I'm new to DipTrace and PCB Layout. I have been doing a lot of research about how PCBs are manufactured mainly because I received some mild negative feedback from our photoplot vendor about how my Gerber files looked "ugly." I didn't speak to the vendor directly. I got this feedback from our PCB department which sent my Gerber files to the vendor. Because making PCB layouts is new to me, I decided to learn as much as I could about the topic. I still have more to learn, but I think I may know what the vendor was talking about. It doesn't appear DipTrace generates Outline Fill (G36, G37) commands in the Gerber files. It is "painting" the pads and copper pours. According to the quote below, PCB vendors don't like Gerber files created using this method. As a programmer myself, it seems like creating Gerber files using the Outline Fill method would be easier than using multiple passes of an auto generated aperture. Are there any plans to use the G36 and G37 commands in future versions of DipTrace?

Quoted from the linked document below:

http://www.ucamco.com/Portals/0/Documents/Ucamco/Improving_CAD_to_CAM_Data_Transfer_201110.pdf

I've noticed this as well. The software I'm writing which generates milling code from Gerber files, also need much more time to generate proper outlines. Further, some inaccuracies are sometimes introduced, meaning small holes occur in what is supposed to be a completely filled shape. I'm working around this by have an area-threshold, so very small features are simply discarded, but this problem would not exist if outline fills were used instead.

I can only say +1 for following recommended Gerber practice (besides the document posted here, see section 6 "RS-274X Best practices").

lindquist, is your software available to the public? Are you using the ACE Converter?

It's not yet available anywhere, but it's starting to work quite well. I'm still considering my options regarding publication

I have added the suggestion to the list, we will consider it for future versions.
Sometimes customers use hatched copper pours. Then G36 and G37 codes are not able to use in Gerber files. Our method is convenient for both solid and hatched pours, but maybe it is not the best method for solid copper nowadays.

Our photoplot mask vendor, Mega Circuit, had a problem "arraying" my design. Could someone look at my DipTrace PCB layout that is attached to this post and tell me what I could be doing that is causing a problem?

-- 17 Jul 2012, 16:05 --

I ran the generated gerbers through Advanced Circuits's FreeDFM service and it don't find a problem. I ended up buying the boards from Advanced Circuits instead of making them inside. I still don't know why Mega Circuit had a problem with the gerbers.

The board looks ordinary. I don't know what could cause a problem in Mega Circuit.

DipTrace uses G36/G37 apertures for polygons (pads and shapes).
Copper pours in DipTrace are made from lines at the moment, so they are exported as lines.