Extremely annoying PCBWay customer experience

[szoftveres]

I've been ordering boards for quite some time, the quality is good, I use them because the advertised quick service.

However getting a design from gerber file to manufacturing is sometimes extremely painful.

Many times I submit is weird-shaped boards, with only some basic features on the top layer and no silkscreen, for prototyping purposes. These automatically get rejected for reasons as "No silkscreen layer" or "No bottom layer", etc.. The notification says I should get in touch with them through email to clarify; no clickable link, nothing, it's all up to me to follow up.
So I usually draw some random lines and traces on the silkscreen and bottom layer, just to make these layers present in the Gerbers. I also put down something like "What you see on the order is what I'd like to receive. No need to clarify" in the "other special request" section in the order.
The design passes audit, however the email comes the next day, asking to me clarify if I really wanted this line here and that trace there. A series of back-and-forth emails follows, me begging them to just make the damn thing as it is. Sometimes they find text comments on the silkscreen and start asking questions whether they should change the board shape or override the stackup I chose in the order, based on how they interpret these comments.

I don't know how to avoid all this hassle - OSHpark usually gives convenient warnings if a layer is missing but it's not a show stopper.

Any suggestions? Is this eagerness to "audit" and nit-pick my design and wanting to "consult" with me, an inevitable cultural thing?

[tszaboo]

I am doing this for simple boards:
Bottom layer is solid ground plane, everything gets a via that's ground
Place text that's the board name on the top silkscreen. Components have their own silkscreen.

It's an easy fix, unless you want to make PCB rulers or some other thing that will raise flags for them.

[thm_w]

The layers should be present in the gerber files regardless if anything is on them. This is on you IMO, to figure out how to get your software to always output a file.

This is normal behavior from a non-automated fab to question missing files, or odd empty files. Oshpark is mostly automated afaik, JLC should be as well so you can try them.

Do they have an order notes section like JLC?

[xavier60]

The only time  PCBWay have asked for gerber layer files is when I have left options incorrectly set, example, not setting Silkscreen to None.
The little amount of text and symbols I usually need put on a PCB, I put onto the Solder-mask layer.

[aeg]

Many times I submit is weird-shaped boards, with only some basic features on the top layer and no silkscreen, for prototyping purposes. These automatically get rejected for reasons as "No silkscreen layer" or "No bottom layer", etc.. The notification says I should get in touch with them through email to clarify; no clickable link, nothing, it's all up to me to follow up.
So I usually draw some random lines and traces on the silkscreen and bottom layer, just to make these layers present in the Gerbers. I also put down something like "What you see on the order is what I'd like to receive. No need to clarify" in the "other special request" section in the order.

It sounds like you're playing games. You know that they're going to have questions about the missing silkscreen, and you just put ha-ha-do-what-I-mean in the order notes. Why on Earth are you not putting "No silkscreen, no bottom copper" in the notes?

[szoftveres]

It sounds like you're playing games. You know that they're going to have questions about the missing silkscreen, and you just put ha-ha-do-what-I-mean in the order notes. Why on Earth are you not putting "No silkscreen, no bottom copper" in the notes?

Here's where I think you misunderstood the OP: the "weird shaped" boards are actually legit designs, for prototyping or other (e.g spacer with solderable tab) purposes. Just not your typical square pcb with ground plane and traces.
These boards are being paid for, no game playing.

[Doctorandus_P]

Maybe put the "weird shaped board" into a rectangular panel. You probably pay for the rectangle anyway. And then you put some ugly emoticons on the surrounding board area. 

[unikeyname]

.. reasons as "No silkscreen layer" or "No bottom layer", etc..

May I know why you have that consideration in the first place? I mean... yeah no bottom layer is a fine way to test exotic 1-layer PCB but no silkscreen is a bit weird, the cost is roughly the same anyway.
EDIT: sorry I just need to read a bit further, okok I get it sometimes.

The design passes audit, however the email comes the next day, asking to me clarify if I really wanted this line here and that trace there. A series of back-and-forth emails follows, me begging them to just make the damn thing as it is. Sometimes they find text comments on the silkscreen and start asking questions whether they should change the board shape or override the stackup I chose in the order, based on how they interpret these comments.

I don't know how to avoid all this hassle - OSHpark usually gives convenient warnings if a layer is missing but it's not a show stopper.

Any suggestions? Is this eagerness to "audit" and nit-pick my design and wanting to "consult" with me, an inevitable cultural thing?

It's actually much easier for them to engage and exchange with a chat-like experience (i.e. QQ, Wechat), but I assume it may be restrictive in your case.

About the audit, yeah they are rigid like that.

[Someone]

I mean... yeah no bottom layer is a fine way to test exotic 1-layer PCB but no silkscreen is a bit weird, the cost is roughly the same anyway.

Dunno what the OP's problem is, I order boards without silk on one or both sides all the time. Just upload the generated gerber sets inclusive of those empty layers and never had a single question about it. PCBway, JLCPCB, DirtyPCBs, etc.

[szoftveres]

I guess I didn't realize (hadn't been told) that there's a difference between not adding a slikscreen layer at all, vs. submitting an empty silkscreen layer, and that an empty silkscreen layer gets through without hassle. I'll try the latter next time.

[asmi]

I guess I didn't realize (hadn't been told) that there's a difference between not adding a slikscreen layer at all, vs. submitting an empty silkscreen layer, and that an empty silkscreen layer gets through without hassle. I'll try the latter next time.

Just put yourself into their shoes - you receive a package with certain layers missing and nothing specific in the notes. What do you think is more likely - a user actually meant to NOT include those layers, or he just forgot to include it? I would put my money on the latter option being far more likely. It's the same when they see something odd on a footprint - they tend to ask for clarification and/or confirm that their interpretation of your intent is correct. For example, when I had a previous oven, it tended to burn some connectors, and so I intentionally excluded paste layer from their footprints, but that question was coming up every single time anyway just to confirm that this is in fact my intention, and not a mistake.
So if you still want to skip sending certain empty layers, just mention "<layername> is missing intentionally" in the notes, and you likely won't get many questions.

[envisionelec]

I submit several designs a month and find that they will ask a bunch of questions to intentionally delay the lead time.

Yep, I said it.

We send the same designs with tiny Rev changes and they come back with the most ridiculous replies like "No Drill Layer" and it's sitting right there. They don't use the README.txt file (even on request) for layer definitions.

I've had about enough of them.

[xavier60]

I used to often be asked for the drill file when I used to submit the design as a PCB file rather than Gerbers.

[aeg]

They don't use the README.txt file (even on request) for layer definitions.

None of the cheap Chinese PCB houses look at the README or the fab drawing. They don't have time for that. The Gerber filenames and the online order form are the source of truth.

[Alien Brother]

I recall their online Gerber viewer didn't properly display bottom mask with no openings (file is there, but with no points), so I've been putting a pad on bottom layer just in case. Stuff like that is a bit of a waste of time.

[HwAoRrDk]

I recall their online Gerber viewer didn't properly display bottom mask with no openings (file is there, but with no points)

Probably because it has no way of determining whether such a layer is positive or negative mask. That is, solder mask everywhere or nowhere. Or maybe it assumed the latter, and that's why the layer appears absent.

[Alien Brother]

Probably because it has no way of determining whether such a layer is positive or negative mask.

JLCPBC and Aisler (although that one takes ODB++) interpret the same design as a solid bottom mask with no openings, so naively, this looks like Pcbway not following a common convention. On the other hand, I've seen breakout boards that also had seemingly useless vias or pads, so maybe the "common convention" is to not have empty layers.

[HwAoRrDk]

JLCPBC and Aisler (although that one takes ODB++) interpret the same design as a solid bottom mask with no openings, so naively, this looks like Pcbway not following a common convention.

Yeah, the convention is for solder mask layers to be negative (i.e. openings).

I wonder if adding an explicit 'FilePolarity' attribute to the solder mask gerber file would make PCBWay's system do the right thing - e.g. %TF.FilePolarity,Negative*% (or maybe G04 #@! TF.FilePolarity,Negative*).

[Ryan812563]

I've been ordering boards for quite some time, the quality is good, I use them because the advertised quick service.

However getting a design from gerber file to manufacturing is sometimes extremely painful.

Many times I submit is weird-shaped boards, with only some basic features on the top layer and no silkscreen, for prototyping purposes. These automatically get rejected for reasons as "No silkscreen layer" or "No bottom layer", etc.. The notification says I should get in touch with them through email to clarify; no clickable link, nothing, it's all up to me to follow up.
So I usually draw some random lines and traces on the silkscreen and bottom layer, just to make these layers present in the Gerbers. I also put down something like "What you see on the order is what I'd like to receive. No need to clarify" in the "other special request" section in the order.
The design passes audit, however the email comes the next day, asking to me clarify if I really wanted this line here and that trace there. A series of back-and-forth emails follows, me begging them to just make the damn thing as it is. Sometimes they find text comments on the silkscreen and start asking questions whether they should change the board shape or override the stackup I chose in the order, based on how they interpret these comments.

I don't know how to avoid all this hassle - OSHpark usually gives convenient warnings if a layer is missing but it's not a show stopper.

Any suggestions? Is this eagerness to "audit" and nit-pick my design and wanting to "consult" with me, an inevitable cultural thing?

That is the kind of mistake JLC and PCBWay make.
They offer very fast service, but it is essentially automated and mechanical.
They cannot evaluate your files or provide DFM and PFM analysis; they simply manufacture exactly what is in your files. That is precisely why they can never replace a dedicated manufacturing partner.
I personally check the feasibility of every client's files to identify any potential issues.
Our prices may not be able to compete with theirs, but having the support of a reliable engineering team is always better than dealing with robotic customer service.

[May-High-speed PCB]

I can definitely relate to this.

DFM checking is important, but for prototype boards there should be a balance between catching real manufacturing issues and creating unnecessary back-and-forth discussions.

For example, if a board intentionally has no silkscreen, no bottom copper, or uses unusual outlines for mechanical evaluation, experienced CAM engineers can usually identify that very quickly and proceed without generating multiple clarification loops.

In our factory, we try to focus on issues that may affect manufacturability, reliability, or yield. For intentional design choices, especially on prototype builds, we prefer a "confirm once and move forward" approach rather than repeatedly questioning every non-standard feature.

Many RF, microwave, and prototype customers send us unusual stackups, cavity boards, mixed-via structures, or mechanical evaluation samples. Fast engineering review is often just as important as fast manufacturing.

Out of curiosity, how much delay does the clarification process usually add to your orders?

[Psi]

Are you aware there's an option for no soldermask and no silkscreen?

Sadly its not separate, its both top and bottom layer.

[Paulbi]

In fact， you need a assitant on this issue; Just find a partner in businees, you can put your energy on something important!