• Skip to main content
  • Skip to search
  • Skip to footer
Cadence Home
  • This search text may be transcribed, used, stored, or accessed by our third-party service providers per our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

  1. Community Forums
  2. Allegro X PCB Editor
  3. Package to Package spacing

Stats

  • Replies 11
  • Subscribers 163
  • Views 23619
  • Members are here 0
More Content

Package to Package spacing

Lennie
Lennie over 7 years ago

My footprint's are created so the part outline is created on the PLACE_BOUND layer. We create this so the correct outline is used for  IDF file generation.

This layer is also used by the package to package DRC. I have not found a way to change the preset value from "0" package to package clearance. Since this places the footprints next to each other  then we cannot build the

board. Is there any way around that ?

  • Sign in to reply
  • Cancel
Parents
  • Wild
    Wild over 7 years ago

    I personally have a real issue with the courtyard approach (IPC standards) built into the footprints.  Every CM fab/assembly has different capability for density/spacing and with improvement in the pick/place equipment the spacing requirements will change.  If I put the clearances into the footprint it may cause excessive spacing when I need a high density design. Also as the pick/place equipment improves I'll need to go back and redo all the courtyards....  I've always thought these was a dumb approach by the IPC committee.

    The DFA Constraints spread sheet  built into the allegro tool on the other hand is a better approach.  I create place bound and the dfa bound geometries the same size as the physical body of the component.  The DFA constraint then shows errors for components too close.  I wish the courtyards would go the way of the dodo bird......

    My 2 Cents ......

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Cancel
Reply
  • Wild
    Wild over 7 years ago

    I personally have a real issue with the courtyard approach (IPC standards) built into the footprints.  Every CM fab/assembly has different capability for density/spacing and with improvement in the pick/place equipment the spacing requirements will change.  If I put the clearances into the footprint it may cause excessive spacing when I need a high density design. Also as the pick/place equipment improves I'll need to go back and redo all the courtyards....  I've always thought these was a dumb approach by the IPC committee.

    The DFA Constraints spread sheet  built into the allegro tool on the other hand is a better approach.  I create place bound and the dfa bound geometries the same size as the physical body of the component.  The DFA constraint then shows errors for components too close.  I wish the courtyards would go the way of the dodo bird......

    My 2 Cents ......

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Cancel
Children
No Data
Cadence Guidelines

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.

© 2025 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy
  • Cookie Policy
  • US Trademarks
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information