The "Great and Powerful OZ" has spoken.

Steve Smith
Product Engineer
Staco Energy Products Co.
Web Site:

-----Original Message-----
From: Forum Administrator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:49 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP

For the record, this forum is dedicated to discussion of ALL versions of 
Protel software as well as EDA design issues and EDA software from other 

As for drawing the attention of Altium's engineers, this forum enjoys a 
large following by members at Protel/Altium. The membership of this forum 
currently includes 21 subscribers and those span employees 
from the highest corporate level down through engineering and support.

If you are looking for a direct reply from Protel, their own DXP forum is 
probably the best place but you might find it advantageous to post to both 
forums as some already do.


Forum Administrator
Association of Protel EDA Users [EMAIL PROTECTED]

At 08:15 AM 7/9/2003, you wrote:
>Seems somebody got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning....
>After reading my post again, in-case I did make a mistake (it has been 
>known on several occasions) I stand by my response, it was correct in 
>every way and written by an experienced,
>user long term member of both lists.
>I was in no way rude or abusive to the original author, nor did I cast 
>aspersions on the validity of PEDA, indeed, they are providing better 
>support for Protel 99se and below
>in a way Protel, pre-Altium never managed (my experience in the UK anyway).
>I just pointed out you may get a response from people who know more 
>about DXP on a list maintained for DXP users.  Posting on the official 
>DXP list will also draw potential
>problems to the attention of Altium's engineers who own and monitor the DXP
>We all know that DXP is (on the surface at least) very different to 
>99se, and these questions on "how do I....." come up all the time.  It 
>is very important that Altium are aware of
>such discussions so that they can put effort into improving the
>I think other, (less aggressive) long term users of both lists will 
>-----Original Message-----
>Sent: 09 July 2003 13:57
>Subject: Protel EDA Forum... was RE: [PEDA] adjacent component 
>placement D XP
>Mr Morgan,
>Since when is this the "Protel 99SE" list?
>For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly 
>and explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every list 
>message, and kindly maintained by Techserv, Inc for the quasi-public 
>dissemination of issues related to any and all versions of Protel EDA 
>software, including, but not limited to P99SE...AND DXP.
>I think I speak for a portion of this list (though clearly not all) 
>when I say that I would appreciate it if you would attempt to remember 
>this before spouting off erroneous garbage like the bull sheisa you 
>post below. In any case, I speak for myself.
>Finally, I want to be clear to Dr Roberts that this is not the 
>exclusive territory of P99SE users, and Dr Roberts is welcome to post 
>queries or otherwise participate in this forum as she likes.
>As Jason indicated, there is another forum, sponsored by Altium, which 
>is dedicated to DXP, but I feel the need to attempt to un-obfuscate the 
>distinction between these forums. Altium's is one which is a 
>quarantined, corporate sponsored list, with all of the implications 
>that go with that status. Techserv's is an open user's forum for ANY 
>and ALL Protel EDA products, regardless of any ignornat comments made 
>by it's novice or jaded participants.
>thank you,
>Andrew Jenkins
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:46 AM
> > To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > 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
> > 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:
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to