Jeff 
I really dont have time to give you a full answer.   Most of the requirements you list 
below can be met with SPECCTRA.   Teardropping can be met in Protel or you can use 
your fabricator.   I recommend against it, especially if you ever require rework.
Any angle routing is good for Die bonds other than that I dont see too much need for 
it, even though I have used it occaionally (manually in Protel),   I really dont place 
any faith in the Situs router so it really can not be compared to either Electra or 
Spectra. 

DXP.2004 supports classes in the DSN, both ELECTRA and Spectra suppport net classes,  
DXP.2004 is a very good match for ELECTRA because the DSN support is improved.  

I use some tricks again to fool the router into thinking about necking down,  but it 
requires a lot of clean up.

Play with your design rules, open a DSN file with wordpad and you can see what gets 
exported and what will work.  IF its in the rules, it will work

Mike







---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Fri, 21 May 2004 17:05:12 PST8PDT

>Mike,
>
>Would you happen to knwo any of the following?
>
>Between Situs, Electra, and Spectra, which honor:
>1) internal board cutouts?
>2) limited neckdown between pads and/or vias?
>3) width and clearance attributes by net?
>4) width and clearance attributes by net class?
>5) teardrops or snowmen?
>6) 0/60/120 degree instead of 0/90 degree routing bias?
>7) via style attributes by net or net class?
>8) length matching?
>9) parallel pairs or triples?
>10) rounded corners?
>
>Jeff Condit
>
>> Tony
>> 
>> That is what keepouts are for....The router will obey them.  I use via
>> keepouts, I also train and channel routing with keepouts.   it takes a few
>> tricks,
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tony Karavidas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 1:25 PM
>> To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
>> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Router comparison
>> 
>> 
>> Just because you WW in neat bundles doesn't mean you have to ignore signal
>> groups.
>> 
>> Anyway, I'm not wire wrapping boards. I'm making PCBs and I almost always
>> have mixed analog/digital on the same board.  I prefer to keep the digital
>> grunge out of my analog area. Sure, the auto router might like to find a
>> path for a data pin right next to an op-amp input, but *I* don't want it
>> there. I want to keep the data bus in a tight area, I'm not worried about
>> crosstalk from data pin to data pin because the lines are settled by the
>> time a chip select comes along.
>> 
>> Tony
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Reagan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 7:52 AM
>> To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
>> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Router comparison
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I remember years ago an engineer getting mad at me because I wire-wrapped
>> his circuit trying to make it look nice and neat with all the wires bundled
>> together in "streets & avenues". He said it was a big cross talk problem. He
>> wanted point-to-point with just a little slack in the wire length.
>> 
>> Looks like some things never change.
>> 
>> Tom
>> Absolutely,  I learned this from my WW days also.  If you  wanted the WW
>> card to work with the least amount of noise,  you never ran neat bundles
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>This message was sent using Sunset Net Webmail.
>http://www.sunset.net/
>
>
>
>


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