Re: [PEDA] Orcad Library Importing
JaMi, I followed the link too and discovered the same difficulties :) The demo can be requested at: http://www.orcad.com/downloads/form/cdrequest.asp Wojciech Oborski JaMi Smith wrote: Rob, A quich look at the Parallel Systems site shows that the freebie Orchad Lite from them is only for UK distribution (and a few other places), but does not includ the US. Following their link to Cadence, yields nothing in terms of Orcad Lite. I have looked before for such a demo for Orcad, and not been able to find one. Can you offer any other suggestions on how to obtain the demo? Thanks, JaMi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] adjacent component placement DXP
On 06:45 PM 9/07/2003, Jason Morgan said:
Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not
DXP,
there is a separate list for DXP issues, see
http://forums.altium.com/cgi-bin/msgbylist.asp?list=dxp
PEDA is not just for P99SE but is certainly mainly used for that - the
Altium DXP list certainly has a much higher SNR both generally and for DXP
related stuff.
To answer your question, its the same as in 99se, you create a
component-component clearance rule
that uses the same component type for each side of the rule.
I use this exact method for a mechanical part that sits over some LEDs.
e.g.
Create a rule in Placement: Component Clearance: New Rule
HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') vs HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') you need to
specify Full Check
and a large negative clearance, e.g. -999mm
My experience is that this doesn't work. DXP does not support negative
clearance checking (overlaps). It has been something I and others have
been asking for for a while now. I just tried a test case and couldn't get
it to pass a batch DRC if I had any overlap at all - a negative clearance
acted like a zero clearance.
Are you sure this has worked for you, Jason. Can you give a little more
detail? I would love to know why it doesn't work for me.
The only way I have been able to solve this sort of problem is by excluding
the affected footprint from testing by making the general (All-All) rule
into a:
NOT HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') vs NOT HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1')
This excludes 'FOOTPRINT_1', in this case, from any clearance checking -
but this then means that *no* component is checked against any component
with footprint 'FOOTPRINT_1'. I thought I had solved this issue to exclude
just 'FOOTPRINT_1' from being checked against any other 'FOOTPRINT_1' but
all other components being checked against each other and 'FOOTPRINT_1' but
I can't recall and it is late. I think there should be something in the
DXP forum archive on this.
This solution is pretty poor as it doesn't scale well. A number of users
have been requesting generalised clearance rules (not just component and
electrical) with negative clearance (overlap) capability. Hopefully it
will appear in a DXP SP soon.
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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
I apologise to the administrator for implying that this list is not for discussing DXP, of course such topics are not banned and I did not mean it to read like that. I only wished to indicate that this list is no longer necessarily the best place for discussing DXP operational issues. I still think that the response from one of this lists members was uncalled for and extremely unprofessional. If this guy is like this with people he actually meets I would not be surprised if he has trouble keeping jobs for long. You have the logs, so you can tell better than me, but I don't think I've ever noticed a Protel ne Altium employee taking part in discussions on this list using their 'Protel' identity. On the other hand, the DXP forum seems to have much more feedback direct from engineers at Altium. Jason. -Original Message- From: Forum Administrator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 17:49 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP For the record, this forum is dedicated to discussion of ALL versions of Protel software as well as EDA design issues and EDA software from other vendors. As for drawing the attention of Altium's engineers, this forum enjoys a large following by members at Protel/Altium. The membership of this forum currently includes 21 protel.com.au subscribers and those span employees from the highest corporate level down through engineering and support. If you are looking for a direct reply from Protel, their own DXP forum is probably the best place but you might find it advantageous to post to both forums as some already do. Regards, Forum Administrator Association of Protel EDA Users [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers At 08:15 AM 7/9/2003, you wrote: Andrew, Seems somebody got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning After reading my post again, in-case I did make a mistake (it has been known on several occasions) I stand by my response, it was correct in every way and written by an experienced, user long term member of both lists. I was in no way rude or abusive to the original author, nor did I cast aspersions on the validity of PEDA, indeed, they are providing better support for Protel 99se and below in a way Protel, pre-Altium never managed (my experience in the UK anyway). I just pointed out you may get a response from people who know more about DXP on a list maintained for DXP users. Posting on the official DXP list will also draw potential problems to the attention of Altium's engineers who own and monitor the DXP list. We all know that DXP is (on the surface at least) very different to 99se, and these questions on how do I. come up all the time. It is very important that Altium are aware of such discussions so that they can put effort into improving the documentation. I think other, (less aggressive) long term users of both lists will agree. Jason. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 13:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Protel EDA Forum... was RE: [PEDA] adjacent component placement D XP Mr Morgan, Since when is this the Protel 99SE list? For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly and explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every list message, and kindly maintained by Techserv, Inc for the quasi-public dissemination of issues related to any and all versions of Protel EDA software, including, but not limited to P99SE...AND DXP. I think I speak for a portion of this list (though clearly not all) when I say that I would appreciate it if you would attempt to remember this before spouting off erroneous garbage like the bull sheisa you post below. In any case, I speak for myself. Finally, I want to be clear to Dr Roberts that this is not the exclusive territory of P99SE users, and Dr Roberts is welcome to post queries or otherwise participate in this forum as she likes. As Jason indicated, there is another forum, sponsored by Altium, which is dedicated to DXP, but I feel the need to attempt to un-obfuscate the distinction between these forums. Altium's is one which is a quarantined, corporate sponsored list, with all of the implications that go with that status. Techserv's is an open user's forum for ANY and ALL Protel EDA products, regardless of any ignornat comments made by it's novice or jaded participants. thank you, Andrew Jenkins -Original Message- From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:46 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not DXP, there is a separate list for DXP issues, see http://forums.altium.com/cgi-bin/msgbylist.asp?list=dxp To answer your question, its the same as in 99se, you create a component-component clearance rule that uses the same component type for
Re: [PEDA] adjacent component placement DXP
Ian,
I can state that it works for me - honest. The area of the PCB in question
is over 2 years old - obviously inherited from 99se.
In this case, the components in question are an array of LEDs with a light
pipe over them, all tightly
packed together.
I've not experimented with the actual parameters in DXP, but I know 'full
checking' MUST be on and I recall
having to play with the negative clearance in 99se, ending up at -127mm.
IIRC The online DRC always fails - annoyingly - but a full DRC passes with
this rule in place.
If I find time I'll take a look at it and see if I can work out *WHY* it
works.
It seems that this method perhaps does not work in all cases, at least
without some messing and plain luck.
I agree on the generalised clearance rule. Hm, perhaps this conversation
should be on DXP as it seems a little product enhancement is in order ;)
J.
-Original Message-
From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 July 2003 12:59
To: Protel EDA Forum
Cc: DXP Technical Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] adjacent component placement DXP
On 06:45 PM 9/07/2003, Jason Morgan said:
Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not
DXP,
there is a separate list for DXP issues, see
http://forums.altium.com/cgi-bin/msgbylist.asp?list=dxp
PEDA is not just for P99SE but is certainly mainly used for that - the
Altium DXP list certainly has a much higher SNR both generally and for DXP
related stuff.
To answer your question, its the same as in 99se, you create a
component-component clearance rule
that uses the same component type for each side of the rule.
I use this exact method for a mechanical part that sits over some LEDs.
e.g.
Create a rule in Placement: Component Clearance: New Rule
HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') vs HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') you need to
specify Full Check
and a large negative clearance, e.g. -999mm
My experience is that this doesn't work. DXP does not support negative
clearance checking (overlaps). It has been something I and others have
been asking for for a while now. I just tried a test case and couldn't get
it to pass a batch DRC if I had any overlap at all - a negative clearance
acted like a zero clearance.
Are you sure this has worked for you, Jason. Can you give a little more
detail? I would love to know why it doesn't work for me.
The only way I have been able to solve this sort of problem is by excluding
the affected footprint from testing by making the general (All-All) rule
into a:
NOT HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') vs NOT HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1')
This excludes 'FOOTPRINT_1', in this case, from any clearance checking -
but this then means that *no* component is checked against any component
with footprint 'FOOTPRINT_1'. I thought I had solved this issue to exclude
just 'FOOTPRINT_1' from being checked against any other 'FOOTPRINT_1' but
all other components being checked against each other and 'FOOTPRINT_1' but
I can't recall and it is late. I think there should be something in the
DXP forum archive on this.
This solution is pretty poor as it doesn't scale well. A number of users
have been requesting generalised clearance rules (not just component and
electrical) with negative clearance (overlap) capability. Hopefully it
will appear in a DXP SP soon.
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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] Attn: Gwyn Roberts - ON-TOPIC: adjacent component placement DXP
Gwyn, I bet you were a little taken aback that innocuous query caused such a flurry of emails. In a way, that is the problem with PEDA these days. On a number of occasions it has gone extremely off topic (less so until recently), causing some long term and well respected members to leave and others in the recent past to generate requests for the list to be moderated. So, anyway, back on-topic, did you try my suggestion? Any luck? It seems from Ian's post that there are problems with this method and I'd like to know if you have had any success. Jason. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] BOM sorter version 10
Hi again, Minor bug found - version 10 available at: http://www.proteluser.com/download Regards David Watling * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP
What's your point? That people should be diplomatic no matter what? Yeah, right. Diplomacy is a two way street buddy. I have no patience with people who spout off unsubstatiated, illogical, and incorrect garbage, reagrdless of whether it offends the ears or eyes of the current priveledged class. I find it darkly humorous that most of you people who instinctively rally for blind diplomacy are those who a) are generally overpaid, b) are secretly worried that the rest of society around them will discover how much of a gravy train they're riding c) will generally overlook any deceptive remarks made by others if it suits their purposes d) always have subtle diplomatic methods of imbuing the world with their own forms of poison. Finally, I'll note that your own contribution to the thread consisted of little more than an attack on me, with no mention of the fact that Peter Morgan was wrong in his authoritative statement about the purpose of this group. (See items c and d above) Pot.Kettle.Black aj Clearly we do not share the same vision of what constitutes open, honest communication. If that means I am not part of your community, then thank God. -Original Message- From: Peter Moreton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:14 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP My point? - that you can make *your* point better by not using inflamatory language, and perhaps by being a little more helpful to the orginal poster. Why publicly insult someone you have never met (and therefore cannot truly know), with words like ignorant and phrases like spouting off erroneous garbage like the bull sheisa... ???. Whether you are right or wrong about a particular point, and no matter how strongly you feel about that point, there is always a diplomatic way to get your point over. The Forum Administrator did re-state your premise, but he/she did so without resorting to insults. Peter Moreton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 19:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP It is also instructive to note that the Forum administrator has stated my own premise. By the way, making a typing error, unlike cognitive disfunction, is not indicitive of stupidity. Your point? -Original Message- From: Peter Moreton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:32 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP Jason, It is instructive to note that in your post, you took the time to actually answer Dr Roberts question, very fully. Mr Jenkins replied only to be offensive by inferring that you were ignornat (sic), and he did not contribute anything to the original question. Peter Moreton -Original Message- From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 16:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP Andrew, Seems somebody got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning After reading my post again, in-case I did make a mistake (it has been known on several occasions) I stand by my response, it was correct in every way and written by an experienced, user long term member of both lists. I was in no way rude or abusive to the original author, nor did I cast aspersions on the validity of PEDA, indeed, they are providing better support for Protel 99se and below in a way Protel, pre-Altium never managed (my experience in the UK anyway). I just pointed out you may get a response from people who know more about DXP on a list maintained for DXP users. Posting on the official DXP list will also draw potential problems to the attention of Altium's engineers who own and monitor the DXP list. We all know that DXP is (on the surface at least) very different to 99se, and these questions on how do I. come up all the time. It is very important that Altium are aware of such discussions so that they can put effort into improving the documentation. I think other, (less aggressive) long term users of both lists will agree. Jason. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 13:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Protel EDA Forum... was RE: [PEDA] adjacent component placement D XP Mr Morgan, Since when is this the Protel 99SE list? For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
I do not believe you for a moment. Your statement could not be read any way other than the way you intended it to be read. And I quote Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not DXP That statement cannot be read any other way than to authoritatively indicate to readers and writers alike that they should not be posting any DXP related topics to this group, thereby doing the work of Altium's executive board is isolating the independent user's group from be able to openly scrutinize the corporate mismanagement of this expensive EDA package. I'll respect the Neo-Eurocratic (or should I say Plutocratic) nature of this group and so leave, as I have realized that it is now thoroughly corrupted by the same old-world scheming values that have caused so much strife there, here, and elsewhere in the world. Your remarks were offensive to the truth, but it is also clear from the response that you are in like company here. As with all things, one must either embrace or avoid company of a particular sort. And in this case, I will no longer attempt diplomacy to embrace this group, as its premise that diplomacy trumps truth is disgusting. aj -Original Message- From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:58 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP I apologise to the administrator for implying that this list is not for discussing DXP, of course such topics are not banned and I did not mean it to read like that. I only wished to indicate that this list is no longer necessarily the best place for discussing DXP operational issues. I still think that the response from one of this lists members was uncalled for and extremely unprofessional. If this guy is like this with people he actually meets I would not be surprised if he has trouble keeping jobs for long. You have the logs, so you can tell better than me, but I don't think I've ever noticed a Protel ne Altium employee taking part in discussions on this list using their 'Protel' identity. On the other hand, the DXP forum seems to have much more feedback direct from engineers at Altium. Jason. -Original Message- From: Forum Administrator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 17:49 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP For the record, this forum is dedicated to discussion of ALL versions of Protel software as well as EDA design issues and EDA software from other vendors. As for drawing the attention of Altium's engineers, this forum enjoys a large following by members at Protel/Altium. The membership of this forum currently includes 21 protel.com.au subscribers and those span employees from the highest corporate level down through engineering and support. If you are looking for a direct reply from Protel, their own DXP forum is probably the best place but you might find it advantageous to post to both forums as some already do. Regards, Forum Administrator Association of Protel EDA Users [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers At 08:15 AM 7/9/2003, you wrote: Andrew, Seems somebody got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning After reading my post again, in-case I did make a mistake (it has been known on several occasions) I stand by my response, it was correct in every way and written by an experienced, user long term member of both lists. I was in no way rude or abusive to the original author, nor did I cast aspersions on the validity of PEDA, indeed, they are providing better support for Protel 99se and below in a way Protel, pre-Altium never managed (my experience in the UK anyway). I just pointed out you may get a response from people who know more about DXP on a list maintained for DXP users. Posting on the official DXP list will also draw potential problems to the attention of Altium's engineers who own and monitor the DXP list. We all know that DXP is (on the surface at least) very different to 99se, and these questions on how do I. come up all the time. It is very important that Altium are aware of such discussions so that they can put effort into improving the documentation. I think other, (less aggressive) long term users of both lists will agree. Jason. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 13:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Protel EDA Forum... was RE: [PEDA] adjacent component placement D XP Mr Morgan, Since when is this the Protel 99SE list? For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly and explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every list message, and
[PEDA] SMD Wavesolder
Can anybody point me to the correct IPC document or other documents that specify which SMD packages can be wave soldered and the correct rotation to prevent solder bridges, etc... Tim Fifield, CET * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] PADS ?
we are about to embark on a large project for an outside customer (second spin, one year in rev, 16 layers, yada yada) we will be using 99SE and probably spectra in talking with the manager (a very smart fellow BTW) at our customer's place he said: 'I HATE Protel!' quite vigorously i said Oh? (pretty diplomatic i thought) he said he watches his people tediously draw track segments and then when they have to move something, rip it up and re-draw everything segment by segment 'very primitive' as he put it he then went on to say that he used to do this stuff and he used PADs he said with PADS he could pick up a fully routed and fanned out QFP and plop it somewhere else all the traces would remain attached and reroute themselves around obstacles very fast and easy he claimed, like a mini-manual-autorouter anybody know about this or have experience with newer versions of PADS ? my last look at it was probably in the 70's :) As DXP does not seem to offer any productivity gains which i can see we may be looking for another package Dennis Saputelli = send only plain text please! - no HTML == ___ Integrated Controls, Inc. www.integratedcontrolsinc.com 2851 21st Streettel: 415-647-0480 San Francisco, CA 94110 fax: 415-647-3003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Printer Driver (was - Protel EDA Forum... was adjacentcomponent placement D XP)
Yeah, I have tried several Epson LQ models with negative results so far. An IBM Proprinter emulation worked, but gave ugly results. The Toshiba P351 is a 24-pin dot matrix, and IIRC the IBM Proprinter was 9-pin. When using Proprinter emulation, the Toshiba gives the same ugly results as a real Proprinter! Does anyone know how a Windows printer driver is written? I sure would like to print my schematics on this Toshiba wide carriage printer. If I can find instructions on how to write a printer driver, I might do it if it's not too tough. Alternatively, does anyone know how to put a Win95 printer driver on a W2K box? Yes, I know I could just buy a wide carriage inkjet, but where's the fun in that? Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Harry Selfridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 6:11 PM Subject: [PEDA] Printer Driver (was - Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP) Ivan - I never tried with a Toshiba, but I had good luck using Epson drivers for other old dot matrix printers. Looking at the Toshiba P351 description, it appears that an Epson LQ series driver might work (they were/are also 24 pin). Epson was the dot matrix market leader for so long that many other vendors adopted compatible printer command sets (kind of like Hayes modem commands becoming the standard for other modems). If I were you, I would experiment by installing a Win2K Epson LQ driver. Your Protel99SE file will probably print just fine pretending the Toshiba is an Epson. Regards - Harry * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Simulation component
Dave, If you place the library siov.lib in the protel\lib\sim\ecos (you must create the ecos directory) then you will be able to use the siov component wih the part name specified as S20K275 (as on sch) or whichever component you want. The gotcha here is that I tried to make the simulation work, but there are differences in PSICE, and SPICE3 or whatever PROTEL SPICE engine is used. At least this will get the spice simulation code into PROTEL for you. You will have to keep modifying siov.lib until it works. FYI: the steps involved are: 1 create the sch symbol 2 update the readonly/library lines in the description line 1: type subckt(x) **everything I have done so far is a subckt line 2: model modelname this is the name of the part in your library. There must be a corresponding: .SUBCKT modelname xxx in your library file. line 3: file lists the library file name. line 4: maps the pins on the sch symbol to the .subckt line in the sim file example: opamp using pins 2,3,4,6,7 as in- in+ v- out v+ correspondingly might be pins=1:[3,2,7,4,6] and the sim file would have the .subckt line in the order: in+ in- v+ v- out line 5: takes line 4 and sends it to the sim file with the number of pins wanted by the sim file as far as I can tell, the %1 references the first pin in line4 ... I always use a boilerplate from a working sym symbol. If you are able to make the conversion work, please send me the working version as I want to learn more about how to convert libraries. This is the first one I haven't been able to make work. Best of luck, Mike - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:15 PM Subject: Simulation component Mike, Thanks for your kind offer... the attached zip file contains the PSpice files downloaded from the EPCOS web site. (See attached file: var_psp.zip) Cheers Dave :. CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] BOM sorter version 10
THANKS David for your continuing work on this it is much appreciated Dennis Saputelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi again, Minor bug found - version 10 available at: http://www.proteluser.com/download Regards David Watling -- Dennis Saputelli = send only plain text please! - no HTML == ___ Integrated Controls, Inc. www.integratedcontrolsinc.com 2851 21st Streettel: 415-647-0480 San Francisco, CA 94110 fax: 415-647-3003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Reposted-Orcad Library Importing
i see DECOMP posted on http://www.proteluser.com/download/orcad_utils/ Dennis Saputelli John Ross wrote: -Original Message- From: Terry Creer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 3:32 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: [PEDA] Orcad Library Importing Hi all, Just got a few schematics and a library in Orcad format from the Atmel website. The schematics load ok (minus the parts in the .lib file), but when I try to load the lib file, Protel (99SE) tells me DECOMP.EXE must be in the path when trying to imort Orcad libraries. Any ideas where I can aquire this DECOMP.EXE? Terry Please visit http://www.protel.com/resources/kb/kb_item.asp?ID=2980 The files you are after are at http://www.ivex.com/techsupport/appnotes/converting_orcad_to_windraft.shtml Although aimed at windraft the zip file contains decomp.exe, 16to32.exe and comp.exe so all you need to add is the SDT.cfg file and your off. The note also gives a little insight into the Orcad format. I will also upload the files to http://www.proteluser.com/download If you have any more problems let me know the URL to pick up the libraries from Atmel and I can open them in Capture and save as V9 for you (can open in Protel?). Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications Ltd 8 BorrowMeadow Road Springkerse Industrial Estate Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office) Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab) Fax +44 [0]1786 474653 GSM +44 [0]7831 373727 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW http://www.rsd.tv == _ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger -- Dennis Saputelli = send only plain text please! - no HTML == ___ Integrated Controls, Inc. www.integratedcontrolsinc.com 2851 21st Streettel: 415-647-0480 San Francisco, CA 94110 fax: 415-647-3003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
Enough! Can we please end this thread? At 09:52 AM 7/10/2003, you wrote: I do not believe you for a moment. Your statement could not be read any way other than the way you intended it to be read. And I quote Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not DXP That statement cannot be read any other way than to authoritatively indicate to readers and writers alike that they should not be posting any DXP related topics to this group, thereby doing the work of Altium's executive board is isolating the independent user's group from be able to openly scrutinize the corporate mismanagement of this expensive EDA package. I'll respect the Neo-Eurocratic (or should I say Plutocratic) nature of this group and so leave, as I have realized that it is now thoroughly corrupted by the same old-world scheming values that have caused so much strife there, here, and elsewhere in the world. Your remarks were offensive to the truth, but it is also clear from the response that you are in like company here. As with all things, one must either embrace or avoid company of a particular sort. And in this case, I will no longer attempt diplomacy to embrace this group, as its premise that diplomacy trumps truth is disgusting. aj -Original Message- From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:58 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP I apologise to the administrator for implying that this list is not for discussing DXP, of course such topics are not banned and I did not mean it to read like that. I only wished to indicate that this list is no longer necessarily the best place for discussing DXP operational issues. I still think that the response from one of this lists members was uncalled for and extremely unprofessional. If this guy is like this with people he actually meets I would not be surprised if he has trouble keeping jobs for long. You have the logs, so you can tell better than me, but I don't think I've ever noticed a Protel ne Altium employee taking part in discussions on this list using their 'Protel' identity. On the other hand, the DXP forum seems to have much more feedback direct from engineers at Altium. Jason. -Original Message- From: Forum Administrator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 17:49 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP For the record, this forum is dedicated to discussion of ALL versions of Protel software as well as EDA design issues and EDA software from other vendors. As for drawing the attention of Altium's engineers, this forum enjoys a large following by members at Protel/Altium. The membership of this forum currently includes 21 protel.com.au subscribers and those span employees from the highest corporate level down through engineering and support. If you are looking for a direct reply from Protel, their own DXP forum is probably the best place but you might find it advantageous to post to both forums as some already do. Regards, Forum Administrator Association of Protel EDA Users [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers At 08:15 AM 7/9/2003, you wrote: Andrew, Seems somebody got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning After reading my post again, in-case I did make a mistake (it has been known on several occasions) I stand by my response, it was correct in every way and written by an experienced, user long term member of both lists. I was in no way rude or abusive to the original author, nor did I cast aspersions on the validity of PEDA, indeed, they are providing better support for Protel 99se and below in a way Protel, pre-Altium never managed (my experience in the UK anyway). I just pointed out you may get a response from people who know more about DXP on a list maintained for DXP users. Posting on the official DXP list will also draw potential problems to the attention of Altium's engineers who own and monitor the DXP list. We all know that DXP is (on the surface at least) very different to 99se, and these questions on how do I. come up all the time. It is very important that Altium are aware of such discussions so that they can put effort into improving the documentation. I think other, (less aggressive) long term users of both lists will agree. Jason. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 13:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Protel EDA Forum... was RE: [PEDA] adjacent component placement D XP Mr Morgan, Since when is this the Protel 99SE list? For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly and explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every list
Re: [PEDA] PADS ?
Dennis, I last used PADs in about 1998 (Power PCB early versions, 3.X I think). At that time it didn't have anything that would support the level of intelligence that you described. Just like with Protel, you would have had to select the part fanout, then move it, then reroute traces. I suspect that the operation is not as simple even today as this person told you, especially not without running an autorouter. PADs did rubber band traces but it typically did so with no intelligence and left a mess that I typically found worse to clean up than deleting the traces and re-routing from scratch in that effected area. I would have to ask, does Spectra have this capability? If Spectra doesn't then I suspect that nobody does, at least not as simply as it was described. Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attached files may contain information that is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:52 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] PADS ? we are about to embark on a large project for an outside customer (second spin, one year in rev, 16 layers, yada yada) we will be using 99SE and probably spectra in talking with the manager (a very smart fellow BTW) at our customer's place he said: 'I HATE Protel!' quite vigorously i said Oh? (pretty diplomatic i thought) he said he watches his people tediously draw track segments and then when they have to move something, rip it up and re-draw everything segment by segment 'very primitive' as he put it he then went on to say that he used to do this stuff and he used PADs he said with PADS he could pick up a fully routed and fanned out QFP and plop it somewhere else all the traces would remain attached and reroute themselves around obstacles very fast and easy he claimed, like a mini-manual-autorouter anybody know about this or have experience with newer versions of PADS ? my last look at it was probably in the 70's :) As DXP does not seem to offer any productivity gains which i can see we may be looking for another package Dennis Saputelli * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP
I have no patience with people who spout off unsubstatiated, illogical, and incorrect garbage, reagrdless of whether it offends the ears or eyes of the current priveledged class. Are you referring to Hippies, Liberals, or the Green Party? ;-) Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] PADS ?
I don't know about PADS but Mentor Expedition does this very effectively. - Original Message - From: Dennis Saputelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] PADS ? we are about to embark on a large project for an outside customer (second spin, one year in rev, 16 layers, yada yada) we will be using 99SE and probably spectra in talking with the manager (a very smart fellow BTW) at our customer's place he said: 'I HATE Protel!' quite vigorously i said Oh? (pretty diplomatic i thought) he said he watches his people tediously draw track segments and then when they have to move something, rip it up and re-draw everything segment by segment 'very primitive' as he put it he then went on to say that he used to do this stuff and he used PADs he said with PADS he could pick up a fully routed and fanned out QFP and plop it somewhere else all the traces would remain attached and reroute themselves around obstacles very fast and easy he claimed, like a mini-manual-autorouter anybody know about this or have experience with newer versions of PADS ? my last look at it was probably in the 70's :) As DXP does not seem to offer any productivity gains which i can see we may be looking for another package * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] BOM sorter version 10
Linden try it, it is great! i haven't had a chance to get up to version 10, but it is/was working well at earlier versions ds Linden Doyle wrote: David, Just a short word of thanks and encouragement. While I have not had occasion to use your BOM Sorter (maybe soon though) , I (and I think many others) appreciate the effort you are putting in to develop and distribute it. Best Regards, Linden Doyle Product Development Engineer Zener Electric Pty Ltd. -- Dennis Saputelli = send only plain text please! - no HTML == ___ Integrated Controls, Inc. www.integratedcontrolsinc.com 2851 21st Streettel: 415-647-0480 San Francisco, CA 94110 fax: 415-647-3003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
