Brad wrote for all you tired of getting our emails
> on your comments on PADS, adding a via or stitching a whole fields
> of vias was added back about 3 or more years ago (versions 3.1 or
> thereabouts). Why do you still say it is a problem.
> The DRCs would be a definite setback to PADS (as I knew them). At
> least with Protel the DRC rules can be made 'almost' as specific as you
may
> like.
Brad,
Wow you mean PADS finally added the capability to place a via without
stitching in version 3.5 in the year 2000? OH MY WHAT A LEADING EDGE
PROGRAM, IT DOES VIAS NOW. (joking of course, Brad)
I have version 3.5, I didn't upgrade to 3.6 yet. Looks like the same
program to me, I quit using it last year when everybody started jumping from
PADS to Cadence. Having DRCs not work correctly you might as well use
Print Magic, or MS Paint for rf design because second guessing = hosed up
board. You are correct, you can configure the DRC fairly well in Protel,
if they would add a no error directive on PCB that would be cool but could
be also dangerous, I guess I would rather see a DRC flagged out than not
at all. Even the RF designs I do, I can generally have a clean DRC when I
am ready to finish. The biggest addition to 99 that really helped was
connection of VIAS and pads to planes and both to multiple planes.
Mike Reagan
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
