Here it is why I strongly criticized the “paper format” setting around what should be a “PCB format”. So, this is how ISO and ANSI, among others, think technical drawing. In those views you can scale anything, and following ISO and ANSI standards you place a title block, which dimensions aren’t relative to part scaled in the views, but to paper size. The solution with MCAD (for as much as I can understand, not being either a full time MCAD designer or a PCB one) is then creating views for printing. However there’s some irony in choosing “paper format”, for something as a PCB or an industrial machinery. What “paper format” should I choose for a PCB that’s 20 inches wide and 1 inch tall? Sure, you can find one, or set it as “custom”.
Print to scale to fit 11x17 no borders full size#
These formats are for a totally different purpose, where they identify the full size of the media output. I bet almost no one has a PCB with full extents in ISO A4 or in ANSI B size. KiCAD chose to have a “paper format” for PCB output, which IMHO is not proper.
If the end product of your design software is on paper, as with electronics schematics or graphical designs, as you would do with Inkscape or alike, choosing a “paper format” is meaningful. Typical MCAD packages (from the venerable AutoCAD onward, AFAIK) take a different approach and I understand why they chose to, as I understand the KiCAD model. A-size) to include in a presentation or documentation package B-size) and reduce it, including title block and frame, to 8.5X11 (U.S.
For example, I may want to take my 11X17 page (U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
