Thanks Ian. I did as you suggested and lo, I get 20 mils around pads and
vias---but not around tracks on Mid 1! Confusion and bewilderment abound. I
will keep trying...to paraphrase Winston Churchill "Never, never, never give
up!"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:52 PM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Polygon plane, incorrect clearance around 
> Multilayer
> pads and via s
> 
> 
> On 07:23 PM 8/08/2001 -0400, Darryl Newberry said:
> >Hi people,
> >
> >More frustrating problems with (IMO) very basic 
> features....Help files are
> >no help as usual. Knowledge base is down.
> >
> >Polygon plane on Mid 1.
> >Clearance around Multilayer pads and vias is incorrect (8 
> mil not 20 mil).
> >However, clearance is correct for tracks on Mid 1.
> >Why would the rule Clearance shown below (8 mil) override 
> the Clearance_3
> >rule? Is there a workaround? I need a 20 mil gap!
> >
> >Relevant rules pasted from the Rules report.
> >
> >Clearance Constraint :
> >    Enabled = Yes    Name = Clearance
> >              Scope1 = Board
> >              Scope2 = Board
> >              Connectivity = Different Nets
> >              Gap = 8mil
> >              Rule Followed By Router
> >
> >    Enabled = Yes    Name = Clearance_3
> >              Scope1 = Mid 1 & Polygon
> >              Scope2 = Mid 1 & Thru-Hole Pad, Via
> >              Connectivity = Different Nets
> >              Gap = 20mil
> >              Rule Followed By Router
> <..snip..>
> 
> 
> Darryl,
> 
> I guess this second rule is the issue.  Protel does *not* 
> think that a 
> thru-hole (multi-layer) pad exists on the individual layers, 
> for the design 
> rules at least.  I want this repaired/changed as there have 
> been a number 
> of times when I wanted layer specific rules for thru-hole 
> pads/vias.  (The 
> most recent time this came up for discussion was during a 
> discussion on 
> tenting the top layer but leaving all the bottom sides of 
> vias exposed.)
> 
> Change Scope2 to simply "Thru-Hole Pad, Via" and I think it 
> should then 
> work.  Adding the extra layer scope in Scope2 does not increase the 
> strictness of the rule (as Scope1 already restricts its 
> application to 
> Mid1) but it causes the rule to never be applied as then 
> boolean expression 
> (Mid1 AND multi-layer) is always FALSE.
> 
> I haven't tested the above but I think it should work.
> 
> Ian Wilson
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to