wouldn't you want pairing to be mech 1 with 16 and mech 2 with 15, etc. ? as to the ad hoc layer naming and creation in autocad ... it can be as much of a source of clutter and trouble as it can be an aid in getting the job done
much of the trouble comes when trying to re-use and merge designs unless you follow rigorously controlled naming conventions and usage you soon wind up with 'layer hell' which can take quite a while to sift through, sort and rename or combine acad 2002 supposedly has done something to ease this and although i have it i haven't had a chance to load it interestingly solidworks as far as i can tell in my limited explorations does not have layers at all! it seems to me that pc design is much more defined in it's scope than a do anything tool like acad and as such some structuring of layers for typical use (customizable) is adequate you most always want a title block, an outline, silkscreens and so forth and having these always setup the same from job to job takes a bit of discipline as it is i think what we need is the ability to define all this stuff once and then inherit that from a master template or from a menu of templates we do bds with parts on both sides all the time and i have not been (much) troubled by the current method of looking thru the board and flipping parts to the other side Dennis Saputelli Geoff Harland wrote: > > > Geoff, > > > > Does your suggested pairing mechanism only come into play for components > > which are placed on the back of the board or is it to be used elsewhere as > > well? > > > > Douglas McDonald > > The pairing feature would primarily be provided for use with objects (arcs, > fills, pads, strings, or tracks) that are part of some component (so that > the Layer property of such objects automatically changes in an appropriate > manner when their parent component changes which side of the PCB it is on), > but would *also* be applicable (to some extent) to "free" objects (those > which are *not* part of some component). While the use of the L key (while > moving selected items or single components or other objects) is arguably > currently "broken" to some extent, any "free" object should still *also* > change which layer it is on, if it is on a Mechanical layer that has been > (user-)paired to another Mechanical layer, and the L key is pressed while it > is being moved (either by itself or as one of a number of objects that are > currently in a selected state). > > In that regard, the paired Mechanical layers would behave like the existing > layers of a paired nature, to wit the Overlay, Paste Mask, Solder Mask, and > external signal (copper) layers. > > Both "free" objects and non-"free" objects on such layers would also change > layers in the event that the *entire* PCB file was inverted, and regardless > of whether the inversion was of a Standard or Deep nature, and regardless of > whether the inversion was provided with Protel or implemented by an > user-provided addon server. > > I also envisage that users could pair Mechanical layers on an "as-needed" > basis, so that up to eight pairs of paired Mechanical layers would be > available for those needing that many, while others would alternatively be > able to pair a smaller number of Mechanical layers, or even none at all. > > The implementation could be simplified to some extent (with no loss in the > ability to control how many pairs of Mechanical layers are provided) by > restricting the pairing feature to "adjacent" Mech layers. As such, Mech 1 > could be paired with Mech 2, but no other layer; similarly, Mech 3 could be > paired with Mech 4, but no other layer; ... ; Mech 15 could be paired with > Mech 16, but no other layer. And for each such pair of "adjacent" Mech > layers, the user could select whether those two layers actually are paired > to one another or not. > > One way of implementing the associated user interface would be for the > "Setup Mechanical Layers" dialog box to incorporate another eight Checkboxes > (perhaps on a second Tab with a title of 'Pairing', but otherwise on the > existing 'Properties' Tab). One of those (new) Checkboxes would select (and > display) whether Mech 1 and Mech 2 are paired to one another or not, etc. > > Conceptually, Mechanical layers could *presently* be paired to one another, > if an user-provided addon server was implemented which incorporated a > Process for controlling (and displaying) which layers are paired to one > another (details of which layers are thus paired could be retained, and > within the PCB file itself, by the use of Embedded objects, a feature > provided by Protel for use by developers), and one or more Processes for > updating the layer properties of objects on such layers as required. A > relatively recent post to this forum suggests that someone else actually has > done this (or at least some of those aspects). *However*, if a component is > moved to the opposite side of the PCB while using the L key (or invoking a > 'Component' dialog box and then changing the 'Layer' property within that), > any objects within the component that are on Mech layers of a user-paired > nature will *not* have their Layer property appropriately updated at the > time (unless the addon server was clever enough to be able to monitor that > situation, and then arrange those properties to also be updated as required, > but that would be no small task to implement, assuming it could even be done > at all). And *that* is the reason why it would be desirable for this feature > to be built into Protel itself. > > In more recent times, I suggested a couple of alternative options, such as > providing eight (or sixteen) entirely new layers which would provide four > (or eight) new "hard-wired" pairs of layers (for use *both* with components > *and* otherwise, as desired by each user), or else providing the user with > the ability to define new layers as desired (similar to Autocad and PCAD), > together with the ability to pair these to one another as desired (similar > to past versions of PCAD (and past/present versions of Autocad?)). In any > event, I strongly suspect that the existing four pairs of paired layers is a > source of frustration for at least some users, who would want to have more > such layers available for their use. > > Regards, > Geoff Harland. > ----------------------------- > E-Mail Disclaimer > The Information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally > privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this > e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended > recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken > or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be > unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are > confidential and not for public display. > -- ___________________________________________________________________________ www.integratedcontrolsinc.com Integrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-0480 2851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *