At 02:32 PM 1/17/2003, Robert M. Wolfe wrote:
I believe there was a thread on this subject which
also had split neg. planes within its thread. I never
really ended up with an answer.
So dealing with polygons and not split planes,
what is the proper way to handle plane within plane.
I do remember something about not overlapping, but
thought that the discussion was slpit planes???
Protel 99SE does not support nested planes, not directly.

Be careful about terminology, split planes and polygon (pours) are not the same animal.

My real question is if I have one or more smaller ploygon
planes within a large plane that covers almost the whole board, do I
need to delete the large plane first then edit the small planes vertices,
then redraw the large polygon plane???
As to polygon pours, you can move the large plane to a mech layer (be sure to turn of "remove dead copper" first or would will get one of the famous invisible polygons. Then pour the smaller enclosed planes. Then return the larger plane to your copper layer and pour it. It will not pour over the enclosed planes, assuming that they are not the same net....

I am getting some errors on system level,
if you try to touch the big plane to let it rebiuld it spits
out an exception error, however if I do delete big plane first, then fix small planes, then
redo big plane, all seems well. I do however created a mechanical
layer outline of the planes so it is easy to reproduce the large plane.
Weird thing about this though is that on a much slower machine
there is no problem at all.
Two distinct problems here. (1) bug., (2) how to deal with enclosed polygon planes. You don't need to draw a separate mech outline. Instead, move the polygon to a mech layer as described above, repour, then back and repour.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to