DRC rules on component (disable/overwrite/accept) - idea/feature suggestion

[s.ciunczyk]

Good morning,

as I remember this topic was discussed somewhere before, but I can't find it now.

Designing a board I always trying to have zero DRC errors/warnings on ready  board. But .....

For my PIC projects I'm using the TAG-Connect TC2030-MCP-NL programming cable. The footprint provided by designers is perfectly fine but due to tiny size it validate standard DRC rules (I'm mostly design not so compact PCBs)

So the final effect is that my PCBs always have complains from DRC that I have to accept:

If here will be an option to define DRC rules inside component or exclude component from DRC or other idea my boards will by a little more correct in meaning of DRC.

have a nice sunday

Slawek

[jorge_garcia]

Hi @s.ciunczyk,

I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for your feedback. Let me ask you, is there any specific reason you are using the default DRC? It's a safe rule set, but in order to make it safe we had to be very conservative so that any board house could make the boards.

If you always use the same board house then I would recommend asking them if they have a DRU file for the manufacturing process you normally use. That will allow you to set up the DRC to match their specifications and then any errors that are reported will be legitimate and you won't have to accept any extraneous errors.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

[s.ciunczyk]

Hi @jorge_garcia 

thank you for your answer. I agree with you, but that is not the point of my question.

I can always "squeeze" the DRC parameters to remove the warnings from this single component ans still stay on the safe side of any modern board house. But this is no necessary for most of my boards. I prefer to use very conservative DRC's due to nature of my boards - prototypes/one-off/manual assembly. The only exception is this single component. Of course nothing wrong with manual accepting DRC warnings - I do it every time. And always the process is same: I ask myself what are this warnings - palm face - Aghrrr PIC programming component again - then accept, accept, accept eight times. And always I'm asking myself why I can't mark this on component level.

Please note, this is nothing very important - and I can imagine that implementing such feature could kick whole DRC checking system upside-down.

Have a nice day. Fusion 360 RULES!

Sławek

The TAG component info: https://www.tag-connect.com/info

[ruben.crispino]

Hi @jorge_garcia, just revamping this question since I would be interested in the same. 
Is this option available anywhere in Fusion?

[jorge_garcia]

Hello @ruben.crispino,

This is still not available. We are working on the DRC, so I'll report this to see if component level approval can be implemented.

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

Best Regards,

[chuck_toddN7PTC]

I would like to see this feature implemented as well. *Keeping this topic pushed to the top of the to-do list*

Differences in the pitch of pins\balls on components requires specific rules.

Fusion has a very steep up-hill climb to have a robust design rule method.

Glad to see there is some movement on updating the DRC.

I have experience in Altium Design and footprint specific rules are standard.

https://www.altium.com/documentation/altium-designer/defining-scoping-managing-pcb-design-rules

"In Altium Designer, footprint-specific rules can be defined for specific footprint types. These rules can also be overridden for a specific pad within the footprint if needed. When creating a new rule, it will have the highest priority by default. To manage the rules, it's important to ensure that all priorities are set correctly. For example, a good approach is to start with the lowest priority rule to target the most nets, and then add higher-priority rules for nets with special width requirements. Even if a net is targeted by multiple rules, the software will only apply the highest priority rule. " 

Best Regards.