Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not
DXP,
there is a separate list for DXP issues, see
http://forums.altium.com/cgi-bin/msgbylist.asp?list=dxp

To answer your question, its the same as in 99se, you create a
component-component clearance rule
that uses the same component type for each side of the rule.

I use this exact method for a mechanical part that sits over some LEDs.

e.g.
Create a rule in Placement: Component Clearance: New Rule
HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') vs HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') you need to
specify "Full Check"
and a large negative clearance, e.g. -999mm

Make sure that the rule priority puts this rule above the global clearance
rule, Press the Priorities
button to check.

Also, make sure that one of the electrical clearance rules does not also
fail, though you should be
able to tell the difference of a component clearance fail and a net fail by
the colours on the screen.

Jason.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Gwyn Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 July 2003 09:21
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Aled Williams
Subject: [PEDA] adjacent component placement DXP


Hi all,

Need to place a number of terminal blocks in a row, with the body of 
each touching that of its neighbour, on a PCB being laid out in Protel DXP.

Despite setting the electrical placement and component clearance DRCs 
for these particular components to 0mm, Protel still flags this a 
violation when they are placed next to each other.  .  

Anyone come across this problem/know of a workaround?

Many thanks
Gwyn Roberts
Univ of Wales, Bangor




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to