Hi Brad,

I have seen this behaviour before but it was a while ago and I can't
remember how I solved or got around it.

I do have some thoughts or suggestions that may force a solution...

Have you tried changing the net scope to "Only ports global" or "Sheet
symbol/Port connection" in conjuction with "Append sheet numbers to local
nets" temporarily allowing it to assign nets to everything, and then
changing it back to "Net labels and ports global" as you need to have it.

What about temporarily using the largest available schematic workspace and
copying all sheets onto the one and netlisting that to see if that fixes
the problem?

I'm not questioning your ability or experience, but do you have any
duplicate designators or the like?  I realise this causes a problem
different to what you describe but who knows?

Cheers,
Brendon.




-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Velander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2002 10:51 AM
To: Protel EDA Forum List Server (E-mail)
Subject: [PEDA] P99SE SP6 Problem with Update PCB generating duplicate
nets or ot her errors.


Hi all,
             I have a layout that is a little different than our norm in
terms of
size and complexity. This seems to be causing some problems that I don't
normally see.

I have four schematic pages in a flat hierarchy. I have used nets and ports
global, I actually don't have any ports used at all just the netnames.
             When I run the Update PCB I get errors reported for adding
nets that
already exist. If I run the update anyway I get multiple occurrences of
these nets showing up in the PCB netlist manager. The nets involved are all
nets where I have used a netname on one sheet to tie a signal to the
intended connection on the other sheet. So yes there are duplicate netnames
(the same netname) within the schematics but they are needed to provide
connectivity.
             What is wrong? How can I fix this?
             The first time that I ran the update, I deleted the offending
net
duplications from the preview macros window. On that occasion I also got an
access violation near the end of the update process. Looking in the PCB
file
I discover that the initial components have been placed by the update
function in the upper right corner as usual. However the components appear
to run right off the page past the 100 inch limit of the database. I am not
sure if anything might have been dropped because it ran past the 100
inches.
So I move the parts down close to my PCB outline and run update again. I
get
the same duplicated net error but I do see some net connections being made
that obviously weren' t made during the first pass. Possibly because of the
access violation near the end of the first update?  This is not a very
large
design compared to some you guys work on, is this common behaviour placing
parts out past or at least to the 100 inch limit? Is there a chance that
something is screwed because of this part loading out to or near the 100
inch limit?

             I also just tried running update again for a third time. It is
still
adding 2 more net connections to device pads! Why weren't these added in
either of the two previous updates?

             I am just so leery that something is drastically wrong at the
moment
and that I can't trust the database. I hope someone has had similar
experiences and has an answer or advice.

Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

Lead PCB Designer
Norsat International Inc.
Microwave Products
Tel   (604) 292-9089 (direct line)
Fax  (604) 292-9010
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.norsat.com
Norsat's Microwave Products Division has now achieved ISO 9001:2000
certification






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