At 09:10 AM 2/11/2002 +1100, Colin Weber wrote:
>It seems there is a desire for functionality, on-line DRC, I fear it 
>cannot be delivered in the immediate future without impacting upon performance.
>Every thing added to on-line DRC kills performance.

Given a constant CPU speed or other measure of computing power. However, 
the fact is that I have upgraded my computer twice since buying Protel. 
Protel 98 ran at first on a K6-300, it is now running on an Athlon 1600. 
On-line DRC time is not an issue at present. If it were, then I could 
always turn it off, or the specific rules can be turned off.

Protel now allows us to disable rules without deleting them. The simplest 
level of height checking would be little more than room checking. Sure, as 
it gets more sophisticated, it will take up more CPU cycles, but I doubt 
that this will become a problem.

The simplest level would allow us to define a height attribute for a room, 
and to access the height field for components as well. Another possible 
feature would add a height attribute to PCB library footprints (I don't 
know if they exist at that level), which would be carried over into the PCB.

My guess is that we will be getting something in Phoenix, so I don't want 
to waste much more time making suggestions, presumably we will see soon 
enough what has been done. Note that I have *no* inside information on this 

We could use room definitions to exclude components that are too tall now, 
but it is too cumbersome to see much use.

In the long run, I'd like to see polygonal rooms -- not just for 3-D -- as 
well as more complex and accessible 3-D models; on the other hand, simple 
models, such as height only, -- and no models at all -- should continue to 

Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to