Fusion Electronics
Working an electronics project and need help with the schematic, the PCB, or making your components? Join the discussion as our community of electronic design specialists and industry experts provide you their insight and best practices.
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

gerber is doing wrong job

Message 1 of 12
292 Views, 11 Replies

gerber is doing wrong job

when I use CAM Processor and the settings from the attached cam file, standard, normal setting nothing special, I got wrong very thin lines instead of thermal cross lines. In PCB 2D view it looks correct however CAM processor is doing something wrong.


Whats interesting CAM Export function produce correct gerbers.


Actually why do we have CAM processor and CAM export?? I preffer CMA processor as I have more influence on the output files.













Message 2 of 12

There seem to be a lot of problems with CAM (and other) processing.
I wouldn't trust Fusion Electronics to generate production Gerbers at this point.

Message 3 of 12

Any work around? I used an "export" and sent the gerbers to pcb factory. Since then no complain from their side. Problem is similar to decimal separator bug, which I thought was fixed already.

Message 4 of 12

My problem is a lot more serious than a comma placement.
It's incorrect copper layers, strange texts, and obscure polygons in weird places.
Stuff that I did NOT put there.

I save the boards in EAGLE 9.X format, open them in EAGLE 9.6.2 and run my CAM processor scripts.
Not only does that work and is bug-free, it also give me all the "other" files that my CAM processing generates. PDF files on layers, schematics e.t.c.
Files that I cannot generate with Fusion Electronics due to the lame cloud placement of files.

Message 5 of 12

@jesper8W75R I'd really like to know what is missing there in Fusion. Would you be able to contact me directly to explain more why you still need to export to EAGLE to execute CAM outputs?
Also, it would be great if you could try the new (Pre-release) ODB++ output to see if that can solve the problems you mention. ODB++ output in Fusion will be released in the upcoming update (should be released sometime this week).




Ben Jordan

Senior Product Manager, Fusion 360 Electronics

LinkedIn | YouTube | Personal Blog | Fusion 360 Electronics Series
Message 6 of 12

I will reply here, so others can chime in with their experiences, should they want to.

What I'm missing in Fusion?
Most of all, I'm missing my FILES!
They now exist somewhere, in the cloud, where I cannot access them, run scripts on them, handle them in my GitHub repository e.t.c., e.t.c.

I have, or had, in the good old days, when EAGLE worked, a ULP that would generate ALL my CAM files and documentation with a single click.
All Gerbers, P&P files, PDFs of schematics and all board layers, drills, dimensional layer, special component location information and more. AND it would ZIP everything in a number of archives ready for sending to the PCB manufacturer.
That is not possible with the current CAM handling. I'm sure you could implement all this, but then user XX needs to save a file with something specific to HIS setup and it is all broken again.
Having access to the files and the power of ULPs, there were basically NO LIMIT to what you could achieve.

I have no interest at all in ODB++. ODB++ doesn't in ANY way solve the issue of breaking out of the "jail" you put us users in.
But, I have tried the new version, and noticed that you introduced a couple of new bugs.
In short, the paths/names of the ODB++ output files cannot be customized. 
For the Gerbers, P&P and BOM, this was possible, but it was also bugged, as the job file didn't have that option.
Now it's the whole ODB++ section that suffers from this.
Talk to Richard, he have my notes and video on this issue.

Message 7 of 12

Hi @christopher2KLSVU ,


would it be possible to share the board file with me? I would like to check the properties of the polygon and find out what's going on there. You could send the file directly to me by email.

The email is simple to guess:  firstname.lastname @


The CAM Export is a "one click" output for manufacturing data. The CAM Processor does basically the same, but here you have options to configure the CAM job, select your own job, add sections for data and so on. 


Best regards,

Richard Hammerl

Message 8 of 12
in reply to: RichardHammerl

who has stolen 3 pads of my q8; sot23??

Library was taken from the built in files. PCB is done and now they can not solder it. Should not be such missing pads reported or alerted to user somehow?

q8 problem.png

Message 9 of 12

Hi @kk_pl ,


Sorry to hear that you're having trouble.

I cannot reproduce this issue by myself. Do you mind share your board file and 3d PCB file to us to have a check?

You could just make a new ECAD board which only have the problematic transistor and attach in this thread if possible. Thank you.





Helen Chen
Principle QA for Fusion 360 Electronics
Message 10 of 12

To be more precise, these pads exist but they are covered by the solder mask. I attach simple example, to be honest I do not know if this is ok or wrong. Before, or in the past all the pads which were solder-able were yellow, now all pf them are green, thus i am confused if this is good example of the wrong board.

Message 11 of 12

Hi @kk_pl ,


Thank you so much for your file, it's very helpful!

We found that the problem may be because the SMD pad properties in the library you used for SOT23.


As a workaround, please try below steps to correct it:

1. edit the library you used

2. right select the SMD pad which has issue > Open the Properties

3. in the SMD properties dialog, Check the 2 checkbox for Stop and Cream as I shown below one by one. (Or multiple select the 3 pads > In the Inspector > Check the 2 checkbox for Stop and Cream).



4. Save the library to new version

5. Back to schematic file or board file to Update all libraries used in this design


6. View 3D PCB with Canvases again > Then it should work


Hope it helps a little.


Best Regards,


Helen Chen
Principle QA for Fusion 360 Electronics
Message 12 of 12
in reply to: christopher2KLSVU


Thank for the solution, board is done so I will try next time.

Is this a particular component problem or my design problem? I just took the part from library, it is not convenient to check for example all 200 parts on pcb, should not it be detected by some rule in DRC? in the future?>

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report