Thanks for the input Ian,
One question....does update the component footprint in schematic work in
DXP?  ie  if I change the footprint in a lib for a resistor from 1206 to
0805 then update the schematic, does Protel still have two entries in the
footprint box?  or the correct one?  This is the most troublesome problem we
have with engineers using an old schematic as a reference then updating the
schematic from the libraries.   Has this little problem been addressed in
DXP?

Thanks for the inputs....maybe we will take a second look at it now.

Mike Reagan
EDSI

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Protel EDA Forum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] 10 best options I want


> On 10:58 AM 1/12/2002 -0500, Mike Reagan said:
> >Hello All,
> >
> >Several months ago, We have all took our shots at blasting Altium for DXP
.
> >I would like to hear some positive feedback on the progress on DXP
> >schematic.
> >  I am not sure how good the schematic tools are,  or if there was a big
> >improvement from 99SE to DXP.     I would like to hear from some of the
> >experienced designers out there about any  real advantages to switching
to
> >DXP for schematic.  I work with a few engineers that are eager to upgrade
if
> >the tools  have an advantage.    Any inputs?  (positive only)
>
> Here is my summary, very incomplete, very personal and in no particular
order:
>
> General:
> 1) Bi-Di blowing and sucking from P99SE seems OK (with some provisos on
the
> use of names for parameters etc, and some new rules can't convert of
course)
>
> 2) Speed on my old PIII-450 256MB is marginally acceptable (I did not
> really expect this). There is a significant speed hit compared to P99SE,
> though.
>
> (Note: It only currently works under Win2k and XP, not NT or 9x.)
>
> 3) Integrated libraries offer a better level of control in some
> circumstances - library contains sch symbols, footprints, sim models etc.
>
> 4) Stability generally seems good to me.  I have had a number of AV's but
> only once lost any data, and that was doing a non-core operation (copying
> and pasting from a sim chart into a word processor - I am not sure what
> others would say about stability but I do not see a lot of complaints on
> the DXP forum.
>
> Sch and Sim:
> 1) The new query engine is great.  It is more complex and possibly does
> help if you have some experience with software development and
> booleans.  It is much more powerful than the old global operations stuff.
> The applies to Sch and PCB.
>
> 2) The ability to use version control properly is a big plus.
>
> 3) Right-click and drag panning in Sch.
>
> 4) Freely addable parameters at both the library and Sch level.  (Pins and
> projects can also have parameters.)
>
> 5) Better control of footprint source.
>
> 6) *Much* better ERC - including the important ability to check for
> unplaced parts of a component (power supply sections, preventing floating
> inputs...)
>
> 7) The initial problems with the loss of selected vs focussed are now
> watered down by provision of a number of tricks, and the provision of a
> selection memory, such that this is no longer an issue for me - this was
> one of my *major* reasons that I could not go with DXP seriously.  I am
not
> sure the new system is as good as the old, but it is certainly no longer a
> critical issue at all, for me at least.
>
> 8) Database linking is much improved I believe (including to Access and
> SQL-based including MySQL etc).
>
> 9) <comment on feature removed due to current SP2 Beta>(I forgot the
> feature I wrote about here originally was affected by the latest SP
> Beta.  Take it as read that this is a very nice and powerful feature that
> extends greatly P99SE abilities. Couldn't be bothered re-ordering all the
> list numbers.)
>
> 10) Sch Part field can be locked to reduce the chance of accidental
changes
> - useful for those that work with a "one-symbol per company part number" -
> a 4k7 resistor will not have its value entered instead of replacing the
> part from the library.
>
> 11) Filtering and masking features - stuff can be masked off (greyed out)
> and then not subject to edits. You would have to see it to understand
> it.  Linked to the query system.
>
> 12) Dropping a two pin component onto a wire will (optionally) break the
wire.
>
> 13) Co-linear wire segments are (optionally) joined - so removing stray
> autojunction hotspots.
>
> 14) Much better dual monitor support.
>
> 15) Support for multi-channel designs, including some user suggested
> options for naming components in the channels.
>
> 16) Better support for build variants - though I have not tested this in
an
> serious fashion.  Design variants is something we do heaps of.
>
> 17) *Much* better simulation viewing.
>
> 18) Easier mechanism to integrate sim (and other) models into a
> component.  Though there are still some quirks here, nothing like as
> convoluted as P99SE though.
>
> 19) Having our user suggestions (if presented well with a clear
> justification) implemented a few weeks later - get involved and your
worthy
> ideas get implemented.  It is great to see in a program that many will not
> easily be able to change from - the pain level in changing a CAE pkg is
> high.  I take the view that it is much cheaper for me to get involved and
> see my ideas appear than it is to move CAE vendors - at least up to some
> bug/misfeature level anyway.
>
> 20) Control over hidden pin connectivity on a per pin basis.
>
>
>
> PCB
> 1) Much more powerful rule system.
>
> 2) Board shape stuff is OK.  If it helps split plane checking, then I can
> live with it.  It may even prove to be a winner.  It certainly means that
> you can have mechanical details and sheet templates etc and still get
> reasonable reports from board info.
>
> 3) Auto-pan issues fixed - hopefully forever but I certainly can't tell
for
> sure on my old clunker.
>
> 4) Intelligent (?) dimensions that can stay associated (and rescale) with
> entities.
>
> 5) A much wider array of dimensioning tools (radius, angle, baseline etc).
>
> 6) Net ties - should be able to do away with most of those kludges like
> wiring on unused layers and the "Lomax Vitual Short"
>
> 7) Flipping selections works correctly - no need for multiple pass
> operations as required under P99SE.
>
> 8) Much better rules for checking component (and object in general)
> locations (InRegionAbsolute, InRegionRelative, TouchesRoom, WithinRoom
> queries).
>
> 9) Polygon rooms.
>
> 10) Ability to copy room formats (multi-channel design)
>
> Dislikes:
> 1) The autorouter still needs more work, it is not yet the breakthrough
> many had hoped.  There is lots of work going on on this at the moment I
> gather.  This would be my biggest disappointment.
>
> 2) The UI is different and a number of the dialogs are harder to read than
> previously.  They may be useful for new users but one rapidly looses this
> benefit as you become familiar.  This would not be a go/no-go factor in a
> buy decision but it is an issue that is coming up in discussions at times.
>
> 3) As mentioned the loss of selected vs focussed was originally a *major*
> factor.  Huge leaps and bounds have been made to overcome the loss of
> functionality.  This would only be a minor issue for me now as I can
> certainly work effectively with the updated editing mechanisms and tools.
>
> 4) Forced upgrade to Win2k/WinXP.  I was already using Win2k so it is not
a
> big issue for me, but I hate to see programs encouraging users to pay MS
> more money.
>
> 5) Slower than P99SE - but what is surprising about this.  My main beef
> here would be that some (much?) of the speed loss is possibly due to eye
> candy rather than features.  Still, as has been discussed before, for most
> engineers a 1 to 3 year lifetime for a computer system is not atypical.  I
> just hate it when caught by the out-of-sync upgrade cycles (like I am
now).
>
> 6) There are still bugs, of course.  There are also some improvements that
> users are wishing that have not (yet?) been implemented.  But I, and
> others, are very impressed with the speed of progress and as I said it is
> great to be able to influence the product.  Those that are not involved
> will have to stay with P99SE, move to something else, or "suffer" what
> about a dozen other users convince Altium is worthwhile.
>
>
>
> Question: Would I use DXP for real work?  Yes, I would.
>
> Gotta do some real work now,
> Ian Wilson
>
>

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