Good comments and pretty much the workaround I've decided I'm forced to accept.  I 
really find it hugely stupid that the two processes are disconnected and that such a 
problem would be allowed to exist.  It leads me to distrust other output processes.  
There is even a selection in the print configuration where you can select to sort 
holes in the chart by size or by quantity.  As far as I can tell that doesn't work at 
all.

I did many boards with 99SE and several other packages and this problem didn't occur.  
It seems to be only in DXP. I may bag DXP and fall back to 99SE until the product is 
more mature.

-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:37 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Difference between Gerber file drill symbols and
fabrication output print file drill symbols and inability to print
either character or hole size drill indicators


At 08:00 PM 1/7/2004, you wrote:
>In Protel DXP, SP2 - After generating gerber files I select fabrication 
>outputs - final to generate printed facsimiles of the gerber files.  THE 
>DRILL SYMBOLS IN THE PRINT PREVIEW ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE GERBER FILES!!!

Irritating, I'm sure.

>   The same symbols are used, but they are assigned to different 
> holes!  This is completely unacceptable.  I thought maybe I could switch 
> to characters as drill size indicators - this works fine for the gerber 
> files, but when selecting fabrication outputs - final, it comes back with 
> the same old symbols.

I'd suggest, frankly, that you abandon symbols, and possibly also 
characters (i.e., letter codes). It is far, far easier to read a 
fabrication drawing -- for checking purposes -- if the hole sizes are 
actually printed instead of some code that requires you look at a chart. 
Letters are easier than symbols, and the actual size is even easier.

Originally, symbols were used because they were designed to be 
bombsightable. I.e., the photoplots were digitized to create a drill file. 
That isn't done any more. The fabrication drawing, as far as the holes are 
concerned, has become merely a reference. So why not make it easy?

(If holes are very close together, you may want to make the character size 
for the numbers very small, though there is little harm of they sometimes 
overlap, you should still be able to read them.)

>   This means the only way to be assured I'm getting correspondance is to 
> dxf out from Camtastic.  This means I cannot print to Acrobat Distiller 
> like I want to.  Anybody had a similar problem?? and does anybody know of 
> a way around it??

Consider the gerber files to be the true output, not some reference prints 
made from Protel. Then print the gerber files. You can do it with 
CAMtastic, or you can do it from Protel by importing the gerbers back into 
a file and printing that. I don't know if or why you can't print to 
Distiller from CAMtastic, but I assume you can from Protel. (I print to PDF 
Writer....)

Problems with assigning drill symbols have been around for quite some time. 
Protel does not allow control over this (unlike some cad systems which make 
the symbol part of the padstack) -- unless you want to dedicate a mech 
layer and incorporate drill symbols in your footprints -- and I do recall 
encountering some inconsistencies in the past. Assignment of symbols is, 
obviously, arbitrary, but one would think that they would be assigned 
according to the same procedure in photoplot generation and in printing, 
but it appears that they may not be. Each of the drawings would be correct, 
however, considered by itself, so I'm not sure why it is so important!






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