Terry, Thanks for the response, sorry to rant, I understand the variety of choice, but I am dealing with a situation where the master of the Orcad schematic I am taking in is rather reluctant to modify much on that end which is causing me more work on my end plus the constant errors in power connections becuase of two diff. voltages and cut and pasting parts, the way it is being done. So I just had to rant a little on some of the comments. At a previous company we actually took a vote and ended up making an extra power gate within the part which you saw as you where placing symbols so it was a little easier not to forget to connect power, this allowed one graphic to really represent many parts. I also realize this is a pain to hav eto remember to connect up power each time, but that was the way the majority wanted it llokking at all the pros and cons of quite a few ways to handle it within the particular CAD system at the time. VeriBest (now Mentor) had a real slick way of handling this having only one graphic symbol to represent any number of dif. part numbers. You placed the symbol by what they called a part and it took in the proper symbol. I do absolutely agree that keeping the schematic as simple a possible is best, and I really it is up to the group you are dealing with how that is best handled trying to balance the unclutterd schematic vs making painless for the schematic to be generated correct to design intent. Thanks Bob Robert M. Wolfe, C.I.D.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Using Multiple Vcc for same part > On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:09:49 -0500, Robert M. Wolfe wrote: > > >engineers do not take in the bigger picture when looking at a problem, which > >should include the entire group on the food chain of data to the final product. > > But I am looking at the bigger picture - the issue is not what information > the schematic document contains but what selection of that information you > choose to show and how on hard copy. > > I'll wager no one shows all information contained in a schematic on hard > copy (no one unhides all component fields) because the schematic would be > so cluttered as to be unreadable. > > If someone needs to know exactly what that 10k resistor is they have to > look it up in the part list. If someone needs to know exactly what supplies > are connected to a chip I really don't see that having to look it up in a > netlist or power table on the last sheet is so very different. > > Judgement is called for. If that 10k resistor was a 20W power device or a > 0.1% precision part I may well show that on hard copy the same as I will > likely show unusual power supply connections. For the most part 10k > resistor details and power supply connections are uninteresting and should > be hidden. > > >Sorry but that "just a graphical netlist" got to me. > > It is the few rants here specifically about power pins (and previously even > about no connect pins) which lead me to the "just a graphical netlist" > conclusion. > > I create schematics for others and myself to read. I get netlists out of > them but don't compromise readability for the sake of making it slightly > harder to screw up the netlist. > > > Cheers, Terry. > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://firstname.lastname@example.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *