----- Original Message -----
From: "Schmitt Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum (E-Mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 10:52 AM
Subject: [PEDA] P99SESp6 polygons and gerber


> I cant believe what i have seen today ... after the PCB manufactor has
> reported errors in gerber files
>
> Protel 99SE SP6
>
> Image a track surrounded by a polygon. The track has a 45 degree corner.
on
> the outter side protel(as seen in draft mode) places a short ARC at the
> corner, but in GERBER (as seen by camtastic) there is a track connected
from
> and to the points where the arc should be.
> And because this is so, the clearance rule is not followed. i have setup
the
> clearance rule to 8mil for the whole board, but due to the BUG (Protel are
> you listening ??) the effektive clearance is 6.2 - 6.4 mil at the edges
and
> so the board cost much more ....
>
> has anybody a solution for that ???? is it realy so bad that i cannot
trust
> PROTEL that the gerber files do not contain what i see . even in draft
mode
> i would expect to see what is in gerber.
>
> an ARC is an ARC and NOT a TRACK !! (BTW: The PCB manufactor does not use
> CAMTASTIC and he also does not see the arc, so i guess .. there must be a
> track in the gerberfiles ...)

Michael

Please find attached a known bug which was unfixed pre SP5.

I do not know if it was ever fixed in Sp5 or SP6 but it does sound related
to your polygon issues. I will get the old design out the archives and check
with SP6 to see.

Hopefully your problem is unrelated, but it sounds much the same. This does
sould similar, additional copper from pour around object with clearance rule
not followed (but will report error), DR violation....

Best regards

John

=========== Original report (test PCB submitted) ============

-----Original Message-----
From: Webmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of John A. Ross
Sent: Tuesday, 18 January 2000 22:07
To: Multiple recipients of list PROTELEDAUSERS
Subject: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Placing Polygons


I have just completed 2 designs under P99SE/SP3.

However I have a problem with some copper areas on the top layer as they
consistently fail the clearance rule for the top layer only. As this is the
first revision to add polygons to the rule scope specifically as objects I
thought it was worth mentioning.

Both top and top & bottom layer clearance are set the same [0.5mm, tried
other clearances same error]

Both polygons were poured with tracks of 0.42mm on a 0.4 grid with 45 deg
hatch & using Octagons.

On the bottom left of the board every time it filled around a fiducial mark
[1.5mm clearance rule] and a mounting hole [2mm clearance rule] it showed a
DRC clearance error between the copper and these 2 objects.

Changing grid, trace width, clearance values made no difference. The top
layer always produced the error but the bottom layer, same settings, around
the same objects, did not!

On looking at the offending area it seems as if there has been an extra
piece of copper added, just outside the polygon boundary.

This rogue piece of copper, at a 45 deg angle, seems to have been added as
part of the polygon outline, in the octagon shape around the 2 objects and
violated the clearance rule and hence the error.

I zoomed in to the area and watched as the outline was re-poured around
these objects and it seemed ok, until the 'removing dead copper' process had
finished, then it appeared!

Changing the hatch' method to 90 deg did not produce this rogue copper, the
design passed DRC, but change it back to 45 deg, hey presto its back and on
one layer only!

Bug or just my methodology?

Best Regards

John A. Ross

======== Response from Protel ==============

Hi John,

You've probably read this already on the User Group John - i had both your
original email and the email with the board attached, and replied to the
wrong one - never mind.

I've confirmed that you have definately found a problem - unfortunately the
polygon fixes in SP4 do not resolve it though. They focused on handling of
metric units and very occasional funnies with outlining arcs. We need to do
another pass to check the behaviour with octagonal outlines. Thanks for the
file, i'll log a report with this as an example.

best regards,
Phil Loughhead
*  email address you originally used to subscribe (do not
*  give an alias unless it was used to subscribe).
*
*  Visit http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
*  to unsubscribe or to subscribe a new email address.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



************************************************************************
* Tracking #: B0BA45B5345C7848ABF46DB8A33B9016A4EB11FB
*
************************************************************************

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