Hi Darcy,
Sorry for not responding sooner but our email was down just before Xmas
and only recently has been restored.
I have seen this issue sometime a long time ago. I cannot recall with
certainty why it occurs but I do have one question which may lead to the
solution. If I recall correctly this may be related to footprint naming
conventions. There are a couple of quirks with footprint naming that are not
documented by Protel. At least not clearly.
Are your footprint names over 12 characters? There are some functions
which will trip up at names over 12 characters.
Do your footprint names contain "-" or "_"? One or the other of these
also causes some issues.
Did you change these component footprints recently? i.e. are they still
the old footprint but have the new footprint name? This is what I can recall
from my experiences the name updated but the footprint didn't update.
The cause (if I remember correctly, it was about 4 years ago) is in the
naming of the footprints. With one or more of the issues I question above the
footprints do not update but the name will update. Good luck, hope you find the
answer.
If you do find the answer please repost the results. It is so long ago
that I forget the cause I found. I just changed my common practices and have
never seen the problem again.
Sincerely,
Brad Velander
Senior PCB Designer
Northern Airborne Technology
1925 Kirschner Rd.,
Kelowna, BC, V1Y 4N7.
tel (250) 763-2329 ext. 225
fax (250) 762-3374
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Darcy Davis
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 9:06 AM
To: PEDA (E-mail)
Subject: [PEDA] Wrong geometry, right footprint name!
Hey Guys,
I ran into a rather disconcerting problem this morning (just before we sent
this board for fabrication). I found a part in this particular PCB that had
an 0603 geometry where there should have been a 1206. The really
disconcerting part is that the "footprint" field for this part said 1206
(which is correct). I could have explained this as human error if it was the
only part. However, further review turned up an 0603 geometry where an 0805
should have been. I'm still looking for other problems.
1) Anybody seen anything like this before? or can come up with an sequence
of steps that may have caused this?
2) Its going to take a long time to check every part in the design. Anybody
have any suggestions for finding further errors?
Darcy
____________________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
To Post messages:
mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe and Other Options:
http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
