Thanks for the help.

> Let me guess the basic problem. Mr. Wolfe is not running ERC and nailing
> down every error or warning. There are many conditions which can cause
> connectivity failure; most of them will create ERC errors or warnings.
>
Well ya absolutely caught me on this one.
I was checking only what was there and they were net labels
and the ends of wires did connect, and names all matched exactly
but yes replacing the net did fix it so I will run an ERC on
a fresh imported schematic to see what errors show up.
>
> There are plenty of other causes for connectivity problems, but these are
> the ones which come to my mind upon reading that replacing net labels
> solves the problem. That would not affect, for example, incorrect
> connectivity from incorrect scope or incorrect implementation of the Port
> Only or Sheet Symbol/Sheet Entry scopes, which are quite demanding, they
> must be done just so.
>
> The documentation on this could be improved, particularly because Sheet
> Symbol/Sheet Entry is, in my opinion, the best for producing clear and
> error-free multipage schematics, and this scope also makes design re-use
> easier.

I am also using this scope.

The kicker is the Orcad schematic does produce a correct net list
and is error free when checked so being that Protel chose to give the
ability to import
an OrCAD schematic you would think it would come in with at least proper
connectivity
seeing that the connectivity was there in OrCAD with no errors.

Bottom line I need to ERC the design after it comes over.

Thanks
Bob Wolfe

> Abdulrahman Lomax
> Easthampton, Massachusetts USA


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to