> > wouldn't you want pairing to be mech 1 with 16 and mech 2 > > with 15, etc. ? > > I would name say 8 layers as Top Mech 1-4 and bottom Mech 1-4 > to keep the same naming style as for the current top/bottom > layer pairs. This would leave 8 mech layers not paired. > > That way it would force some standard to which layers are used > for what. > > Just my 0.02, > > Darren Moore
IMO, your suggestion is not devoid of merit. However, many users would probably not want as many as four pairs of paired Mech layers (and at least some could well want *none* of the Mech layers to be paired to one another). As such, unless the pairing of each of these layers could be disabled by the user, that would reduce the utility of those layers to such users. In the form I originally suggested, users would be able to select whether they had 8 sets of paired Mech layers and no unpaired Mech layers, or 7 sets of paired Mech layers and 2 unpaired Mech layers, or 6 sets of paired Mech layers and 4 unpaired Mech layers, ... , or 1 set of paired Mech layers and 14 unpaired Mech layers, or no sets of paired Mech layers and 16 unpaired Mech layers. Perhaps it is unlikely that anyone would want more than four sets of paired Mech layers, so the default names of the Mech layers could perhaps be changed along the lines you suggest. But I still submit that there is something to be said for being able to select which of those pairs of Mech layers actually do have the "pairing" feature enabled. And to avoid potential complications of whether particular Mech layers are paired to one another or not (i.e. whether the "pairing" feature is activated or not), was the reason behind my more recent suggestion of providing yet more additional layers, in which the pairing feature is of a permanent/hard-wired nature. These could have default names of Top Mech 1-4 (or 1-8) and Bottom Mech 1-4 (or 1-8), or Top Aux 1-4/8 and Bottom Aux 1-4/8, though presumably the user could rename these as desired (as with existing Mech and internal copper layers). The provision of yet more layers could be regarded as overkill by some, but then again, how many users use *all* of the *existing* layers (other than perhaps to fully test out Protel 99 SE)? OTOH, this suggestion has been made in relatively recent times, so perhaps it is too late to incorporate in Phoenix. OTGH (on the gripping hand (from three-armed "motie" aliens in two SF novels written by Niven & Pournelle)), perhaps this is something that has already occurred to Altium, who could well have anticipated that there could be problems associated with providing a selective enabling of the "pairing" feature with the existing Mech layers. (We will find out in the not too distant future what Phoenix will be providing in this regard.) 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *