[PEDA] Old patch files
[PEDA] Possible enhancement for polygon display!
I was thinking, I was thinking of a possible means of accelerating design work with multiple polygons all over the place. During design, as an option, what if Protel just generated quick & dirty raster type polygon planes with regard to the area where you are working on the PCB? Moving traces & components would relocate everything in a snap. When you do a final DRC, or prepare to print, or make the Gerbers, Protel then would generate the final polygon planes. Brian Guralnick * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Polygon problems!
On 04:34 PM 9/11/2001 +, Coleman, Tim said: >Hi folks > >I have a problem with polygons! I can't select the propertise to change >them. I can't adjust the vertices, I can't delet them, I can't move them. >It's as though they weren't there. I can see them but I can't touch them! >I've never had this problem before. What do I have to do to regain control >of my design? Any clues? > >TC As the others have said, it is possible that the outline for the polygon can be separated from the tracks that make up the polygon. This can happen when you don't lock the polygon tracks and then do selections and moves. I have a feeling I have looked at someone else's file and found a problem the associations between a polygon and the tracks that make up that poly. I worked through this issue using the ASCII format. But I can't recall all the detail, was that a file you sent Brad V? Or was that some other issue? Can you recall the details? To gain control you can use the re-pour all polygons server that Jason Morgan wrote. It is available on the Protel User yahoo goups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/protel-users/files/CitelTools%28RePourAllPolys %29.zip I think you will need to be a member of yahoo to get it. This server will re-pour all the polys on the design. You can also do this by turning all layer on and then SA (Select All) and then do a dummy move (M-S) and click a reference point and then click back to the same location. You should be prompted to re-pour x polygons. Ian Wilson * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Pricing
On 04:29 PM 9/11/2001 -0500, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said: <..PCAD stuff snipped..> >Now, to ATS for Protel. Today, you can buy from Accel Technologies (the >U.S. Protel rep, we've gone full circle) the upgrade from Protel 98 to >Protel 99SE for $1995. Essentially, a Protel 98 user can buy ATS for that >price, and since ATS includes automatic upgrades, *the next version will >be included.* > >This is, if anything, a price *reduction.* Since July 1, the Protel 98 to >Protel 99SE upgrade has been that same price, it was $1495 before that. >Now, since October 1, it includes ATS for a year! > >Protel has not announced ATS or upgrade pricing for current Protel 99SE >users. But if it was more than about $995, Protel would be *penalizing* >users for upgrading to 99SE sooner than October 1. I don't think they are >going to do that. From previous indications and history, I'm going to >guess that upgrade from Protel 99SE to the next release is going to be >about $995 and it will include one year of ATS. The ongoing ATS price, I >was told, has not really been established, or if it has, it has not been >announced to sales. I too have spoken to people in Altium on ATS (in fact they rang me in response to a long, hopefully carefully crafted email, direct email that I had sent). My understanding is that the information in the press release is correct. I repeat: "Altium Total Support is annually renewable and is priced at US$1995. for P-CAD and Protel full suites. Prices of other product configurations are available on request." This press release information is consistent with my discussions with Altium. So we seem to have conflicting advice. There is no mention in the press release that the price information is related to upgrade pricing for P98. My *guess* is that the currently targeted upgrade price, for existing P99SE license holders is the ATS price. This price, annually, is, it seems to me roughly doubling our current effective maintenance costs for maintaining a Protel license at the latest and greatest. I did look to see if there had been an announcement on the ASX (Austr. Stock Exch) about ATS as there are strict rules for such announcements, and the need for accuracy. Unfortunately, I could not find anything about ATS. Nor is there any mention of ATS in the financial report (at least the searching for ATS in the pdf finds). So we seem to be in FUD mode at the moment. It would seem sensible that Protel CSC should provide public detailed clarification to our questions and possible incorrect statements. Ian Wilson * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Pricing
At 05:39 PM 11/9/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >and to add another question to the confusion > >What happens if you have two Protel Licenses and buy 1 ATS? > >It might be affordable then. It might be illegal then Sure, you'd get the CD for the upgrade, but if you really want to save some money, just get a friend to give you a copy. Illegal, but why not go two-for-one? You can upgrade/maintain only one license, I am sure, but you would have only one license for the new version, not two. It is looking like it *will* be affordable, my guess right now is that the upgrade from 99SE to the next version is going to be about what the upgrade was from 98 to 99, not much more. Problem is, this is a guess, time will tell how educated it is. I have no special inside information. Because of my situation supporting second-hand license sales, I am going to be asking for some hints from my contacts in Altium. At that time I might know something I won't be able to announce, we'll see how far I get. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax Easthampton, Massachusetts USA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Pricing
Rob, try my quandry, 5 licenses and a bunch of rogue engineers who care not about licenses, support or anything else as long as they can get a design out the door. If they can't get the design out the door then they all want to instantly buy some other program that minute. Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. #300 - 4401 Still Creek Drive, Burnaby, B.C., Canada, V5C 6G9. Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 Website: www.norsat.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:39 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Pricing and to add another question to the confusion What happens if you have two Protel Licenses and buy 1 ATS? It might be affordable then. Rob * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Pricing
and to add another question to the confusion What happens if you have two Protel Licenses and buy 1 ATS? It might be affordable then. Rob * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Pricing
At 04:36 PM 11/9/01 -0500, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: >What a huge mass of confusion this ATS nonsense has caused. Yes, the announcement was *very* badly done. The Press Release was directly contradicted by USA Protel sales. I'd suggest that Altium *communicate* -- this means back and forth -- with the users about plans *before* making a full public announcements. There would be no harm in making an announcement here on this list a couple of days before it goes out to everyone and his brother. Altium could say, "we are thinking of doing this" -- i.e., they have decided to do it but before it is 100% final they want to see what we think -- and then any misgivings or questions that we have could be *answered*, not only here, but then in the press release and major announcement. We *express* our displeasure, most users won't. They will just have one more reason to go somewhere else for CAD software. Too much of that, it could really hurt. It *has* hurt. There is *still* chaos, the resale market for 99SE is in confusion; if someone buys a second-hand SE license now, will they have to pay another $2000 to get the next version? We had been thinking it would be about $1000. So suddenly, from the announcement, the resale price -- which Altium sales has been trying to increase, at least by asking me -- informally -- to work to that end -- drops $1000, from about $6000 to $5000. We had all this discussion here, and not a peep from any Protel rep. Sure, we are used to relative silence from them, but generally when we go too far off into the ozone, Protel CSC has popped in with corrections. This time, nothing. Sometimes I wonder if the Altium sales people are professionals They seem intelligent enough when I talk to them. But something is wacky about the situation. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax Easthampton, Massachusetts USA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Pricing
What a huge mass of confusion this ATS nonsense has caused. I now know nothing about the future of Protel or its products, whereas before all this I *thought* I knew there was a PCB software provider that provided free services packs and tech support, and I could choose whether or not and when to upgrade. There is no understanding where there was understanding before. We have gone from light into darkness. The FUD is engulfing me... Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Pricing > At 02:48 PM 11/9/01 -0500, Sean James wrote: > >Well everybody, Accel/PCAD did the same exact thing by changing their > >pricing. Who owns Accel/PCAD and Protel? > > Yes, Altium, nee Protel, owns both. BUT the Accel pricing boost was while > Accel Technologies was independent. It was my impression that Protel > wrapped up the whole bundle of PCAD products, which used to sell for about > $20K, and reduced the price to $9995. Bit I had not seen PCAD pricing recently. > > So I called 'em up. First I talked to Protel sales, and I found out some > *very* interesting information. It seems we may have been reading the > announcement incorrectly. I should have called sooner. More about that below. > > Then I asked about PCAD pricing. Yes, PCAD 2001 is still $9995. The > original separate prices of all the units now included was $27K not > including simulation. Protel tossed in CAMtastic and the simulation package > that used to sell for another $10K. So Accel under Protel/Altium ownership > has drastically reduced prices. They also got rid of the dongle. I'm sure > PCAD users were heartbroken over that :-) > > Now, to ATS for Protel. Today, you can buy from Accel Technologies (the > U.S. Protel rep, we've gone full circle) the upgrade from Protel 98 to > Protel 99SE for $1995. Essentially, a Protel 98 user can buy ATS for that > price, and since ATS includes automatic upgrades, *the next version will be > included.* > > This is, if anything, a price *reduction.* Since July 1, the Protel 98 to > Protel 99SE upgrade has been that same price, it was $1495 before that. > Now, since October 1, it includes ATS for a year! > > Protel has not announced ATS or upgrade pricing for current Protel 99SE > users. But if it was more than about $995, Protel would be *penalizing* > users for upgrading to 99SE sooner than October 1. I don't think they are > going to do that. From previous indications and history, I'm going to guess > that upgrade from Protel 99SE to the next release is going to be about $995 > and it will include one year of ATS. The ongoing ATS price, I was told, has > not really been established, or if it has, it has not been announced to sales. > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Abdulrahman Lomax > Easthampton, Massachusetts USA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] keepoutlayer and planes ??
My experience with planes-to-the-edge has been this... to date, no one has ever sent me a board that has both power and ground all the way out to the edge whether I pulled the planes back in the gerbers or not. It appears to be pretty much SOP. However, I have received almost all the boards that have multiple ground planes only- no power plane at all- that came back with the planes out to the edge. I actually wanted them that way, but I didn't specify other than not pulling the planes back on the gerbers. I never really thought about it too much, but that is quite a decision on the board house's part. Luckily for me, they seem to be able to determine which designs are RF and which are Digital and such. One pet peeve of mine- I've had it happen twice on high-current designs- a board house adding thermal reliefs to all the through-hole components. A near disaster. Needless to say, we don't use those houses any more. Funny thing is, they acted very baffled as to why we would be angry about that. As for plating edges, I have had this done several times. I don't believe it's all that uncommon. In a case with RF components near an edge, and the board mounting surface being a chunk of aluminum that follows the perimeter underneath the board, the RF can flow right off the edge of the board and down to the aluminum case "ground plane" with very little inductance. This is especially effective with thicker boards, where proper GND via diameters can get pretty large. I have seen a few cases where edge plating seemed to really make a difference. A well placed set of stitching holes appears to be almost equally effective though in the majority of situations, and I generally get by with that. Funny you should mention this right now, I was kicking around the idea of plating an edge of our new receiver board and see if it accidentally had any effect. -Frank At 03:21 PM 11/9/2001 -0500, Abdulrahman Lomax wrote: At 09:44 AM 11/9/01 -0700, Bob Fearon wrote: Abdul-Rahman Yes I have seen an inner plane layer come all the way out to an edge. The design was supposed to be "better for RF", but made no difference in board performance. The two outside layers were plated aound the edge and shorted ( on purpose ) to the inner layer. This was a nightmare to build and cost "extra". The same performance was achieved by placing a row of vias 100 mils from the edge on a "regular" board, at a much lower cost. This is not an example of what I asked for. Instead, this was a board deliberately fabricated without edge clearance. Yes, it was not a great idea from the start, as anyone who knows HF design would have anticipated, unless -- maybe -- one was trying to squeeze the last percent out of noise emissions *and* board space was very limited. I could see doing this with very small PCBs, where the via ring would take up an appreciable percentage of the board space. It should not have been much more expensive. In fact, as I recall, depending on the process, panel edges plate if you don't do something to prevent it! (The same electroless copper used to plate the inside of holes also plates the panel edge, I'd think, I don't remember actually seeing this; however, that edge is normally routed away when all the processing is done, leaving the unplated edges that we normally see. So to accomplish this relatively inexpensively, one would route the boards as one routes a breakaway board *before* going to the electroless copper; this would leave some unplated tabs but one might hide the unplated tabs behind mounting holes) Edge effect with regard to radiated noise is a controversial subject, but actually plating the board edge I have never before seen suggested. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax Easthampton, Massachusetts USA Frank Gilley Dell-Star Technologies (918) 838-1973 Phone (918) 838-8814 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dellstar.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Chip & Wire
Re: [PEDA] Pricing
At 02:48 PM 11/9/01 -0500, Sean James wrote: >Well everybody, Accel/PCAD did the same exact thing by changing their >pricing. Who owns Accel/PCAD and Protel? Yes, Altium, nee Protel, owns both. BUT the Accel pricing boost was while Accel Technologies was independent. It was my impression that Protel wrapped up the whole bundle of PCAD products, which used to sell for about $20K, and reduced the price to $9995. Bit I had not seen PCAD pricing recently. So I called 'em up. First I talked to Protel sales, and I found out some *very* interesting information. It seems we may have been reading the announcement incorrectly. I should have called sooner. More about that below. Then I asked about PCAD pricing. Yes, PCAD 2001 is still $9995. The original separate prices of all the units now included was $27K not including simulation. Protel tossed in CAMtastic and the simulation package that used to sell for another $10K. So Accel under Protel/Altium ownership has drastically reduced prices. They also got rid of the dongle. I'm sure PCAD users were heartbroken over that :-) Now, to ATS for Protel. Today, you can buy from Accel Technologies (the U.S. Protel rep, we've gone full circle) the upgrade from Protel 98 to Protel 99SE for $1995. Essentially, a Protel 98 user can buy ATS for that price, and since ATS includes automatic upgrades, *the next version will be included.* This is, if anything, a price *reduction.* Since July 1, the Protel 98 to Protel 99SE upgrade has been that same price, it was $1495 before that. Now, since October 1, it includes ATS for a year! Protel has not announced ATS or upgrade pricing for current Protel 99SE users. But if it was more than about $995, Protel would be *penalizing* users for upgrading to 99SE sooner than October 1. I don't think they are going to do that. From previous indications and history, I'm going to guess that upgrade from Protel 99SE to the next release is going to be about $995 and it will include one year of ATS. The ongoing ATS price, I was told, has not really been established, or if it has, it has not been announced to sales. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax Easthampton, Massachusetts USA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] keepoutlayer and planes ??
My 2 cents worth, since we do this regularily. The edge plating will make a significant difference in board emmisions with GHz frequency signals depending on the board material used. It gets worse the higher your frequencies go. The problem is that the board material is a dielectric and thus will conduct high freq. signals between the copper of the other outer layers. It is essentially a waveguide. The vias will block some of the signal but the higher the frequency the closer you have to space the vias until you are almost hole to hole and your board has no structural strength along the line of vias. The additional cost for the edge plating should be minimal. The only operation or labor is to route the board edges before doing the intitial electoless plating, instead of doing it after the board is processed. There is no additional work or effort unless there is also still unplated routing to do after the board is processed. Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. #300 - 4401 Still Creek Drive, Burnaby, B.C., Canada, V5C 6G9. Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 Website: www.norsat.com -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 12:22 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] keepoutlayer and planes ?? At 09:44 AM 11/9/01 -0700, Bob Fearon wrote: >Abdul-Rahman > Yes I have seen an inner plane layer come all the way out to an edge. > The design was supposed to be "better for RF", but made no difference > in board performance. The two outside layers were plated aound the edge > and shorted ( on purpose ) to the inner layer. This was a nightmare to > build and cost "extra". > The same performance was achieved by placing a row of vias 100 mils > from the edge on a "regular" board, at a much lower cost. This is not an example of what I asked for. Instead, this was a board deliberately fabricated without edge clearance. Yes, it was not a great idea from the start, as anyone who knows HF design would have anticipated, unless -- maybe -- one was trying to squeeze the last percent out of noise emissions *and* board space was very limited. I could see doing this with very small PCBs, where the via ring would take up an appreciable percentage of the board space. It should not have been much more expensive. In fact, as I recall, depending on the process, panel edges plate if you don't do something to prevent it! (The same electroless copper used to plate the inside of holes also plates the panel edge, I'd think, I don't remember actually seeing this; however, that edge is normally routed away when all the processing is done, leaving the unplated edges that we normally see. So to accomplish this relatively inexpensively, one would route the boards as one routes a breakaway board *before* going to the electroless copper; this would leave some unplated tabs but one might hide the unplated tabs behind mounting holes) Edge effect with regard to radiated noise is a controversial subject, but actually plating the board edge I have never before seen suggested. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax Easthampton, Massachusetts USA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] keepoutlayer and planes ??
At 09:44 AM 11/9/01 -0700, Bob Fearon wrote: >Abdul-Rahman > Yes I have seen an inner plane layer come all the way out to an edge. > The design was supposed to be "better for RF", but made no difference > in board performance. The two outside layers were plated aound the edge > and shorted ( on purpose ) to the inner layer. This was a nightmare to > build and cost "extra". > The same performance was achieved by placing a row of vias 100 mils > from the edge on a "regular" board, at a much lower cost. This is not an example of what I asked for. Instead, this was a board deliberately fabricated without edge clearance. Yes, it was not a great idea from the start, as anyone who knows HF design would have anticipated, unless -- maybe -- one was trying to squeeze the last percent out of noise emissions *and* board space was very limited. I could see doing this with very small PCBs, where the via ring would take up an appreciable percentage of the board space. It should not have been much more expensive. In fact, as I recall, depending on the process, panel edges plate if you don't do something to prevent it! (The same electroless copper used to plate the inside of holes also plates the panel edge, I'd think, I don't remember actually seeing this; however, that edge is normally routed away when all the processing is done, leaving the unplated edges that we normally see. So to accomplish this relatively inexpensively, one would route the boards as one routes a breakaway board *before* going to the electroless copper; this would leave some unplated tabs but one might hide the unplated tabs behind mounting holes) Edge effect with regard to radiated noise is a controversial subject, but actually plating the board edge I have never before seen suggested. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax Easthampton, Massachusetts USA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Chip & Wire
Any help or information would be greatly appreciated. My only other option is to by a 3rd party add-on for AutoCAD (I used to do chip & wire in ACAD without any intelligence; not easy and a big PITA). Sean James PCB Designer Telecast Fiber Systems, Inc. 102 Grove Street Worcester, MA 01605 (TEL) 508.754.4858 x33 (FAX) 413.541.6170 - Original Message - From: "Bob Fearon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Chip & Wire > Sean > I have used Protel for "Chip and Wire", but it was Ver 2.8. > If you can use that out date info, contact me off-forum. > Bob Fearon > > > Sean James wrote: > > > Has anybody attempted to do chip & wire (hybrid layouts) with Protel? > > > > Sean James > > PCB Designer > > Telecast Fiber Systems, Inc. > > 102 Grove Street > > Worcester, MA 01605 > > (TEL) 508.754.4858 x33 > > (FAX) 413.541.6170 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] Pricing
Re: [PEDA] Chip & Wire
Sean, I have designed both MCMs and Hybrids with both Protel and PCAD. You can give me a call Monday 301 620 0080 and maybe I can guide you thru. I am not in my office today. Mike Reagan EDSI Frederick Md > -Original Message- > From: Bob Fearon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 12:00 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Chip & Wire > > > Sean > I have used Protel for "Chip and Wire", but it was Ver 2.8. > If you can use that out date info, contact me off-forum. > Bob Fearon > > > Sean James wrote: > > > Has anybody attempted to do chip & wire (hybrid layouts) with Protel? > > > > Sean James > > PCB Designer > > Telecast Fiber Systems, Inc. > > 102 Grove Street > > Worcester, MA 01605 > > (TEL) 508.754.4858 x33 > > (FAX) 413.541.6170 > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] ATS Specifications
Brad isn't the only one to return from vacation to hear this most disappointing news. I'm a little shocked...from what I can tell, we are basically going to have to pay for our technical support and service packs from now on. A whopping $2K a year. Apparantly with penalty if you don't maintain a continuous subscription as well. All this fun starts upon our next upgrade...we get one year of *what we had before* then its payola after that. What are we getting for all this extra money? As far as I can tell, only *what we had before*. What about that giant Protel 99se price increase to boot?? Without some tangible promise of...something... for all this extra money, this looks like clear gouging from our standpoint. I have seen no promise of anything different than what we currently get. I can't believe that Protel isn't offering even token promises of improvement in the area that we are now going to be charged for... now that's arrogance. Protel is throwing away one if its most important market advantages. Especially since free support and service packs go a long way to help smooth over so many of their other problems. I'll bet there are quite a few within the company itself that strongly disagree with this course change, this kind of thing could divide many who work there. Guess vacation is over... Frank At 07:32 AM 11/9/2001 +1100, Ian Wilson wrote: >On 09:00 AM 8/11/2001 -0800, Brad Velander said: >>Hi all, >> seems in reading this message that I may have missed something >>significant while I was away on vacation. I did not receive any email about >>this "ATS", does anybody still have a copy of the email that they can >>forward to me? Was this email posted to the EDA forum or was it sent via >>personal email? >>Sounds like Protel is changing their upgrade and support policies and I >>should be aware of these changes. >> >>Sincerely, >>Brad Velander. > >Personal email. (Copy sent direct) > >But you can get all the guff from the Protel www site. > >By my calculations it appears Protel support cost have about doubled - >assuming the current roughly 2 year upgrade cycle. What's more the support >costs are now the same as PCAD. For Protel this equates to about 25% per >annum. > >What should be remembered though is that there is about a year (from the >next upgrade) before existing P99SE users are affected. But I am yet to >be convinced, and will be lobbying for a *very* significant reduction in >the annual maintenance cost. > >I do not like yearly maintenance as I can't see how it encourages good, >responsive-to-the-market software. But I would probably go along with it >if it reflected roughly the current upgrade cost. > >Ian Wilson Frank Gilley Dell-Star Technologies (918) 838-1973 Phone (918) 838-8814 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dellstar.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Polygon problems!
Tim, Just as a precaution I create my polygons with a trackwidth other than any already used on the board. If they lose their "inteligence" for some reason I can always select the culprits for easy identification/deletion and rebuild. Its a holdover from earlier versions of Protel that I have used. Regards, Jim McGrath CAD Connections, Inc. "Coleman, Tim" wrote: > Hi folks > > I have a problem with polygons! I can't select the propertise to change > them. I can't adjust the vertices, I can't delet them, I can't move them. > It's as though they weren't there. I can see them but I can't touch them! > I've never had this problem before. What do I have to do to regain control > of my design? Any clues? > > TC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Chip & Wire
Sean I have used Protel for "Chip and Wire", but it was Ver 2.8. If you can use that out date info, contact me off-forum. Bob Fearon Sean James wrote: > Has anybody attempted to do chip & wire (hybrid layouts) with Protel? > > Sean James > PCB Designer > Telecast Fiber Systems, Inc. > 102 Grove Street > Worcester, MA 01605 > (TEL) 508.754.4858 x33 > (FAX) 413.541.6170 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Polygon problems!
Tim, I have experienced similar difficulties from time to time, typically I can click around a little bit and finally get the vertices to highlight using the Move Polygon vertices command. Remember that the vertices may actually be in an area where there is no polygon pour because it was removed as dead copper. I have always found that trying to select the vertices only works when you are quite close to the actual outline location, not just inside the polygon. Other issues which have plagued people before, did you move the polygons in a group selection or from one layer to another? Sometimes people have moved the polygon fill tracks without actually moving the polygon outline. The polygon outline does not then reside where one expects it to reside. Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. #300 - 4401 Still Creek Drive, Burnaby, B.C., Canada, V5C 6G9. Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 Website: www.norsat.com -Original Message- From: Coleman, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:34 AM To: Protel EDA user group Forum (E-mail) Subject: [PEDA] Polygon problems! Hi folks I have a problem with polygons! I can't select the propertise to change them. I can't adjust the vertices, I can't delet them, I can't move them. It's as though they weren't there. I can see them but I can't touch them! I've never had this problem before. What do I have to do to regain control of my design? Any clues? TC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] keepoutlayer and planes ??
Abdul-Rahman Yes I have seen an inner plane layer come all the way out to an edge. The design was supposed to be "better for RF", but made no difference in board performance. The two outside layers were plated aound the edge and shorted ( on purpose ) to the inner layer. This was a nightmare to build and cost "extra". The same performance was achieved by placing a row of vias 100 mils from the edge on a "regular" board, at a much lower cost. Bob Fearon Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 05:32 PM 11/8/01 -0500, Mike Reagan wrote: > > >you scare me man thinking that you are design aircraft components and dont > >know how to use the progam I think you better fligt test it > > Knowing how to use the program is a convenience, not a necessity. The > necessity is to know how to inspect the gerbers or films and the board itself. > > Let me put it this way. If I want reliability of a pcb, I will prefer it to > be designed by someone who knows electronics and reliability issues, but > who is a beginner with a piece of software he uses, than by one for whom > the reverse is true. > > (I don't think Mr. Robison is designing "aircraft components." Last we > spoke, he was designing equipment that might fly *on* a plane, but it does > not *fly* the plane. If one of his boards fails, if I am correct, it will > be a nuisance, not a disaster.) > > In my experience, boards for hi-rel usage (for me, it has been space > flight) are reviewed through several different stages, at least. While it > is obviously best and safest to get the board right in the first place > (after all, there is a statistical possibility that the later safeguards > could all fail), the knowledge that negative planes should not go to the > board edge is widespread. As I mentioned previously, most board houses, > perhaps all, will already create an edge clearance if you don't put one > there and you don't clearly specify that you *don't* want one. They have > been dealing with gerbers with no edge clearance for years, but they have > probably never encountered a request for planes to go to the edge. > > Has anyone reading this received fabricated boards with no inner plane > clearance? Was it from an established fabricator? (I'd be surprised if it > *never* happened, but I would also be surprised if it was at all common.) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Abdulrahman Lomax > Easthampton, Massachusetts USA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] Polygon problems!
Hi folks I have a problem with polygons! I can't select the propertise to change them. I can't adjust the vertices, I can't delet them, I can't move them. It's as though they weren't there. I can see them but I can't touch them! I've never had this problem before. What do I have to do to regain control of my design? Any clues? TC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] Chip & Wire
Re: [PEDA] keepoutlayer and planes ??
On 10:37 AM 9/11/2001 +, Stephen Casey said: > > Has anyone reading this received fabricated boards with no inner plane > > clearance? Was it from an established fabricator? (I'd be surprised if it > > *never* happened, but I would also be surprised if it was at all common.) > >Abd, > >Yes, I have received boards with no clearance. My mistake on my first Protel >job, but the board house didn't spot/query it. We stopped using them for >another reason, and the new fabricator is (so far) superb. In fact, I posted >a question to this list about board edge clearances a while back. I did add >the clearances to the job this time, but they queried and fixed another >issue that the first company would almost certainly have ignored. It would >be very nice if Protel could add some DRC features to trap this. > >Steve. I am giggling over this - not because it is a bad idea but more that Protel added a warning that there were entities on internal planes layers in lieu of full DRC for the planes. So now we get a warning that we have tracks on the internal planes and then along comes Steve and wants them to add a warning if we *don't* have tracks on the internal layers! Damed if we do, damed if we don't. Actually I think it would be a good idea - since we have poor plane DRC adding a warning that there does not appear to be a plane backoff would be a worthwhile addition. Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] Multi-Layer (Ex: minor display refresh bug)
On 10:25 PM 8/11/2001 -0500, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said: ><..snip..> >>Abd ul-Rahman Lomax has also recently mentioned that "blind" and "buried" >>vias are sometimes inappropriately displayed. > >Actually, they are *always* inappropriately displayed. Either you have >multilayer turned off, in which case no vias are displayed at all, or you >have it turned on, in which case vias are displayed unconditionally, >whether or not they exist on the enabled layers. This is really a major >shortcoming at the point, actually one of the worst of which I know. > >> I concur that this could be >>regarded as a bug, but apart from that, I personally don't regard the >>MultiLayer layer as being "bad" in nature. It is a "special" layer, like the >>Drill Draw, Drill Guide and Keep Out layers, but PCB applications differ >>from general purpose CAD applications (such as Autocad) in that there is a >>good case for "special" layers to be provided. > >I have not heard, yet, any good argument for the maintenance of this layer >as a "layer." It is a "concept" more than it is a layer. A button that, in >Display setup, turns on all copper layers would be useful. But a via is a >via, it does not need a special layer! This email is a little long - don't bother reading it if you are not interested in discussing future features. Here is a tip vaguely realted to some of the discussion below: Tip: On a PCB that does not use any mid signal layers, you can display the padstack of a multilayer pad correctly if you make the MID layer size 0,0. No on to the discussion: I have no problem with the "special" layers that Geoff discusses. We are not using a generic CAD package. But, I think the multi-layer layer as currently implemented is no longer a useful concept, apart from that dreaded curse, backwards compatibility. As I see it there is one basic issue, that is, ** entities on multi-layer do not also belong on the signal layers **. Even though they do in reality. This breaks a number of useful constructs in the design rule system and has left a legacy of display artefacts. For example, if multi-layer pads and vias *also* existed on the bottom layer then we could apply different solder mask expansion top and bottom in a sensible fashion. Both major issues could be fixed by special case programming, but I think there may be a better method... I have a concept for layer groupings that could integrate nicely with the desired layer pairings that we have discussed and been after for some time. If we were able to create named layer groups, consisting of one or more of the "base" layers, we could easily have facilities like: 1) Enabling/disabling of groups of layers in single "layer" mode. So single layer mode may cause more than one "base" layer to be displayed if the current layer was actually a layer group. This would integrate directly into the existing behavior of the '+' & '-' keys, no change required. A corollary would be that an item on a named layer would show just that particular layer, and no other, correctly in single layer mode. 2) Design rules could be scoped by named layer groups 3) The entities in the named layer still exist on all the relevant base layers and so the base layer-scoped design rules apply to them in the usual manner. This is what I want mostly. 4) It should make a ready fix for many of the display artefacts and problems we have observed with blind and buried vias, and at other times. Multi-layer would simply be a (pre) defined collection of all signal layers. As a new layer is added by the stack manager signal layers are added to the pre-defined multi-layer group automatically. *see note 5) It ought to be able to integrate into our desires for better padstacks. 6) Shouldn't cause any issue with flexible layer pairings feature that a number of us have been asking for (where the user can set up the layer pairing used when a component is flipped from the bottom to the top of the board and visa-versa. 7) In a fashion it can be used to create multi-coloured mech layers. I can see some issues, mainly what to do when a library component is carrying a named group layer and there is already a named goup layer with different base layer members in the PCB. Warn the user? Create a new unique name? Offer to merge the two layer groups into the union of the sets? This situation may arise if we get elaborate padstacks as a number of us have been requesting, and the component pads were placed on a named group layer. An alternative solution would be to prevent library components from carrying named group layers, and implement padstacks using the database entity association techniques already used for things like polygons and, in fact, PCB components themselves (so a component becomes a hierarchy of associated entities rather than the current one-layer of association. In this manner complex pads could be built up from surface pads on a number of layers, along with a n
Re: [PEDA] Routed trace length
Hello Richards, you can get a detailed list to control all netlengths. To create this list press "Reports / Netlist Status" in the PCB editor. Best regards, Florian Finsterbusch > -Original Message- > From: Mark Richards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 12:11 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: [PEDA] Routed trace length > > > Hello, > When manually routing traces (Protel 99SE), I often need to do some > length matching. I have searched all the menu's and the help files, but > I have been unable to find anything that will tell me the physical > length of a routed net. Am I missing something (besides most of my brain > cells)? Is there anything within the PCB editor that provides this > information? I have tried several times to just use the "Equalize Net > Lengths" feature with very disappointing results. Any suggestions would > be greatly appreciated. > > Regards, > > -- > Mark Richards > ON Semiconductor > 5005 E. McDowell Road > Phoenix, Arizona 85008 > Phone: 602.244.7267 > Pager: 866-208-9913 > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] keepoutlayer and planes ??
> Has anyone reading this received fabricated boards with no inner plane > clearance? Was it from an established fabricator? (I'd be surprised if it > *never* happened, but I would also be surprised if it was at all common.) Abd, Yes, I have received boards with no clearance. My mistake on my first Protel job, but the board house didn't spot/query it. We stopped using them for another reason, and the new fabricator is (so far) superb. In fact, I posted a question to this list about board edge clearances a while back. I did add the clearances to the job this time, but they queried and fixed another issue that the first company would almost certainly have ignored. It would be very nice if Protel could add some DRC features to trap this. Steve. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
