I have one contrary experience. I re-did a simple two layer board I did by hand years ago, and Situs did better than any previous version. In fact it looks pretty damn good...close to hand routing.
All previous routers could manage 100%, but they looked like hell. Situs did not. The problem is I can do little boards by hand anytime. I'm hoping for Situs to step up to the plate for the LARGE boards that I don't want to do by hand anymore. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 5:58 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues > > > I am not experienced in using the new Situs router but I have > tried it with disastrous results. Since I thought I might > have been doing something wrong, I loaded the sample boards > routed at Altium by what I would have thought to be an > experienced Situs user. I posted a list of sample areas to > look at on these boards a while ago on the DXP forum. From > what I saw, the results were worse than my results in some > cases. Perhaps I am too picky but I see no reason for 5 or > six power vias near each other all connected by short traces > on various layers to tie one pin to the power buss when just > one via would have done the job. Several acid traps and > traces exiting pads at oddball angles with stairstepping. > After reviewing the sample boards, I decided not to mess with > Situs again until a few service packs have come out. > Overall, I did not see anything in the sample boards to > indicate that Situs is an improvement. > > Rob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:57 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues > > > > At 04:23 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Michael Reagan (EDSI) wrote: > > >I probably would pay for SP7 with as long as they met the > long list > > >of > our > > >requirements also. > > > > I too have been put off by the complexities introduced with > DXP. If it > > had been, say, a bug fix for 99SE, at a corresponding > price, there is > > no doubt that I'd be using it. If the additional features had come > > without greatly confusing the user interface (for one used > to 99SE), > > I'd be wanting them too. We were long awaiting an improved > autorouter, > > and I had heard rumors about how good it was going to be, rivalling > > Specctra, etc. > > > > I haven't seen any comments on the DXP list on Situs except > for some > > information about the design rules it follows, which have not been > > much improved, i.e., there are apparently still plenty of > rules which > > are > ignored. > > > > Something is wrong. > > > > The unfortunate thing about the DXP release is that the work was > > invested, it would seem, in advance of a true marketing study, at > > least of one involving a sufficient number of existing users. > > Programming for a service pack is one thing, programming > for feature > > improvements may be something else. It is difficult, I'd > think, to go > > back, but it might not be > impossible. > > > > The theory behind the Client/Server architecture was that the > > individual modules were separately maintainable. How much > the Advanced > > PCB server was modified to make it into the DXP PCB server, I don't > > know. > > > > I would think that solid software management for a product > like Protel > > would involve continuously fixing bugs, as soon as > possible, releasing > > service packs regularly, and sometimes including feature > improvements > > -- gradually -- as part of the process. A maintenance model allows > > this, > which > > is probably one reason why Altium has gone that way. The > transition, > > however, has not been handled well. There should never have > been such > > a dead time with no service pack. SP7 should have been > released long > > ago. > > > > I can understand the argument that was probably put forth: since we > > are going to make all these major changes, we need to put all our > > effort into them instead of fooling around with code that > is going to > > become obsolete anyway. Yet this argument is one that keeps > software > > buggy on into eternity. There is a reason why organisms > only change a > > little DNA at a time! Make too many changes at once, nothing works > > well any more. > > > > So then you have to do all kinds of new software testing, > etc., to try > > to find the bugs that have been introduced with the > changes. Plus, a > > crucial part of the "organism" is the user. Confuse the > user, and the > > best > software > > becomes next to useless. > > > > But it might not be impossible to put together an SP7, > perhaps much of > > the coding has already been done and even tested to some > degree. I'd > > suggest a price of, say, $1K for it, fully appliable to DXP (or, > > perhaps, to ATS) when the user decides to go that way. Enough 99SE > > users might pay for an SP7 to make it worthwhile; it would generate > > good will among the users -- except for those who insist > that anything > > short of feature improvement should be free, period. > > > > As far as $2000 for the DXP upgrade, the fact is that a > truly improved > > autorouter would be worth $2K just by itself. Problem is, > in order to > > get it -- assuming that Situs is actually greatly improved > now or in > > the near future -- we have to move into a user interface that is > > sufficiently different to put many of us off. Unless Altium does > > something about this. Remember, the whole point of > Client/Server was > > to modularize the programs while permitting interaction. > > > > (While I was a Beta tester for DXP, events in my own life prevented > > me, > and > > thus far have continued to prevent me, from investing much > time in DXP > > either during Beta or subsequently. Perhaps the autorouter is truly > > magic, and it has simply escaped comment on the DXP list; in that > > event, I > presume > > that someone who knows better will enlighten us.) > > > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > > ** > > * Tracking #: 80B2D86297784D429EB1D3578C179B77B45AEA09 > > * > > > ************************************************************** > ********** > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/[email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
