

I agree, there should always be a tKeepout to help keep distances when placing components.
I basically never use anything but my own libraries. 
An incorrect component can be a costly affair. I know from sad experience. 

[jorge_garcia]

Hi @robert.martinUKYP4 ,

The thing with the keepout layers is that in order for them to be useful EVERY SINGLE COMPONENT needs to have keepout features. Not every user creates libraries with keep out, that's why @jesper8W75R makes such a crucial point. If you only use your libraries you can guarantee that Keepout is always used.

The keepout functionality works by looking for intersections on the keepout layers, so if you have two components with keepout if the they get too close the keep out fences will intersect and DRC will report the error. If only one of the components has keepout then there won't be any intersection even if the two components overlap.

It's kind of the nature of the beast.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Best Regards,

[robert.martinUKYP4]

It seems counter-intuitive to be unable to use most downloaded libraries and parts. It rather makes a mockery of the whole public library system if there are no standards of implementation. It seems that my personal libraries which I have built from scratch are of a higher standard (more information, keepout etc). This rumored library fix is going to have to be mammoth to sort this out.

[jesper8W75R]

You cannot really blame it on Autodesk that people doesn't make libraries to a proper standard.
If these libraries are supplied by Autodesk, then it's of course another matter.

The solution is simple. Always make and use your own libraries.

[robert.martinUKYP4]

I'd argue this is on Autodesk to deal with as it's their product we are using.

As a fairly experienced user, this has clearly caught me out and it would only take a small label like "verified by Autodesk" to show that a library meets the requirements for use in industrial design. If Fusion was entirely aimed at hobbyists, this wouldn't be such a problem but as it is being used in a work environment, I would expect the libraries available to meet a standard or at the very least, a warning that libraries may not meet a standard, use at your own risk.

I have been creating libraries and parts within Eagle and now Fusion for a while now and while I don't even think about these layers (I turn the visibility off), it's been a reminder to not use the library system. Imagine the time saving if you could just use verified libraries without creating your own package and footprint every time you needed a new part.

[jesper8W75R]

EAGLE has always had a HUGE base of user supplied libraries, that is probably one of the reasons for its early success.
But, of course, many of those are not up to standard, not even those from "established" sources like Sparkfun, Adafruit and similar.

You REALLY cannot blame Autodesk for the errors in those and ignorance of the creators.
However, I agree that it would be great with a"verified by Autodesk" label, that guaranteed that the library is correct and follows certain standards.

Without that, there is absolutely no time saving in using pre-made libraries, as you would need to go through all the pin assignments to check that they're correct, check the footprint to see that all pads are where they are supposed to be, as well as of the right dimensions.
I can make a complete component in a fraction of the time it would take to check somebody else's work.

My library contains 1000+ parts that I've made over the years, it's rare that I need to make a new footprint at all. If I do, it's usually very specific, and not one you would find in a "standard" library.

Also, the library system is so f*cked up, it's almost unusable. Slow and confusing. Another reason for not using it.