Abd, please see below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ulRahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] 45 degree pad problem !

> The best way to learn is to make mistakes. To learn big, make big
> (Of course that isn't the whole story!)

Unfortunately for some, this appears to be the only way that they can ever
learn anything , but then there are others that just figure it out ahead of
time : )

Actually, I find that a rather odd statement coming from someone who claims
to have attended Throop Polytechnic.

> At 12:29 PM 10/16/2002 -0700, JaMi Smith wrote:
> >Even if it is done at "gerber" time, it may make a difference in how
> >defines the "pad" to the gerber file based upon whether it is encountered
> >part of the design or part of a component, either of which should be
> >different than a "fill" which it will most certainly "draw".
> There are a couple of misconceptions here.
> Protel does not understand RS-274X rotations. It has been recommended that
> this be fixed!
> Fills are normally created by using a flash. I.e., Protel treats a fill,
> which is always rectangular, as if it were a rectangular pad. It creates
> aperture for it.
> However, because Protel can't rotate this, it must draw rotated
> non-circular pads.

The point I am making is that Protel may in fact be handling things such as
a component in a "draw it (or "define the fill") once and repeat it"
fashion, and may in fact try and rotate what it has "drawn" itself by simply
recalculating each previously "drawn" fill segment, as opposed to
encountering the object to be drawn in its final "rotated" state and
attempting to "draw" it from scratch at that point.

There are obviously numerous different ways that any of the different kinds
of objects could be handled bu Protel, and unless we ask the original
programmer or look at the source we will never really know for sure, and
cetainly not well enough to be dogmatic.

The point is that we know that something is amuck, but we don't quite know
what it is and where it is, and my suggestions simply point out a few other
possible ways to possibly skirt the problem, if in fact the problem is
possibly only in one area, which it may not be. It really depends on how the
code handles all of these different things, and where the problem lies in
the code.

The alternativites that I suggested would excercise any of these internal
differences (if they did in fact happen to exist), and may or may not be a
workaround, but that will never be known until they are tried.

> I do not recall how to control the draw width....

If I remember correctly, the fills may be done with the D10 aperature, but I
cannot remember why I remember it that way (may just be another neural

> You can build up pads with fine draws if you really need them, as part of
> the library part, I've done this for critical RF parts. Yes, it's a
> As to whether or not it is necessary for a particular design, that's an RF
> engineering decision that is outside my realm. I'm told that it might be
> important in some cases.

Yes, some of these little things really do matter.

What I really want to know is what was the radius of the "rounding" of the
corners of the pads to begin with, and whether or not any of the other
suggestions offered in this thread were tried by Daniel and whether any of
them worked.

Daniel, what's the status.

JaMi Smith

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:proteledaforum@;techservinc.com
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:ForumAdministrator@;TechServInc.com
* 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