Re: What an I Missing - Eagle Question? #eagle

Harvey White

On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 13:57:48 +1100, you wrote:

If I remember this properly the following things could be happening:

1) if you manually set the grid size, then 0.025 may be small enough
for the primary grid, and 0.00625 (all inches) may be good enough for
the secondary grid. Tracks when manually routed follow the grid and
snap to it. Your job to manage pad size and trace width.

Now, Eagle's autorouter is set up for PC board houses, not for the
kind of routing either toner transfer or mechanical etching will need.

Trace size is generally set by net class according to the signal type,
however, the spacing between the trace and another trace, trace and
pad, pad and via, all of which the autorouter has to follow, that's
set by the Design Rules.

Check clearance to see what's going on.

As an experiment, set up three parallel pin headers, say about fifteen
or so long each. Connect corresponding pins on the two outer ones,
leaving the inner one disconnected. Set the clearances to 8 mils,
autoroute. ripup, set to 12, ripup, set to 16, then 24, then 32, then
40. Sooner or later, the autorouter will stop putting wires between
pins. Cobble together a board that has at least one surface mount
chip on either side, doesn't have to make sense. Do the same and I
think you'll start to see where the vias get placed.

Generally, when I routed boards that I was going to make (I used toner
transfer), I stuck to 10 mil trace, 10 mil spacing as the minimum

Note that as long as the design rules are followed, the autorouter
doesn't care how close it gets to another trace and has no incentive
to spread them out.


That being the case, maybe switching off Snap to Grid in Eagle will allow it do it properly for you.

Just a thought

73….Eric VK2VE

From: <> On Behalf Of John Ferguson via Groups.Io - at
Sent: Monday, 19 November 2018 12:40
Subject: Re: [pcbgcode] What an I Missing - Eagle Question? #eagle

This is very close to what I'm using in Imperial. I need to check the pcb-gcode, but I don't think it is where my problem is. I can see the traces too close to pads in Eagle. Moving them manually does fix them.

thanks much,


On 11/18/18 4:23 PM, Chipteck wrote:

I am sorry, I didn't have a lot of time and was too quick to respond.
In any case I am loading "20170624 -pcb-gcode.dru" file on my projects to setup my clearances and have been successfull to cut 0.2mm traces with 0.1mm clearances with the following:
pcb-gcode setup - Generation > Minimum = 0.03mm, Maximum=0.2mm, Step size=0.05mm - Machine > Tool Dia = 0.1mm


Join to automatically receive all group messages.