Slot pads and plane connect

[T3sl4co1l]

Think I've just made myself a real hum-dinger...

I have a component with plated slot type pads.  They are connected to ground.  Ground is assigned to an inner plane layer (plane, not polygon).

Can I control:
1. The angle of the plane connect reliefs? (an aside, it bothers me that they are a fixed 45 degrees and, seemingly, cannot be changed?!  Whereas, for a polygon, the angle can be assigned.)
2. The shape of the 'expansion' (which appears to be copper generated uniformly around the hole/slot only, not clearance to the pad on that layer)?

The slot pads are currently defined as "simple" (same shape copper pad on all layers).  If I use "top-inner-bottom" definitions, I could set the inner layers to zero (or less, anyway) so that the auto-generated 'expansion' serves as the pad.  But what if I want to keep the pad shape the same on all layers?

Attached: pukey faded yellow color is the highlighted plane.  You can see the pad overlaps the auto-generated 'expansion', violating the clearance gap (I haven't checked if this actually generates DRC, but it sure looks bad).  The nearby pin, which has a round hole but an oval pad shape, also shows the same problem.

Tim

[toohec]

As far as I know....  1) no, you cannot you control the angle on the plane reliefs like you can on a polygon, and 2) the expansion is uniform and is not capable of being defined by the pad stack.  So your current results in your image are standard fare for the automated options.

If you really wanted something specific in regards to the plane connect style, you could always define the plane connect style as a direct-connect for the pins of interest, then manually adding polygon cutouts on the plane layer to draw your own reliefs.  But that would be a pain to do for anything more than a handful of pins.  I usually just stick with direct-connect plane styles for all plane connections anyway.  Based on the image, the large pin slot just appears to be a shield/mechanical support tab, so a direct connect style would likely be fine.

You can see the pad overlaps the auto-generated 'expansion', violating the clearance gap (I haven't checked if this actually generates DRC, but it sure looks bad)

I don't see any violation there.  The visible oval pad that overlaps the expansion is on a different layer (non-plane layer), so there is no clearance problem.  As you stated earlier, the expansion is based purely off the hole perimeter, and is independent of the pad structure on the normal signal layers.

[free_electron]

you can set a design rule for pad to plane clearance.

[T3sl4co1l]

Thanks, figured as much.

you can set a design rule for pad to plane clearance.

It's there, but it doesn't seem to affect the geometry, at least that I noticed.  Which is weird again, since constructing the respective rule for polygons works fine.

Planes seem like a neglected bit of code...

Tim