Rick,
It is to create a common standard and thus a common product standard.
The standard itself is not bad in my eyes, just that its' likelihood of
success seems very low to me given past history. With all of it's outputs
one could write a generic im****ter for any system generating the common
output format and then there would be ****tability.
One CAD tool vendor doesn't make for "various CAD companies". The
committee contains only Mentor and RSI, which is now owned by Mentor.
I don't know the intimate details of the prior GenCAM but it is
disheartening to any future derivations that I don't believe a single
company ever adopted the standard. The only reason that ODB++ exists is
that
it was a private venture independent of mutual industry acceptance. And
don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with this standard, I just
don't
expect to ever see it fly because the CAD industry has shown many times
that
it is not really interested. But it will begrudgingly play along (maybe
only
partially) if the technology is driven from the down stream processes and
the cries and screams of customers.
Possibly that is the reason for Valor's success with ODB++ over
GenCAM.
Their whole focus from the start seemed to me to be on the downstream
stake
holders. I don't know the details but thinking about the history I can
recall that as my limited recollection. I still recall the introduction of
RS-274X Gerber, many fab shops jumped on it but others were not so forward
thinking and it took the actual CAD designers pu****ng them because we were
tired of dealing with aperture lists and simple aperture errors screwing
up
a board here or there. Same with the CAD tool vendors, some jumped, some
needing pu****ng.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"rickman" <gnuarm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2a77f89a-7b00-49cd-a649-674880f63c55@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is not trying to create a "product" or a company. They are
creating a standard for the exchange of manufacturing information. It
is that simple. You have also ignored my statement that the standard
committee is staffed by representatives from the various CAD
companies. Why would the CAD companies create a standard that they
themselves don't want? I don't see where the standard effort is
inherently a bad thing just because it is done by a committee.
|
