I have never seen the behaviour you describe with autojunction.

I always have it turned on, never a problem.

Only issues I can remember seeing in the list was a large thread on the
issue of 4 point connections (bad practice anyway). 

This was not directly related to having a 4 point connection, but the
issue was raised where the actual correct behaviour of the autojucntion
feature caused a connectivity issue (but a short, not an open as in your
case) where a wire has been drawn so far then stopped, then an
additional wire had been added from its endpoint to its destination.
Technically there is a junction there at the end nodes of where the 2
wires meet, but no need to see it, so Protel keeps it hidden, just like
the connection from your wire or power port to the pull-up. But another
wire placed across that node at 90 deg WILL create an autojunction
(short). So a very rare case for having autojunction disabled, but only
to enable the use of a bad practice anyway.

In any event the ERC has always flagged this as an error, if the nets
have been named, or the pin types are incompatible, but if all the pins
were drawn passive, and no nets named, then it's a problem..

But with what you describe below I do not think that your SCH is the
issue as you have seen the generated netlist for yourself and it was
correct. Perhaps an import to PCB or synchroniser issue in this case
where your PCB netlist was not updated correctly is more likely, hence
the reason you cannot reproduce it while working on the SCH area alone.

Did you run a batch DRC after completing the board?

Just some ideas, I would not lose faith in Protel over this one

Best Regards

John A. Ross

RSD Communications Ltd
8 BorrowMeadow Road
Springkerse Industrial Estate
Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW

Tel     +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office)
Tel     +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab)
Fax     +44 [0]1786 474653
GSM     +44 [0]7831 373727



-----Original Message-----
From: John Branthoover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:10 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: [PEDA] Unacceptable Bug in Protel 99 SE SP6..!

Hello All,
        I have a schematic of a board that I just had fabricated.  When
I drew the schematic,  I did so with the  Auto-Junction  feature turned
off.  I always draw schematics like this because of problems that I have
had in the past with the  Auto-Junction  feature placing junctions where
I don t want them. During testing of the new board,  my boss brought me
the schematics asking why I failed to attach one end of a pull-up
resistor to the +5 volt supply. I had simply forgot to place a junction
at the point where the wires intersected.  My mistake.

        In looking at the board,  the connection was made.  I ran a
netlist.  It showed that the connection was made.  How can this be?  I
added the junction,  created another netlist.  The netlist showed that
the connection was still made,  as expected.  I then deleted the dot,
created another netlist.  The connection was still there.  The only way
that I could remove the connection was to delete the wires and redraw
them.  After that the schematic started to behave as expected.  No
junction,  no connection.  I also tried the procedure on other junctions
on the same schematic page.  I could not reproduce the error.

        I have no idea how this error (bug) originally happened.  It has
made me loose all faith in Protel s schematic capture side.  Has anyone
else seen this behavior?  How can I deal with this problem without
checking the entire netlist before I bring it over to the PCB?

        Looks like it is time to start looking for a new PCB design
software. Beware and good luck.

John Branthoover            :
Electrical Design Engineer  :
Acutronic  R & D            :Phone  (412) 968-1051
640 Alpha Drive             :Fax    (412) 963-0816
Pittsburgh PA 15238         :Email  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
USA                         :WEB

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