> 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

This is behavior exhibited by the 99SE AR and Advanced Route 3.1 also.  It
seems Situs is no improvement.  If you use the AR, you must resign yourself
to manually cleaning up these crazy routes.  It is part of my manual
"post-processing" to consolidate power vias and delete stairstep tracks.

I say again:  Route all your critical nets manually, lock 'em down, and then
let AR do the rest.  Then clean up after it.

My guess is they are still using the Neurorouter code and just don't know
how it works, so they cannot improve upon it.  But they can give it a new
name.  "I am Situs of Borg.  Routing is futile.  Your nets will be
meandered".

Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website:  www.bagotronix.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 8:57 PM
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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to