Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/378511
16 The PCB Design Magazine • September 2014 important developments in CAD-to-CAM auto- mation today, given that it concerns the indu- stry's de-facto standard format. Neither did he mention the alternative IPC-2581. Had he done so, his arguments for ODB++ might have been less compelling of course, but these omissions in an article titled Smart Data Formats Automa- te CAD/CAM lead to serious doubts about its objectivity. Coates also added a diagram to the article comparing Gerber to ODB++ input in CAM. This compared a badly implemented Gerber with a well implemented ODB++. I have taken the liberty of adding a proper X2 Gerber to the schematic. The result, given in Figure 1, shows that if ODB++ is a smart format, Gerber X2 is a very smart one. Conclusion When CAD-to-CAM data sets use proper- ly implemented Gerber archives, plus correct IPC-356-A files, problems in data transfer are rare. Where a problem or bug appears, the ea- siest, fastest and most economical solution is to fix it. This is because issues are not down to the format itself, but more likely due to its implementation in CAD software, and they are simple to resolve. The very worst solution would be to replace Gerber with the far more complex ODB++ format, because implemen - ting a new format is never simple, quick, and/ or risk free, especially when the new format is as complex as ODB++. The problems that would arise from such a move would be si- gnificant, and would hound the industry for many years. The simplest, most practical path forward is to fix bugs in current implementations, and adopt Gerber X2 functionality. One of the best things about this path is that it is incredibly kind on the industry, while enabling the PCB industry to benefit from all the advantages that ODB++ claims to deliver in Coates' article, but with none of the down- sides. This is because it does not involve the wholesale adoption of a new format. Further- more, the revised Gerber format is compatible with the previous versions of Gerber and older software, so improvements can be as gradual as users want them to be, with no one being for- ced to buy new software against their business wishes or budgetary constraints. It is a path that delivers to small software vendors and the industry at large, fixing what is broken without compromising what already works. In short, it's nothing short of revolutionary, but without the complications. The Gerber format specification, a sample X2 archive and background articles on X2 can be found at www.ucamco.com/downloads. Karel Tavernier Managing Director, Ucamco Julian Coates' Rebuttal: With respect to Karel, I think he may be mis- sing the main point. Consider this: • No doubt Gerber is a very fine format for defining the graphical layers of a PCB • IPC-D-356 is perfectly fine for defining a netlist THE GREAT GERBER VS. ODB++ DEBATE continues feature Table 1.