> > 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.)

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:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to