[PEDA] Translators
Re: [PEDA] Complex 2 Simple
ok Jeff Stout - Original Message - From: Tim Hutcheson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Complex 2 Simple HI, Jeff. I was a little vague because a lot depends on what you are doing. If you are building a motherboard and several daughter cards as separate pcb layouts with their own netlists, rather than a single pcb layout from one netlist that contains 8 cards that will be separated into linecards, that's a little different than the way I use it. In fact it might be a subject for someone else who has done that to address. regards, Tim Hutcheson Research Associate Institute for Human and Machine Cognition University of West Florida 40 S. Alcaniz St. Pensacola, FL 32501 USA 805-202-4461 * Tracking #: 67A6762B4E6C0448A212D60E0DBA19FC967DDC2C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] to DXP or not to DXP
Unified libraries... I expect the list will go on... I must try out the new autorouter some time. I admit I have only tried the autorouter with minimal training with disastrous results but I thought that was probably my ignorance in setting it up properly. I then went to load the demo boards that came with DXP and viewed the surface mount designs autorouted by Altium to see what someone who knows how to use Situs could produce. Rather than describe what I found, I will just point to a few areas out of several: Project: C:\Program Files\Altium\Examples\PCB Auto-Routing\PCB Auto-Routing.PrjPCB 1. GND routing on bottom layer between R288 R31 2. VDD routing on bottom layer at C140 3. 8 layers and no power planes? 4. GND routing near U2 pin 34 5. U94 pin 27 takes an unnecessarily long path to it's destination. 6. VDD routing near C60 7. Numerous acid traps throughout the design. Project: C:\Program Files\Altium\Examples\PCB Benchmark\PCB Benchmark.pcbdoc 8. routing of R435 pin 2 9. routing of U16 pins 38 40 to R336 pin 2. 10. U59 pin 13 pin 12. In general PCB Benchmark.pcbdoc is better than the PCB Auto-Routing.PrjPCB but there are still several areas that need improvement. If this is the best that a trained Situs user can produce, I am not impressed at all. I wonder what the yields of these designs would be in a real production environment. Rob - Rob Young Design Engineering Consultant Tel: 352-799-7977 Fax: 352-799-8977 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Original Message - From: Jason Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 4:35 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] to DXP or not to DXP For me, the jury is out. I've been playing with the demo version. If that is the same as the production version then I have some serious concerns over the usability of the schematic hierarchy, especially with large imported 99SE designs. I really don't like the need to explicitly 'compile' a schematic before you can browse the hierarchy, to me that's a backward step. What was wrong with the way it was before? And I've found the zoom/screen redraw of the PCB on a complex pub to be about 1/2 of the speed of 99SE on on the same machine with the same design and detail level. Again affecting usability. Conversely there are some nice features that should have been in 99se, like mech layer pairs and busses as real nets rather than as symbols for a connection, .DDBs are dead, Unified libraries... I expect the list will go on... I must try out the new autorouter some time. Oh, the 3D viewer, a useless toy in 99se is not improved. I still can't see a way of editing the height of non-library components. There appears to be no way of importing models either. I don't know if Altium will release an API, third party 3D tools will still be required, but will they be ported? All in all, I can see no obvious reason to upgrade the schematic. For us, the mech layer pairs in PCB are useful as it makes producing assembly drawings easier. We may use just the PCB for that only. Jason. -Original Message- From: Matt Daggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 19 August 2002 17:08 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] to DXP or not to DXP Got my copy of DXP in the mail today. I know there has been lost of conversation on the new version on here in the past few weeks Is it worth the load or stick with 99SE? Any major problems/limitations with DXP in this version? I'm running Win2k SP2 on a P4 2.0A Northwood, 1GB RDRAM, 15K RPM Ultra160 SCSI. thanks, matt - Matt Daggett MCNC - Wireless Research Group 3021 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 voice: 919-248-9278 fax: 919-248-1455 http://www.mcnc.org/wireless/ - * Tracking #: E0B4A08F8214BB4CBA75BFA8A9E376A92BB96C7C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] to DXP or not to DXP
i don't think i will be using DXP for quite sometime myself it looks like the learning curve is too steep for the rewards to be had i am mystified why they felt compelled to make such sweeping changes to a reasonably stable and useful product the unified library i think (not sure here) is really a bit of a kludge since it seems to be made of two source libraries which are as before in other words you have to edit the source sch and pcb libs and rebuild the unified library the dissolve-o-matic thing seems to have driven the graphics performance degradation and now also disallows white backgrounds it is not clear to me yet how genuinely useful and important this will be i guess i will toy with my copy from time to time but i can't see trusting actual work to it at this time i've got a BGA job coming up i may try to send thru the new autorouter and back to 99SE, i will report on that if i do it that way Dennis Saputelli Jason Morgan wrote: For me, the jury is out. I've been playing with the demo version. If that is the same as the production version then I have some serious concerns over the usability of the schematic hierarchy, especially with large imported 99SE designs. I really don't like the need to explicitly 'compile' a schematic before you can browse the hierarchy, to me that's a backward step. What was wrong with the way it was before? And I've found the zoom/screen redraw of the PCB on a complex pub to be about 1/2 of the speed of 99SE on on the same machine with the same design and detail level. Again affecting usability. Conversely there are some nice features that should have been in 99se, like mech layer pairs and busses as real nets rather than as symbols for a connection, .DDBs are dead, Unified libraries... I expect the list will go on... I must try out the new autorouter some time. Oh, the 3D viewer, a useless toy in 99se is not improved. I still can't see a way of editing the height of non-library components. There appears to be no way of importing models either. I don't know if Altium will release an API, third party 3D tools will still be required, but will they be ported? All in all, I can see no obvious reason to upgrade the schematic. For us, the mech layer pairs in PCB are useful as it makes producing assembly drawings easier. We may use just the PCB for that only. Jason. -Original Message- From: Matt Daggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 19 August 2002 17:08 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] to DXP or not to DXP Got my copy of DXP in the mail today. I know there has been lost of conversation on the new version on here in the past few weeks Is it worth the load or stick with 99SE? Any major problems/limitations with DXP in this version? I'm running Win2k SP2 on a P4 2.0A Northwood, 1GB RDRAM, 15K RPM Ultra160 SCSI. thanks, matt - Matt Daggett MCNC - Wireless Research Group 3021 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 voice: 919-248-9278 fax: 919-248-1455 http://www.mcnc.org/wireless/ - * Tracking #: E0B4A08F8214BB4CBA75BFA8A9E376A92BB96C7C * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] to DXP or not to DXP
If this is the best that a trained Situs user can produce, I am not impressed at all. I wonder what the yields of these designs would be in a real production environment. Situs - sounds like Klytus, the evil henchman of Ming the Merciless in the Flash Gordon fiction. Well, I consider myself a trained 99SE AR user, and from your description it sounds like the improvements are marginal at best. In the meanwhile, I have some tips to help us use the 99SE AR: 1) It's best to manually route power and ground pads to the planes. If you let the AR do it, it will make the tracks too long and meander them, giving too much ground bounce and other nasty effects. 2) Don't select Fan out SMD pads in the AR, because if you have manually routed the power and ground pads, the AR will still put in redundant routes to it's own vias for a plane connection. Dumb! 3) Route any critical traces yourself, i.e. clock lines, strobes, analog and power signals, etc. 4) You WILL have to clean and tweak the results, get used to it. Too bad some geometry math geek doesn't sit down and write a good open-source autorouter. Is there just one company in the world that writes stand-alone autorouters (Specctra)? I sure don't hear about any others. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Rob Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] to DXP or not to DXP Unified libraries... I expect the list will go on... I must try out the new autorouter some time. I admit I have only tried the autorouter with minimal training with disastrous results but I thought that was probably my ignorance in setting it up properly. I then went to load the demo boards that came with DXP and viewed the surface mount designs autorouted by Altium to see what someone who knows how to use Situs could produce. Rather than describe what I found, I will just point to a few areas out of several: Project: C:\Program Files\Altium\Examples\PCB Auto-Routing\PCB Auto-Routing.PrjPCB 1. GND routing on bottom layer between R288 R31 2. VDD routing on bottom layer at C140 3. 8 layers and no power planes? 4. GND routing near U2 pin 34 5. U94 pin 27 takes an unnecessarily long path to it's destination. 6. VDD routing near C60 7. Numerous acid traps throughout the design. Project: C:\Program Files\Altium\Examples\PCB Benchmark\PCB Benchmark.pcbdoc 8. routing of R435 pin 2 9. routing of U16 pins 38 40 to R336 pin 2. 10. U59 pin 13 pin 12. In general PCB Benchmark.pcbdoc is better than the PCB Auto-Routing.PrjPCB but there are still several areas that need improvement. If this is the best that a trained Situs user can produce, I am not impressed at all. I wonder what the yields of these designs would be in a real production environment. Rob - Rob Young Design Engineering Consultant Tel: 352-799-7977 Fax: 352-799-8977 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Tracking #: 1938B49BA6D51A4B99F98FD0284F1964BAA433AE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] AW: Polygon Plane clearance and SMD PADs design rule set up for Protel 99 SE
Dear Waldemar, Thank you for your replied. I tried the first comment, it works. Thank you. I still have problem setting up SMD pads to polygon connection. Here is what I did: Design rule/manufacturing/polygon connect style, I tried to use Pad Specification as filter. There is no Object Type selection to let me choose SMD pads under this rule. So I set up hole size as 0, which means SMD Pads. But it does not work. All the SMD pads of the nets still connect to the polygon. I am sure there is a way to do it but I have a hard time finding it. Any comment? ---Thank you. Shuping -Original Message- From: Kulajew Waldemar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:00 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] AW: Polygon Plane clearance and SMD PADs design rule set up for Protel 99 SE Hello Mr. Lew if you use 99SE there is a wayto do what you want. Please note the Comments in the original message. I hope it helps a little Waldemar -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- -- snipp -- 1. I'd like to set up the clearance of the plane different from the regular trace of the board, which is 12mil instead of 7 mil for regular trace connection. Set clearence rule under Routing to object kind Polygon and bottom Layer (Possibly) 2. I also like to set up the polygon connects to fan out via instead of directly from the SMT pad. Set Polygon connect Style under Manufacturing to no connect You may use Net as filter kind to prevent other polygons from not beeing connected -- snipp -- * Tracking #: F9E2E620FC0B3A4EA8C7E3E3DEF9228EC0C06449 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] to DXP or not to DXP
Matt, Jason and Dennis, I saw a website called PROTTA. They are offering a newly developed Protel DXP 1-day Upgrade Course with information as to what the differences are and the advantages to upgrading from 99SE to DXP. I would like to know why hasn't anyone ever done this before? Why hasn't Protel done this? In stead they take forever to come out with a course that is basic and last three days. Most people can not afford to take three days off of work and the expense of a three day course. I think it is a great idea to offer an UPGRADE Course for those users who are experienced with 99SE and want to know the inside secrets. Has anyone else seen this offering? If Rick Wilson is teaching this course, I'm sure it will be worth the money? He was one of the best, most knowledgeable teachers they had. I do not think their current teachers know 99 or DXP as well, I believe most of their current teachers are focused on P-CAD not Protel. Check it out, I believe the website is www.protta.com Samuel C. Cox Jr. Office: 408.894.2825 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:43 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] to DXP or not to DXP i don't think i will be using DXP for quite sometime myself it looks like the learning curve is too steep for the rewards to be had i am mystified why they felt compelled to make such sweeping changes to a reasonably stable and useful product the unified library i think (not sure here) is really a bit of a kludge since it seems to be made of two source libraries which are as before in other words you have to edit the source sch and pcb libs and rebuild the unified library the dissolve-o-matic thing seems to have driven the graphics performance degradation and now also disallows white backgrounds it is not clear to me yet how genuinely useful and important this will be i guess i will toy with my copy from time to time but i can't see trusting actual work to it at this time i've got a BGA job coming up i may try to send thru the new autorouter and back to 99SE, i will report on that if i do it that way Dennis Saputelli Jason Morgan wrote: For me, the jury is out. I've been playing with the demo version. If that is the same as the production version then I have some serious concerns over the usability of the schematic hierarchy, especially with large imported 99SE designs. I really don't like the need to explicitly 'compile' a schematic before you can browse the hierarchy, to me that's a backward step. What was wrong with the way it was before? And I've found the zoom/screen redraw of the PCB on a complex pub to be about 1/2 of the speed of 99SE on on the same machine with the same design and detail level. Again affecting usability. Conversely there are some nice features that should have been in 99se, like mech layer pairs and busses as real nets rather than as symbols for a connection, .DDBs are dead, Unified libraries... I expect the list will go on... I must try out the new autorouter some time. Oh, the 3D viewer, a useless toy in 99se is not improved. I still can't see a way of editing the height of non-library components. There appears to be no way of importing models either. I don't know if Altium will release an API, third party 3D tools will still be required, but will they be ported? All in all, I can see no obvious reason to upgrade the schematic. For us, the mech layer pairs in PCB are useful as it makes producing assembly drawings easier. We may use just the PCB for that only. Jason. -Original Message- From: Matt Daggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 19 August 2002 17:08 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] to DXP or not to DXP Got my copy of DXP in the mail today. I know there has been lost of conversation on the new version on here in the past few weeks Is it worth the load or stick with 99SE? Any major problems/limitations with DXP in this version? I'm running Win2k SP2 on a P4 2.0A Northwood, 1GB RDRAM, 15K RPM Ultra160 SCSI. thanks, matt - Matt Daggett MCNC - Wireless Research Group 3021 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 voice: 919-248-9278 fax: 919-248-1455 http://www.mcnc.org/wireless/ - * Tracking #: E0B4A08F8214BB4CBA75BFA8A9E376A92BB96C7C * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * *
[PEDA] Newbie questions
I have a chance to acquire a legit copy of 99SE in a rather major swap of test equipment and computer supplies with another company. It is a rather minor component of the whole deal, but before I trade for it, I want to make sure that it will do what I want it to do. As yet, perusing the documentation that came with the 30-day trial package hasn't unearthed what I want to know. I am currently using (ptui, yecch) Circuitmaker 2K for my board layouts, which are minimal to say the least. Analog boards, 2 sided, nothing spectacular. However, CM2K is about as unstable a platform as I've ever used...I actually considered going back to tape and donuts there for a while. Anyway, the one thing that CM has going for it is the capability to put a whole family of parts into the design database library and call them up into the schematic individually by value. And, with a little maneuvering, you can put in your own identifiers (like company part number) and the identifiers will ride along with the part. Thus, calling up a bom gives you not only the part name and description, but your own internal stockroom part number as well. Along with that, CM's database is a text file. When putting in a large number of series parts (as, for example, the ¼w 5% resistors), all you have to do is put in the first sequence. Then by cut'n'paste, you can build the whole series quite easily. In addition, once you have the ¼w family done, the ½w family is really trivial to generate by copy and then a search/replace on the differences. If you have a whole bunch of families in your stockroom (electrolytics, mylars, etc.) building the libraries for your entire stockroom of a few thousand parts isn't much more than a week's work. I can't find that capability in 99SE. If it can be done, would somebody please let me know where in the documentation this feature is so that I can reread something that I didn't get the first few times? Many thanks fer yer help. Jim * Tracking #: B0189544F35D254DA51704F4DCE2790DD7E3D428 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT
Is it still possible to migrate to Windows 2000 Pro without buying a used computer? I thought it wasn't being sold anymore. John Childers - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT DXP not supporting NT is a big problem where I work (Boeing) since we have _zero_ choice or control over the OS. Eventually, I am told we will one day migrate to W2000. Dave Lewis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is additional work, certainly, to make a program function properly under multiple operating systems. Windows 2000 could be considered to be the current version of Windows NT. Its cost is trivial compared to the cost of DXP. On the other hand, perhaps there could be good reasons for staying with NT instead of upgrading to W2000. * Tracking #: AA0194C01E18A64087496D86608D76954D1D1A39 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Netlist output to Protel from Orcad 9.1?
Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT
i just bought a new 'white box' w/ a fresh copy of win 2000 pro on it Dennis Saputelli John W. Childers wrote: Is it still possible to migrate to Windows 2000 Pro without buying a used computer? I thought it wasn't being sold anymore. John Childers - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT DXP not supporting NT is a big problem where I work (Boeing) since we have _zero_ choice or control over the OS. Eventually, I am told we will one day migrate to W2000. Dave Lewis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is additional work, certainly, to make a program function properly under multiple operating systems. Windows 2000 could be considered to be the current version of Windows NT. Its cost is trivial compared to the cost of DXP. On the other hand, perhaps there could be good reasons for staying with NT instead of upgrading to W2000. * Tracking #: AA0194C01E18A64087496D86608D76954D1D1A39 * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Netlist output to Protel from Orcad 9.1?
Hi Joe, I have OrCad Lite 9.2 Lite installed on my system and that can output a netlist in Protel 2 format which seems to import fine in a Protel PCB. I selected the Protel 2 format by choosing the other tab in OrCad's Create netlist window and then selecting protel2.dll in the formatters selection list. Maybe this also goes for OrCad 9.1... I am not sure, but seem to remember from the installation options of OrCad that several netlist formats can be chosen to be installed. This might however also be the case of another version of OrCad I once used, however, maybe a rerun of the OrCad installation program does the trick. If it does not, your client could go for quick-n-dirty by installing the OrCad Lite package (which is free but limited in design-saving options), read in his design and create the netlist. Cheers, Jan Martin Wagenaar At 18:49 (20-8-02), you wrote: Hy guys, I have a client who uses Orcad 9.1 and states that it does not have an option to output a netlist in any sort of Protel format. Any opinions/facts/ideas/recommendations? I could Import the DSN to protel but the client is very secretive about the whole thing. Thanks Joe * Tracking #: 34C897530B83D74887A6067157429AF2E9ADF204 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * [PEDA] Netlist output to Protel from Orcad 9.1? Joe Sapienza Re: [PEDA] Netlist output to Protel from Orcad 9.1? TheLight Re: [PEDA] Netlist output to Protel from Orcad 9.1? Michael Reagan (EDSI) Reply via email to
Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT
The MS license for XP allows you to run Win2000 instead - ie buy XP and run 2000 - that's okay! Till later, Scott. ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Scott May. Hydrographic Support 1345 Ipswich Road Rocklea. Ph +61 7 3892 5610 Fax +61 7 3848 5191 Mob 0417 195 018 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø -Original Message- From: John W. Childers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2002 8:27 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject:Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT Is it still possible to migrate to Windows 2000 Pro without buying a used computer? I thought it wasn't being sold anymore. John Childers - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT DXP not supporting NT is a big problem where I work (Boeing) since we have _zero_ choice or control over the OS. Eventually, I am told we will one day migrate to W2000. Dave Lewis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is additional work, certainly, to make a program function properly under multiple operating systems. Windows 2000 could be considered to be the current version of Windows NT. Its cost is trivial compared to the cost of DXP. On the other hand, perhaps there could be good reasons for staying with NT instead of upgrading to W2000. * Tracking #: AA0194C01E18A64087496D86608D76954D1D1A39 * ** Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT, May Scott Chronological -- Thread -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Reply via email to Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT Dave . E . Lewis Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT Narinder Kumar Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT Rene Tschaggelar Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT tschaggelar Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT Rene Tschaggelar Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT Buckley.Dave Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT Dave . E . Lewis Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT John W. Childers Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT Dennis Saputelli Re: [PEDA] DXP NOT MADE FOR WINDOWS NT May Scott Reply via email to
Re: [PEDA] to DXP or not to DXP
[PEDA] Sch libraries and parts lists (Ex:Newbie questions)
On 01:08 PM 20/08/2002 -0700, Jim Weir said: I have a chance to acquire a legit copy of 99SE in a rather major swap of test equipment and computer supplies with another company. It is a rather minor component of the whole deal, but before I trade for it, I want to make sure that it will do what I want it to do. As yet, perusing the documentation that came with the 30-day trial package hasn't unearthed what I want to know. I am currently using (ptui, yecch) Circuitmaker 2K for my board layouts, which are minimal to say the least. Analog boards, 2 sided, nothing spectacular. However, CM2K is about as unstable a platform as I've ever used...I actually considered going back to tape and donuts there for a while. Anyway, the one thing that CM has going for it is the capability to put a whole family of parts into the design database library and call them up into the schematic individually by value. And, with a little maneuvering, you can put in your own identifiers (like company part number) and the identifiers will ride along with the part. Thus, calling up a bom gives you not only the part name and description, but your own internal stockroom part number as well. Protel Sch library has two groups of unspecified fields - the Library fields can only be changed in the library editor. The Part fields are changed, if desired, on the schematic. So you should be able to achieve a similar result. While editing a component in the Schib editor, edit the description of the component - there you can get access to the read-only library fields. You have a couple of ways of going with Protel Sch libraries: 1) use one symbol for each sort of component - that is have one basic resistor symbol. Then use the Part Type and the various Part Fields to fully specify the device. This is basically the standard method that has been used by many Protel users for many years. The Part Type field may be set to something like 2k2 for a jelly bean resistor or 2k00, 0.1% if there is something special about it. Alternatively, the part type could be set to 2k00 and a Part Field set to 0.1% to specify the tolerance. You could even set a Part Field to a company part number and then import from an external source all the other fields before passing the design to the PCB - there is more comments on this below. The big problem with this method is that the designer is responsible for ensuring that all the information in various fields is correct. For instance footprint and part type and any other fields must match that specified in the company part register. P99Se and earlier did not allow the footprint or the Part Type or various other fields to be locked - so another user can come along and just double click the Part Type and change it without updating other dependent info such as footprint or company part no. Still you can enter into a part field a company part number and then use one of a couple of importing methods to fill in the rest of the data from an external database (export and import to/from Spread, some issues to watch out for, Protel's database linking - slow and some restrictions on what can be updated and what key fields can be used, or my Extract from Excel server, extra cost and requires Excel (currently) - see below.) This method would commonly be used with an external BOM/parts list system (manual, script based etc) where part matching is done using a combination of the Part Type, footprint and maybe some optional Part fields that have been defined by the designer. It is not really a robust method holding an specifying production data, but it works OK for small teams and companies with fairly manual work practices - the sort of place Protel has had as traditional customers. 2) use a separate library component for each company part number - so you would end up with a library with components with names like: RES_2k2_5%_0805 RES_2k2_2%_0805 RES_2k2_1%_0805 RES_2k2_5%_AXIAL0.4 RES_2k7_5%_0805 etc This may seem a lot of components but most companies try to standardize on a small number of components for ordering reasons and the time taken to clone a component and update the data is short - a new component would need to be issued with a company part number so there is overhead anyway. Since the component is *fully* specified in the library it is possible to enter into the read-only Library fields the company part number. The other fields can then be left blank or specified as required. Since the footprint is known it can be entered into the first of the suggested footprints etc. There is still a problem with this technique in P99SE and earlier - it is not possible to lock the footprint or the Part Type so these can be edited, on the sch, to get out of sync with the company part number. Protel do offer a facility to link to a database and import some data into the part attributes from an external DBase-format database. This is reported to be very slow, only
Re: [PEDA] Matched Lenghth Constraint
It's not yet implemented in DXP. That is something I specifically tested. -Original Message- From: Michael Reagan (EDSI) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 7:34 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Matched Lenghth Constraint Clive, I was waiting until all of the replies were in before responding about Protel's matched lengths. You are right it does not work, or does not work well. My reasons for it not working well are the following. In all of the cases that I have had to match length, my objective was to evaluate the longest length, This became my critical length or yardstick. My objective was to increase the shortest to match the longest. There is no reason to add more trace to the longest trace unless you are intentionally adding delay. The longest trace should be the yardstick for the other traces to match. If you use Protel's equalizer it will also readjust the longest trace. This feature has never worked on any version of Protel.I am not even sure it works in Spectra without adding length to the longest trace. Time will tell if it works on DXP. I think I need to join the DXP forum to see if this was fixed. Mike Reagan EDSI Frederick - Original Message - From: Robert M. Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Matched Lenghth Constraint Clive, I gave up after about ten tries on the matched length, just figured it did not work. It did add some serpentine, but again after about ten tries the lenghts were still not even close to being matched. Seems kind of rediculous to have to run it multiple times? It should do it in one shot in my mind. Bob Wolfe - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Matched Lenghth Constraint Matched length works very well. To implement the equalize netlengths feature, you have to define a netclass with the nets you want to equalize. Then go to Design Rules/High Speed/Matched Length and set the attributes. Depending on how much room on the board you have, set the amplitude and gap for the largest that can be fitted. Then run Tools/Equalize Net Length a couple of times to progressivly add sections. Usually a couple of runs are required as Protel only 'adds' 1 section at a time. It works out which net in the netclass is the longest and adds sections to the other nets to bring them up. The amplitude and gap can be reduced in later runs to have a finer tolarence. You can then do a DRC to check the lengths. DRC takes the shortest track/net in the netclass and compares the other nets to it Robert M. Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 08/13/2002 10:55:53 PM Please respond to Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Clive Broome/sdc) Subject: Re: [PEDA] Matched Lenghth Constraint Well ADEEL, I am afraid that to actually have the system (99SE, don't know about DXP) match these leghts it will not do it, I was told any auto-router function, and this is one will not ahere to these rules. I tried it a few times where there was plenty of room to match the lengths of a delay loop and they were not even close so eneded up having to manually route these. I would also love to hear if there was a way in 99SE to get the system to match these lengths. Bob Wolfe - Original Message - From: Adeel Malik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:36 AM Subject: [PEDA] Matched Lenghth Constraint Hi All, I want to apply a matched-length constraint to the signals connected to the bus. In the Protel Design Rule dialog, there are mainly 2 parameters to specify, one is Tolerance (whose purpose is obvious) and the other is Connection style. In connection style there are three options 1) 90 degree 2) 45 degree and 3) Rounded. Alongwith them there are also options of Amplitude and Gap.I couldn't understand these options so Can someone tell me how these options are utilized effectively while routing a bus running at 66MHz. Regards, ADEEL MALIK ** ** * Tracking #: 0E65D282D6969F409D601E4E0E422F8499FF2F09 * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave
Re: [PEDA] CALS Compliant output
Hello, The IPC documents can be found at ipc.org The IGES description, I don't know where. regards, Phil. -Original Message- From: ElectronTrade (info) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 17 August 2002 03:45 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] CALS Compliant output Hello, DP Has anyone produced CALS compliant output from Protel? DP Preferably IGES, possibly IPC-350, IPC-356. Can you advice me URL for description IGES, IPC-350 and IPC-356? We are going to develop direct convertor from P-CAD and Protel to IGES. * Tracking #: 8124CE5BF5097041A8DBA35ED08BBCE85B43A004 * -- Best regards, Yuri V. Potapoff Technical Director ElectronTrade, Ltd. 8 Ukrainsky boul., Moscow, 121059, Russia Tel: +7-(095)-243-72-50 Fax: +7-(095)-243-44-16 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.electrade.ru * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] AW2: Polygon Plane clearance and SMD PADs design rule set up for Protel 99 SE
Shuping, sorry, but I have no Idea to deal with that Problem. I tried the Settings you made on one of my desings with same result: it does not work. IMO a bug in Protel. There are two workarounds I see, both not realy handy. 1. design a PAD-class (design/classes/pads) for SMD-pads. that will allow you to use padclass as filter. But you have to add every Pad manually to the class (whee- why is there no manager here?) 2. do not use a filter and add connestions to your ThrouHolePads manually. Cumbersome to. Sorry, no better Ideas Waldemar Design rule/manufacturing/polygon connect style, I tried to use Pad Specification as filter. There is no Object Type selection to let me choose SMD pads under this rule. So I set up hole size as 0, which means SMD Pads. But it does not work. All the SMD pads of the nets still connect to the polygon. I am sure there is a way to do it but I have a hard time finding it. Any comment? ---Thank you. Shuping * Tracking #: 3229B5B3E857B3479ED5C6FF35E3CEC481FA5B97 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
