On 09:48 AM 6/04/2001 +1000, Linden Doyle said:
>Greetings all,
>
>     Has anyone had reason to use the REGION scope mentioned in the Design 
> Rule section of the manual for PCB?
>
>     I ask because I cannot find it within the program itself.
>
>     What I am trying to do is set up an area on my PCB where clearance 
> constraints can be relaxed. This area will be conformally coated thus 
> reducing spacing requirements.
>
>     The manual simply says to select region as one of the clearance 
> scopes and a button will appear to allow definition of the region. 
> Unfortunately its not that simple - REGION does not appear as one of the 
> scope options.
>
>     Any ideas on achieving what I'm trying to do (either using regions or 
> in some other fashion)?
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>LINDEN DOYLE

This is a long time request of mine Region scope for clearance constraint.

Answer: Protel does not support region scope for clearance.

The comment was made to me, by Protel Support, a long time ago that the 
difficulty in programming it hass prevented it from being 
implemented.  This is true to some extent as how would you expect a pair of 
entities that ran across your region boundary to be handled?

Suggestion: My answer was I would be happy to have the tightest constraint 
(either inside or outside the region) applied to such boundary cases as I 
can always control how the entities cross the boundary.  For instance I 
could place a break in a track at or near the region boundary to control 
how far the region clearance rule spread out along this track.  I thought 
the scope would still be very useful even with this side effect of the 
tightest rule applicable applying to anything that crossed the boundary.

Suggestion2:  Would anyone else like the ability to define polygonal 
regions?  Maybe polygons could have a new attribute (region attribute) and 
have the ability to be named so we could refer to the named polygonal 
region when using region scopes.
I suppose they could be displayed much as the rectangular rooms currently 
are (as a hatch).

Suggestion3:  Extending this concept - allowing polygons to be named and 
having yet another attribute would allow for polygonal rooms.

Summary: So extend the definition of a polygon to allow it to be named 
(much like a pad designator) and add the ability to mark it as a rule 
region (displayed as a hatch).  Allow these named polygonal rule regions to 
be placed on any layer including mech layers.  Allow these named polygonal 
rule regions to be used for room definitions and any existing region 
scope.  Extend clearance design rule to support regions.

Is there any support for this concept?

Ian Wilson


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To join or 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]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to