At 09:29 AM 1/8/2004, you wrote:
Sure, there are a few ways to do this. You have to make a rule for the
plane connect style, then use the query helper to specify the via.

It is this which is not easy to do. I don't see a way to "use the query helper to specify the via." Quite possibly, I'm overlooking something obvious. But I have looked numerous times....


 Specifying the via is where the different ways to do this come in. I would
specify the NET or NETCLASS and IsVia, and InRegionrelative, or
inRegionAbsolute depending on where I had the origin for the board (look
in the archives for the difference), but you could also make a room for
that area and then use TouchesRoom. There is also a function to select if
it is within the space of a component, but I can't remember the name of it
and don't have time to look.

These are all more complex than simply setting a rule for all vias to be direct-connect. But it is exactly this which we can't seem to find. I can set up a query with Build Query, but I don't see how to point the Connection Style rule to the query. Nor do I find this in documentation anywhere, which doesn't prove it is absent!


So yes it is very easy to do unlike P99SE where about the only easy way to
do it was to convert the via to a free pad then make a rule to specify
that pad.

This is incorrect. First of all, net scope and region scope are easily selected as options in 99SE. Secondly, if you need some vias to be direct-connect and some not (as was originally requested, though I can't see why), it is a matter of seconds to convert any or all vias to free pads, and the basic difference between a via and a free pad is that the latter has a name so you can specify it, which is *much* easier than creating a room, making a different size via, setting a Region scope or the other alternatives. But simply making all vias direct-connect is very quick in 99SE.


Perhaps we should write on a blackboard "Free Pads with Holes and a Name are Named Vias." In other words, if you want to specify a via, one or some but not all, change the ones you want to specify to free pads and name them, trivial in 99SE (with global edits and the Convert tool) and far less than obvious in DXP.

In a previous post, I noted that a design rule did not survive import into DXP. It is possible that it did not survive import because there were no instances of the covered primitive, and though that would still be a file conversion bug (rules should be imported even if they do not apply to any specific object), it would not necessarily result in a design error unless one assumed the rule was there and added the ostensibly covered primitives). But this has not been verified.

(The rule was converted but the Via Specification scope was not, the scope had reverted to All.)





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