On 05:22 PM 10/04/2001 -0700, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said:

>At 05:06 PM 4/10/01 -0600, Gladieux, Jed wrote:
>>Does anyone know how to create new design rules.  For example, I would like
>>to flag instances where component outlines on the silkscreen layers overlap.
>[using Protel 98]
>Component interference rules did not exist in Protel 98. They've been 
>added to Protel 99SE, though they could still use improvement. They assume 
>a bounding rectangle being the extent of the primitives on all layers 
>(don't ask me what happens if the component is rotated -- I haven't 
>checked). If you have component outlines at MMC, you will get 
>over-conservative spacing.

Simple bounding rectangle is not used with Check Mode = Full.  You set this 
mode in the component clearance rule. This has been discussed before.  The 
default check mode is not Full (can't recall what is though).  It is worth 
experimenting with.  No need for the polygon outline etc - just use the 
component overlay.   I haven't checked how it behaves with a multi-sided 
component - one with different outline on the top and bottom layers.  This 
could be an exercise for someone else to undertake and report on.  In my 
experience Full Check Mode correctly treats arcs diagonals as well as 
orthos and ignores comments and designators.

>I think we would prefer a polygon outline on a defined layer, and the 
>polygon outline track would have zero dimension; one

"we"? - I think I would prefer you said 'I" in your comments.  This is your 
opinion,  it is an assumption that others agree. (This is an example of the 
high-and-mighty talk from us regular respondents that I feel guilty of and 
have mentioned before.)

In cases where the overlay does not represent the outline of the component, 
such as where you have a polarity mark outside a device region, a device 
extents layer override would be helpful, otherwise it is not necessary.  I 
would not like to see old projects broken so it would presumably need to be 
a component option (Use <choose_layer> as Component Boundary check box 
where <choose_layer> is a drop list of layers present in that component. 
Should be globally settable of course.

>Ultimately, we will want height information in there.

I agree - I would like to be able to define rooms within a component and 
associate a height with each room. To allow simple more complex models than 
simple blocks.  I guess instead of heights we will really need a reference 
to an 3D model.  A simple height would not solve your issue of tucking a 
res under the curve of an axial cap as the 3D check/viewer cap would, 
presumably, assume it is a block rather than a cylinder.  Hence the 
requirement for a reference to a 3D model.

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:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to