|Consistency in Design Specifications on the FUD Page [message #63410] Thu, 07 March 2013 06:58 UTC
This one seems to bite me on every other model. The design guidelines on FUD are different in the summary than in the text, and it seems that your design-check staff sometimes wants to enforce the summary limits and sometimes are more lenient and follow the text guidelines.
Here's what I'm talking about. In the header, it says,
Min Wire Supported: 0.6mm; Min Wire Free: 0.8mm (if not bearing weight) | 1.0mm (if bearing weight, like a sprue)
In the text, however, it is more lenient for short wires:
0.3mm-0.6mm wire thickness: keep under 6mm wire length
0.6mm-1mm: keep under 18mm
1mm-2mm: keep under 40mm
2mm+: should be ok at any lengths
0.5mm-0.8mm wire thickness: should support minimal weight
0.8mm-1mm wire thickness: should be under 3mm wire length
1mm+: should be ok
The problem is that sometimes the design check takes the 0.6mm/0.8mm as the Absolute Minimum, Never To Be Crossed, regardless of wire length; and other times 0.3-0.59mm wires are accepted if they are very short. I've had the exact same reused component rejected on some designs and accepted on others.
If the real limit is 0.6mm, please take out the part in the text that implies they can be thinner if very short. It only leads to designers submitting unprintable designs.
If thin-but-short is allowed, please correct the header so that your checking staff does not try to enforce 0.6mm on designs with short wires.
I understand there are other considerations at hand...such as whether a design is cleanable and shippable without breaking, but if a design fails on those criteria, it should simply say so, rather than fail on the minimum wire size check.
|Re: Consistency in Design Specifications on the FUD Page [message #63421 is a reply to message #63410 ] Thu, 07 March 2013 09:48 UTC
I have had a similar case.
If thin pieces can be printed, but may fail in cleaning or shipping, the design rules should reflect the restrictions of whole process, rather than printing only, maybe with a bit of extra explanation.