See in-line comments.

On 12:27 AM 18/10/2002 -0700, Tony Karavidas said:
> On 03:47 PM 18/10/2002 +1000, Igor Gmitrovic said:
> >In my opinion you contradict yourself. The important thing
> here is that
> >the known behaviour from the old versions of Protel is
> propagated to the
> >DXP in one way or the other.
> >
> >Igor
>
>
> I have now done some testing.
>
> Started with a PCB file in DXP.  This file has a combination
> of components
> created in P99SE and DXP as per Brian original email.
>
> Saved this file in multiple formats from within DXP:
> A) V4 (P98/P99SE)
> B) V3 (V3)
> C) V2.8
>
> Opened each file in 99SE.  All looked OK.  All pads seemed to
> be OK.  So
> far so good.
>
> Re-opened all these files in DXP.
>
> The V2.8 file, when immediately re-opened in DXP, had the
> designators in
> different positions to the original file. P99SE had the
> designators in the
> correct location and orientation.  The others did not show
> this problem.
> All pads seems OK.
>
> All three files were imported in a blank P99SE Access DDB.
>
> All opened OK. And all appeared to be OK.

Thus far, it looks as if the DXP 2.8 importer has a problem, right?
With designator positions, yep. Not pads that I could see. So DXP has designator import issue with V2.8 files exported from DXP. That is what the test shows.

> All three files opened and the "Saved Copy as" in P99SE to V4
> and V3 and
> exported as V2.8.
> The new V3 and V4 files were exported from P99SE (the V2.8
> exports are
> already out of the DDB).
>
> All 9 new files were then opened in DXP and default options
> chosen for all
> on the import wizard.
>
> Two files had zero-sized bottom layer pads.  Top layer pads
> were OK.  These
> files were the V3 and V4 files exported from DXP and then opened and
> exported as V2.8 in P99SE.  The file that was saved-as V2.8
> out of DXP and
> the exported out of P99SE as V2.8 seemed to be OK.

Ooh, you almost lost me. The two files you mentioned could have been
trashed by 99SE. Did you reopen them in 99SE and in DXP after exporting
the V3 and V4 to 2.8 formats?
Just did - they look OK in P99SE. So P99SE is modifying the format in a way that affects DXP but not itself. Don't have V2.8 installed (still have the dongle though).


Earlier, the 2.8 version that when out from DXP and back into DXP was
flawed, right? So how does that same file after going through 99SE work
this time?
Designators have moved.


This would be good for Altium to sort out, because there are probably
lots of old design files that would need to be migrated forward
correctly. Many of my old designs don't really need to be migrated
because they are obsolete products, but it would be nice to have them
all forward just for kicks.
I agree. DXP has a problem and P99SE may have a problem. Zero-sized pads only appeared in the V2.8 files once P99SE had fiddled with the file.

But unless the topic is raised on the DXP list I can't imagine it getting noticed here.

Anyone want to run with it? Someone else can decide to be part of the solution.

So Brian, can you confirm that the format was V2.8? If so was this necessary? Could a V3 or V4 format have been used? V2.8, and even V3, risk loosing significant information.

Ian


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