Re: [PEDA] Is it time to upgrade from 99SE to Protel 2004?
Steve- don't bother getting the trial till you actually have the time to do the eval because the trial will expire after 30 days even if you don't install it right away. I really hate this server activation stuff! JM At 05:21 AM 9/15/2004, you wrote: I would like to thank you all for your replies. Since we use Protel only for schematics & layouts, I think that I will not recommend upgrading at this time. I will download the trial version and take a good look at it when time allows. Thanks again. Regards, Steve Smith, C.I.D. Product Engineer Staco Energy Products Co. 301 Gaddis Boulevard. Dayton, OH 45403 Web Site: www.stacoenergy.com & www.stacopower.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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Is it time to upgrade from 99SE to Protel 2004?
At 08:30 AM 9/13/2004, Steve Smith wrote: Hi all, It's time for me to request equipment & software for next years budget and I still don't have a warm & fuzzy feeling about Protel 2004. Has SP1 improved the Situs autorouter? Yes but not enough to make it useful for the boards I design (mostly high speed). I know others are using it successfully but everybody has different needs and different levels of acceptability so you'll probably need to test drive the router to really get a feel for what it can do. Are the other improvements worth the $3500 USD? If you are upgrading from a version earlier than 99se, I'd say its certainly worth the price and will give you many improvements in all areas of the software. If you are upgrading from 99se its a much tougher call. I'll direct the rest of my comments for a 99se upgrader. First, let me say my experience is the following: Most of my work is in PCB layout- probably 90%, about 9% Schematic, and maybe 1% CAM and Autorouter. I don't use the FPGA module at all. If I used PCB less and others modules more, my comments would quite different since they received more attention and improvements than PCB. I've been using DXP04 for a few months now. If I were considering the upgrade at the current price I'd pass on it till the next major upgrade in features. This is mostly because DXP04 reduces productivity by replacing easy-to-use global editing with complex queries and it offers no enhancements in high speed design. Features that are added to PCB layout do not substantially improve productivity. I have seen a few of you say that once you had upgraded you would never go back. I have seen a few of them too. I wonder how many of them can claim PCB layout as their primary job function? I may be wrong but I'd guess that they may already have one or more programing languages under their belt. This would make DXP's query based system more natural for them. Is it really that much better or are the systems so incompatible that once 2004 is learned it would be tough to go back and do it the 99SE way, much less admit that the money was poorly spent? We only design about 10 boards a year and I am having a real problem justifying the cost of upgrading from 99SE SP6 to myself much less my boss. I don't think that it's difficult to go back to 99se. On the contrary, it's difficult to return to DXP due to the more complex user interface and query language. After going from DXP to 99se for just a couple weeks I find I am forgetting much of the query structure. I really have to work at learning DXP. The learning curve is much steeper than any of the past Protel/Altium products. As I'm sure you've seen others write, DXP uses selection differently than 99se. The selection also works in conjunction with a new 'masking' feature. It's different enough from 99se that I find it very difficult to stay proficient on both systems. Also, gone is the quick and easy to use global editing replaced with overly complex text based queries. DXP also employs a 'Find Similar Object' function which was meant to replace some of the ease-of-use of global editing, but it falls short failing to match the power and simplicity of global edits. After a few months using DXP for PCB layout I'm still much slower in DXP. I know I'll get more proficient in time but I'll never match my productivity using 99se until more improvements are added to DXP. If you use more autorouting or schematic more than I do, let that be the deciding factor and give DXP a try. Then again, the cost of the upgrade and the cost of the learning curve are both steep. At just 10 boards a year you would probably be better off from the standpoint of financial cost and delivery schedule to stay with what you have. If your making equipment requests, don't forget a faster machine. My AMD3200 with 1G dual channel RAM is too slow for DXP. After cross probing to an 11 sheet schematic it takes an agonizing 12 seconds just to clear the selection and mask (guess I'll start cross-probing paper or PDF prints)! Also, you're going to want a second monitor (and maybe a bigger desk for the extra monitor). It seems accepted that DXP's plethora of panels and lists make a 2nd display necessary for efficient use. My estimate of the real cost of the DXP04 $3,500 upgrade is closer to $10,000+ after adding the hardware, hardware & software installation, training, learning curve, slower design cycle, possible design errors, and more. I have a feeling that my copy of DXP will start gathering dust once my current series of designs are complete. I'll dust it off after some serious enhancements come along and I've upgraded my hardware. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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: * h
Re: [PEDA] High Speed Design (was: 99SE Find Files Found)
Mike- that was my point. DXP has not added or improved ANY high speed design capabilities. DXP is nearly unchanged from 99se. In fact, I'd venture to say that more capability had been removed than added. The 99se high speed rules and length matching were an okay start when they were introduced many years ago, but I was expecting those features to be polished and additional capabilities to be added. That hasn't happened. Here's an abbreviated list of what I need in the realm of high speed design: * All nets and classes must have a skew length factor to compensate for the various in-chip lengths of different signals. * Length matching must support series caps and resistors. * Length matching parameters must include WIDTH (frequency?), not just gap and amplitude. * The length matching amplitude parameter must be a maximum setting (not fixed) so that the length matching can reduce amplitude as needed to fit the zig-zagging within the available space around each net. * Length matching must run in batch mode. Manually running each pass to add just one amplitude section at a time is ridiculous. Would any EDA vendor dream of making an autorouter that only partially routed each net before it had to be re-started (yeah, maybe Altium)? Ideally, the length matching would automatically regenerate (much like polygons) if a net were rerouted. * Must have design rules specific to differential pairs. * Must have Interactive routing of differential pairs (both nets are placed simultaneously with correct width and spacing per rules). I could make this list much longer but these are the basics. These features could easily save me 20-30 hours per board! There was an article recently pointed out by another forum member (sorry I don't remember who or when exactly) which seemed to indicate that Altium's CEO doesn't think high speed design features are very important (at least that was my interpretation). Given that, and the fact that DXP has added very little design capability to PCB layout, I am very rapidly loosing hope that DXP is a platform that I will be able to continue using much longer. JM At 05:59 AM 9/9/2004, Mike Reagan wrote: Jim wrote: .DXP is now moving toward it's 2nd birthday and I think most of us feel its not nearly as usable or productive as its predecessor. 99se was showing its age in it's lack of many high speed design features. Jim I would be interested in hearing one high speed feature that was implemented in DXP. I have yet to find any. I use both DXP and 99SE. If anything 99SE has a huge advantage over DXP with ease of use in the design rules menu. Try to set up maximum parallel rules between net classes in DXP sometime, it becomes an experiment in programming. Actually, I found a bug in DXP that it doesnt support more than three different levels of layer rules when exporting to a dsn file. This is hardlly a high speed advancement. Mike Reagan EDSI Frederick MD * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] 99SE Find Files Found
Yeah, it had me confused too but I finally figured it out. He means The xxx.DDB document window. You must have a database open and it'll be the left most document tab or only tab if you don't have any of the database's documents open. It's a nifty feature. JM At 08:24 AM 9/9/2004, you wrote: I either missed the first few posts or I just don't get it. Dennis wrote > i just stumbled (after all this time!) on > ctrl-F when in the main file list in the RIGHT window > (only place it shows and which exposes the Find Files .. in the File Menu) > I can't seem to figure out how to do this. He mentions the RIGHT window. Are we referring to something I don't know of? I usually only have the Design Explorer Window open and the item I am working on (ie: Schematic, PCB.) Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. Dan Enslen The only reason time exists is so everything doesn't happen all at once. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] 99SE Find Files Found
I'd have to agree. 99se did and still does represent the height of Protel's EDA systems. Unfortunately 99se is a dead product. It'll be used by many of us for years and years to come but it's development has ceased and its user base will only get smaller. I think the DXP platform could have been another pinnacle but they got carried away with the new interface or perhaps the task of merging all their EDA products under a single 'easy to use' platform was just too daunting. Protel has a history of releasing their products prematurely then making substantial product improvements a year or more later. I doubt that any of the early users of DXP would say it wasn't a premature release. Most of us have learned to wait awhile, usually for SP2 or SP3 before making the leap. I waited for DXP 2004 which appeared to be the equivalent of sp3+. I was still disappointed. DXP is now moving toward it's 2nd birthday and I think most of us feel its not nearly as usable or productive as its predecessor. 99se was showing its age in it's lack of many high speed design features. These and other features could have been added in DXP that would have offset the productivity loss of the new interface. We didn't get them in the original DXP release and they haven't shown up in SP1, SP2, the 2004 upgrade, or 2004 sp1. I'm loosing hope that DXP will ever offer enough bang for the buck for me to continue competing as a contractor. A couple weeks ago one of Altium's sales staff told me to purchase the P-CAD 2004 release to get these features. I am starting to consider changing EDA platforms, but if I do I seriously doubt it would be to another Altium product. I know that others have or are moving away from Protel. I'd be interested in hearing about the benefits and problems you discovered. JM At 12:37 PM 9/7/2004, you wrote: Mike, You got that right, it powerful, and simple at the same time. It will be around for a long time. The current incarnation is mostly a programmers abomination and a companies capitalization of name and brand recognition. For just doing schematics and boards P99 is the pinnacle of the EDA tools. I feel qualified because I use some competitor tools also, but hey I need to earn money as I wasn't born rich so I work. Joe - Original Message - From: "edsi " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 9:15 AM Subject: [PEDA] PEDA] 99SE Find Files Found Dennis wrote i just stumbled (after all this time!) on ctrl-F when in the main file list in the RIGHT window (only place it shows and which exposes the Find Files .. in the File Menu) 99SE SP6 is truly an amazing program. I don't think Altium knows how powerful this program is. Sure, it has a few minor quirks, but I am always amazed. After 6 years, I discovered something last week also. I use net classes to define almost all of my routing. You can a select net, or a group of nets and automatically add them to new or existing net class. The option is not available by using the class generator, where I would expect it to be. It only becomes available for use after you make your selections, and the yellow button is turned on below the double arrow in the class generator menu. I stumbled onto this after looking for easier methods to create net classes. Dennis thanks for the tip.I will explore with it Mike Reagan EDSI Frederick ,MD * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] features
At 09:00 AM 9/3/2004, you wrote: I seem to be constantly enabling/disabling features inadvertently in 2004. The latest is when manually placing a trace, I no longer get the happy little circle when I am exactly on center over a pad or trace. Anyone know what this feature is called and how to turn it back on? Hmmm, thats an interesting description. Makes me think that maybe Altium could improve the feature by making it into a happy face. :) The feature is called Electrical Snap. It can be toggled on/off by using the Shift-E shortcut key. You can also do this in the Design/Board Options menu. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] FROM TOS
Bob- Is the "Connections and From Tos" layer enabled (use the Design/Board Layers and Colors menu)? JM At 01:50 PM 9/1/2004, you wrote: For some reason 2004 has decided I no longer need to see the "from to" rats nest. I have tried setting every flag I can find including Show/Hide From/Tos, And View /Connections/Show All to no avail. What gives? Thanks Bob Stephens * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Error occurred while Running script with DXP
It seemed to me that Juha's first query should have worked. Can someone explain the difference between the two queries? IsPad And (HoleDiameter > '40') (ObjectKind = 'Pad') And (HoleDiameter > '3') How would I know to use "ObjectKind" instead of "IsPad"?! JM At 04:33 AM 8/24/2004, you wrote: Juha, Use find similar objects to get the query started, then make changes from there. (ObjectKind = 'Pad') And (HoleDiameter > '3') This is based on the FSO query. IsPad And (HoleDiameter > '40') This also works. IsPad And (HoleSize > '40') And that too. Darren Moore > -Original Message- > From: Juha Kuusama [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hello all, > > I'm finally taking the plunge and learning the query > language. Actually, > I need it in my current design, where I want to single out > certain pads. > However, even my simple query "(IsPad) And (HoleSize > 3)" > results to a > Design Explorer Error window with "Error occurred while Running > script". What gives? > > Juha Kuusama > Kuusama Design Oy * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] 99SE Schematic Library List Export
Jay Dee- There is a simple and quick way to place an entire schematic library in a single operation. Just open the library for editing as well as a schematic document. In the browser panel for the library, Right-Click in the Components list and choose "Select All" (you can also Shift or Ctrl Click in the Components list). Then click the Place button. You can also use the Components list to copy and past multiple parts from one library to another. This works for PCB libraries as well. JM At 11:12 PM 8/23/2004, Jay Dee wrote: Hi, I have searched all of the manuals and the web and not been able to solve my seemingly simple problem with Protel 99SE. Our production/purchasing department needs a list (same format as a schematic BOM) of all components in our own schematic library including all part fields and read-only fields(as these are used extensively). I know that I can select Reports>Library when I have the library open for editing but this only produces a list that contains the component name and description(none of the extra fields). The only way that I can see around it (after about 6 hours of trying) is to manually place every component on a schematic sheet one by one and then produce a bom of that schematic. This is totally impractical as you can't place more than one component at a time. Could anyone please tell me if there is any way of doing this. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] 99SE & XP behaviour
Terry- I've often experienced footprints that won't select when using 'inside area' unless I center their comments and designators as you describe. I didn't think that was what was being described. He said that select inside "only highlights these parts optically, not really". I assumed that meant that the parts were highlighted in the selection color but that the selection attribute in the component dialog was not enabled. JM At 04:06 PM 8/19/2004, Terry Creer wrote: I see this all of the time. First, Unhide all Designators' and Comments' on components: Double click a component, untick the hide box on the designator and the comment, press the Global button and hit OK. Now you can see all Designators and Comments. Next, (you need Service Pack 6 for this) double click again on the component, set designators and comments Autoposition to Centre, Global>Ok. If you don't want/have Service Pack 6 then you have to move designators and comments by hand to the middle of the component. Now the comment and designators should be in the centre of the component. You can hide them again and now you should be able to select the way you want... Hope that helps! TC ...PS - check the components are not LOCKED! -Original Message- From: Jim Monroe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 20 August 2004 7:39 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] 99SE & XP behaviour At 01:10 PM 8/19/2004, you wrote: >Watching already at my 30-day demo of 99SE i see some problems with >selecting a group of components. >I use mouse to select them or use edit-select-inside >area way. But it only highlights these parts optically, not >really. > >Selecting ALL parts on PCB works fine I've never see a case where parts were visibly selected, but not selected for editing or moving purposes. How do you know the parts aren't really selected? If you redraw the screen (use the END key) does the visible selection disappear? You might want to check that you have the latest service pack, SP6, installed (if it will work with the demo). You can get it from the Altium web site. BTW, can you still purchase 99se new in box or do you have purchase a previously owned licence? JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] 99SE & XP behaviour
At 01:10 PM 8/19/2004, you wrote: Watching already at my 30-day demo of 99SE i see some problems with selecting a group of components. I use mouse to select them or use edit-select-inside area way. But it only highlights these parts optically, not really. Selecting ALL parts on PCB works fine I've never see a case where parts were visibly selected, but not selected for editing or moving purposes. How do you know the parts aren't really selected? If you redraw the screen (use the END key) does the visible selection disappear? You might want to check that you have the latest service pack, SP6, installed (if it will work with the demo). You can get it from the Altium web site. BTW, can you still purchase 99se new in box or do you have purchase a previously owned licence? JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP Netlist Compare
At 02:00 PM 8/19/2004, you wrote: Take a look at Protel Knowledge Base item 3439. Ignore the title of the item - when you get to step 4, you have the netlist differences displayed. http://www.altium.com/protel/kb/kb_item.asp?ID=3439 At 12:21 PM 8/19/04, you wrote: Does anyone know if DXP has a netlist comparison report? I know 99se had it, but it would be nice if I didn't have to jump back and forth. snip I didn't think this was what I wanted since it compared a PCB to a netlist, but I found that I could also select two netlists. The report isn't as clean 99se but is does offer some very nice probing capabilities. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP Netlist Compare
Does anyone know if DXP has a netlist comparison report? I know 99se had it, but it would be nice if I didn't have to jump back and forth. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Disappearing Document Types
See below... At 04:07 PM 8/18/2004, Ian Wilson wrote: On 04:34 AM 19/08/2004, Keith said: I was working on a layout in Protel 99 SE and decided I wanted to save it and work off a copy of the ddb. I save all and close the file. I make a copy of the file and open it. Now Protel has completely lost its marbles.. All of my documents (rpt, drc, lib, pcb, etc) have the same icon, a little move with a shortcut-like arrow in it. When I do a file >> new my only options are CAM output configuration and Document Folder. Clicking a file causes no obvious affect. Right clicking a file and selecting properties says all the files of the Type CAM output configuration but the view >> details view of the file structure still lists Text, PCBLib, PCB, etc as it should be. I have reboot my computer and also tried opening copies (scared to open originals) of know working files other then this one and I get the same result. I'm completely dumbfounded. Does anybody know what the heck happened?!? Keth, I saw you had solved the problem, in a fashion, on a follow-up post. One thing that can cause P99SE to go ape is an ini file over 64k (I think this is the limit; it is a Windows limit I think.). This can happen soon enough, in P99SE, as one of the ini files keeps a track of all projects that have been opened - a most recently used file list but not limited to the usual four or so most recent files like in most apps. Ian- Yes, the 64K limit on INI files was a MS Windows limit. I know that it applied to Windows 98 and earlier but I'm not sure about ME or NT. I do know that it was increased or gotten rid of in Win2000 and later. When I was using Win98 as my OS, I'd back up my Protel INI file after installing and setting up P98 or P99se. Then when the file got too big I just restored it from the backup and everything in Protel would be back to normal. JM Have a look in the windows install folder for the "client99se.ini" file. Open it in a text editor and look at the section [Closed Files List] - if this is huge delete most of them, keep just the recent entries you are working on. In the file I had a look at just now, the [servers] and the [locks] sections are below the [closed file list] section - a lot of files listed could have left the server list and the lock list inaccessible. I suggest moving these two important sections above the [closed file list] section - put the section that can grow out-of-bounds at the bottom of the file. This may not be the cause of the problem but it is a documented issue, that could conceivably cause the problem. Bye for now, 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] DXP to SE
Corrupted? Can you elaborate a little? Is Altium aware of this and is their a KB item? I haven't noticed any problems. In fact I've been impressed at how well a DXP PCB exports to 99se. Of course it's necessary to review and re-define some of the design rules, and create new split planes to replace DXP style splits, but I haven't found any "corruption". JM At 06:31 AM 8/16/2004, Mike Reagan wrote: > >I know this is not a dxp forum but I'm sure someone can help. > >Can someone Tell me how to save a dxp file back to SE? > >Is it as easy as file/save as/ version 4.0? > Jim Yes but the pcb file will be corrupted when you load it into 99SE. This is because DXP does not support online connectivity. After you open it in 99SE, start a clean (second) pcb file, Select All from the pcb you transfered back from DXP, copy then paste to the clean sheet. You will need to import a clean netlist, reconstruct your design rules, and you will need to review all of the split planes. The board will now work in 99SE Mike Reagan EDSI Frederick MD * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP to SE
At 06:44 AM 8/13/2004, Jim McGrath wrote: I know this is not a dxp forum but I'm sure someone can help. Yes this IS a DXP forum as well as 99se and other versions. Can someone Tell me how to save a dxp file back to SE? Is it as easy as file/save as/ version 4.0? Joe already answered this but I thought I'd add that you can find the version numbers of all of Protel's software by checking the Help/About dialogs. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] footprint madness
Bob- Could this be the pad numbers or nets names being displayed (see Tools/Preferences dialog in the Display tab)? If not perhaps screen shot would help. I don't think you can attached files to this forum, but perhaps you can provide a link to a screen shot. JM At 01:36 PM 8/9/2004, you wrote: I built an SOIC 8 a while ago and have used it successfully until today. When I load the PCB, this part comes up with '' on top of each row of pins in white - not a valid layer color in this design - 80 mil text. I can't select it, the library editor doesn't know it's there, and it doesn't show up on printouts. Loading a previous board which uses the same part exhibits the same problem, where it never did before. Placing a new component on a bare PCB from the library does the same thing, the 's aren't visible in the library, but do show up on the board, and scale/pan with the part etc. Any ideas? Bob Stephens PS I'm using 2004 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Copy selection to layer
Bob- Again I'll assume you are wanting to move the end of a wire in DXP.
Try Edit/Break Wire and Move/Drag.
The default operation of DXP now automatically joins wires (unless you
disable "Optimize Wires"), so if you draw a short wire then continue a new
wire at the end of the old, the two become one. You cannot move the end of
the first wire because it no longer exists. You can however clip a section
out of the middle of the wire using the Break Wire command, creating two
separate wire. Then click to wire to select it and show its handles, then
use the Move/Drag command or simply click and drag one of the handles.
The 2nd chapter in the Manual gives a good tutorial on the basics for
Schematic and PCB. If you have the DXP04 upgrade that didn't come with
paper manuals, you can get it in PDF format in the Altium\Protel2004 folder
in your program directory or from the web at
http://www.altium.com/learningguides/TU0117_GettingStartedWithPCBDesign.pdf.
JM
At 06:17 AM 8/9/2004, you wrote:
Thanks Jim. That's a big help. Is there a similar command for trimming wires
in schematics?
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Jim Monroe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 5:12 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Copy selection to layer
Bob- Are you talking about moving the end of a trace? If so, the shortcut
was Ctrl + LeftClick. DXP still has this capability by using the move drag
end command but shortcut doesn't work anymore, it was reassigned to
highlight net. You can re-assign the shortcut back to the Move/Drag command
or give it a new shortcut.
I have a favorite little know trick that did make the transition intact.
Excess length of track stubs can be trimmed simply by double clicking while
Interactive Routing ("Automatically Remove Loops" must be enabled). The
stub beyond the double click point instantly disappears. Having the
electrical snap enabled also helps.
BTW, I'm trying to figure out which DXP shortcut keys are not yet used.
Does anyone know if it is possible to list shortcuts sorted by keystroke?
This was another easy task in 99se that isn't so apparent in DXP.
JM
At 06:22 AM 8/6/2004, bob stephens wrote:
>Another feature I really miss is the ability to trim or shorten a
>PCB trace by some combination of shift/ctrl/click/drag which I forget. I
>can't fathom why they would get rid of this very useful feature...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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] Copy selection to layer
At 05:37 PM 8/6/2004, Darren wrote: > BTW, I'm trying to figure out which DXP shortcut keys are not > yet used. > Does anyone know if it is possible to list shortcuts sorted > by keystroke? > This was another easy task in 99se that isn't so apparent in DXP. You can look in the GU0104 Shortcut Keys.pdf file. I've browsed it before but it seemed to short to be comprehensive, but maybe it is. Even so it would be nice if there were also a list sorted by shortcut keys. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Multiple Displays
Thanks everybody for your comments and recommendations regarding multiple displays. Now feel confident enough to make some purchasing decisions. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Copy selection to layer
Bob- Are you talking about moving the end of a trace? If so, the shortcut
was Ctrl + LeftClick. DXP still has this capability by using the move drag
end command but shortcut doesn't work anymore, it was reassigned to
highlight net. You can re-assign the shortcut back to the Move/Drag command
or give it a new shortcut.
I have a favorite little know trick that did make the transition intact.
Excess length of track stubs can be trimmed simply by double clicking while
Interactive Routing ("Automatically Remove Loops" must be enabled). The
stub beyond the double click point instantly disappears. Having the
electrical snap enabled also helps.
BTW, I'm trying to figure out which DXP shortcut keys are not yet used.
Does anyone know if it is possible to list shortcuts sorted by keystroke?
This was another easy task in 99se that isn't so apparent in DXP.
JM
At 06:22 AM 8/6/2004, bob stephens wrote:
Another feature I really miss is the ability to trim or shorten a
PCB trace by some combination of shift/ctrl/click/drag which I forget. I
can't fathom why they would get rid of this very useful feature...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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] Alternate Characters in 99SE
I wrote a few utility programs a number of years ago that made use of all three of Protel's PCB font's (this was back in the days of Protel for Windows 2.x). At that time the fonts only supported the basic ASCII character set (as you see printed on the keys of your keyboard) and even some of those characters weren't fully supported in all three fonts. Not only that, some of the character spacing was and is incorrect. I believe Protel's PCB fonts have not been updated in all these years. If that's the case then you are out of luck. Perhaps someone else has more recent knowledge of Protel's PCB font set and can confirm my assumption. JM At 06:15 PM 8/5/2004, you wrote: Greetings all, Does anyone know if it is possible to include alternate characters in a Protel PCB text string. I want to use the symbol (+/-) for some tolerances but the usual Alt+0177 doesn't work. It results in a blank space in the string. The Protel font doesn't seem to support this character. Thanks in advance, Linden Doyle Product Development Engineer Zener Electric Pty Ltd. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Copy selection to layer
Bob- After selecting the components you can do one of the following: 1. Edit/Move/Selection then while moving, press the L key to change the layer. This will switch the component layers as well as flip (mirror) the positions of all the parts relative to one another. or 2. Use the Inspector or List panel to change the layer. The parts will change layers and mirror over there reference points but not relative to another. JM At 11:48 AM 8/5/2004, you wrote: I have an annoying problem in 2004. When I Update the PCB from schematic, all newly added components get placed on the top layer. What I want to be able to do is to select a group of these components and flip them onto the back side of the board. I swear I remember being able to do this in 99SE - or is that a false memory? Thanks, Bob Stephens * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Multiple Displays
I'm getting ready to add a second monitor for use with DXP04 running on Win2k. I'm hoping those with experience can guide me in the right direction. I'm thinking about adding a 15 or 17 inch flat panel as the secondary display to my 21 CRT. I thought the flat panel would be used for display of panels and reports while the CRT would be used for the editing workspace. Here are some things I'm curious sure about: 1. Is this a good strategy? 2. Is my proposed mix of CRT and flat panel even feasible, and can the flat panel be set for a lower resolution than the CRT. If this is hardware dependant, is there anything special I should know? 3. I'd like to hear about multi-display configurations that work especially well (or don't work well). JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Listing net name & nodes with DXP04
In 99se it was simple to list net name and all the nodes by clicking on any copper object. The net name and all the nodes would then be listed in the PCB (Nets) browser. I can't seem to get DXP04 to do this. The DXP PCB browser doesn't respond, even if I first set "All Nets" in the browser. Does DXP04 have a "better" way of doing this, or is this another function I no longer have? TIA for any help. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Giving DXP another try...
I had gotten busy and didn't have a chance to reply earlier. Rene- I agree with most of what you listed as improvements. But my overall impression is that Schematic received most of the real enhancements. The PCB stuff is mostly frills. It is more polished, but I think it was done a great expense. See my interspersed comments... At 04:16 AM 7/17/2004, you wrote: Gladly. -the mouse scroll for panning and zooming as well in the schematic as in the pcb. I don't have to add the panning in the schematic with the right mouse. That was overdue. Nice to finally have the right mouse pan in the schematic. I find the pre-defined mouse wheel useless, wish I could define the wheel function myself. -When exiting with a lot of files open, I'm asked which I want to have saved. Nice frill but doesn't really improve my productivity in any measurable way. -renaming copper that is already there, due to a net that was renamed. IN 99SE you could select the connected copper and rename the net, but that left the vias, as the vias were somehow not counted connected copper(!). This sort of stuff works like a charm and even much better. Never had the via problem in 99se, they always selected along with other copper. -The global search & replace I like better in DXP2004 than in 99SE. I find that it is more powerful, but its generally overkill for PCB layout. Many simple edits in 99se are now very complex (or impossible) in DXP04. I'm sure I'll occasionally find a global edit in DXP that wasn't as easy or possible in 99se, but overall I find this to be a great loss in productivity. -The schematic library displays not only the symbol but also the possible footprints as graphic. No, the integrated libraries are not necessary. I'm still working with my 99SE libraries. Any new component is still made in 99SE and then pulled over to DXP2004. Nice but I haven't gotten it to work consistently with my 99se libs. I'm sure its just operator error and I'll eventually figure it out. -DXP2004 would allow more that the 4 footprints that 99SE did for a schematic component. One was all I ever wanted. We use a strict one to one correlation between footprints and symbols. After we started doing this we NEVER had a footprint miss-match (long before integrated libs came along). Even so I do look forward to using fully integrated libraries. I don't see this as adding productivity, just greater peace of mind. -It allows importing and saving files and projects in the 99SE format -Dimensions for example decayed into drawing primitives in 99SE. They are solved much nicer in DXP2004. Yes, dims are now very nice!!! The datum dims are what I've been waiting for. This might save me an hour or two per fab drawing if they worked just a little better. Hopefully next rev. -When something is selected, the rest is dimmed. Some times this is nice sometimes its a curse. I wish it were easy to toggle back and forth between 99se mode and DXP mode. -plus much more ... Unfortunately the things I really need are still not there. These include: Rule setup for differential pairs and matched lengths that allows for series caps/resistors, and T's; True interactive differential routing; Length matching package skew factors for every net; Automatic length matching which handles user defined trombone lengths that can be routed interactively or in batch mode. These are just a very few things that are needed for modern board design. Any one of these items could save me DOZENS of hours on a single design. WAKE UP ALTIUM! I'm only doing schematic and manual routing, nothing else. I do mostly PCB and just a little schematic, so naturally my impressions are different. One drawback: DXP2004 takes a lot more memory. 512Mega are not sufficient when running a few more applications. And yes the many panels require a second screen. It is definitely not comfortable with even a 1600x1200. Meaning I have a new system on the list, when the finances permit, perhaps next year. Rene Unfortunately my machines were upgraded not long before I tried DXP04 I find my AMD 3200's with 1G of dual channel are sorely lacking in performance when it comes to DXP. I'm going to need to upgrade again, and of course I'll need to get those second monitors. So far, I find the biggest productivity boost that DXP04 offers for PCB layout is the enhanced dimensioning. The global editing offers greater power but I find its mostly un-needed and at a cost of lost productivity. DXP04 is pretty and more 'finished' but I really need much more than that. I am a contract designer which means I'm not salaried. I get paid by the job, so productivity is paramount. Compared to 99se, DXP04 is taking food out of my mouth. I'm still looking for the features that will change this. I sure wish someone could point out some PCB layout productivity enhancements that I
Re: [PEDA] Changing color of DXP From-To's
At 03:45 PM 8/2/2004, you wrote: You would have had an answer much faster elsewhere I'd think. Ian Wilson No, I don't believe so. I had already searched other forums. The DXP forum had a nearly identical question posted a few weeks ago "[dxp] setting colors" and it was never fully resolved. I posted here for a fresh point of view. I appreciate your knowledge of DXP but I'm getting a little tired of you suggesting that I should post DXP issues elsewhere. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Changing color of DXP From-To's
Ian- from my prior post you'll see I eventually found that I needed to enable the selection option in the PCB panel. Unfortunately I had been too busy deciphering and solving the problem to read your email in a timely manor. JM At 03:45 PM 8/2/2004, you wrote: On 01:03 AM 3/08/2004, Mike Reagan said: Jim I dont think it works as advertised. I agree I cant globally change the nets either Mike and Jim, Works OK for me. Select net(s) in the PCB panel, change to Inspector and change the colour. Select net classes in the "Net Classes" section of the PCB panel, or select a range (shift click) or multiple specific nets (ctrl click) in the "Nets" section as per normal windows stuff. Oh - make sure the PCB panel is set to "Nets" in the drop down list at the top of the panel. Also make sure the "Select" and "Clear Existing" check boxes are checked (at the top of the PCB panel. The KB item 3555 is not really very specific about how to select nets. KB Item 4266 has a bit more detail but again doesn't mention that the easiest way to select nets is probably using the PCB panel. You would have had an answer much faster elsewhere I'd think. Ian Wilson -Original Message- From: Jim Monroe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 9:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Changing color of DXP From-To's I can't seem to figure out how to make a global change of color of the From-To's in DXP04. KB item 3555 says that they can be changed "by selecting the nets, and editing the Color field in the Inspector panel". I've tried various methods of selecting nets but they are never listed in the Inspector. I can change them one at a time in the PCB panel but that's too slow and error prone when changing hundreds of nets (eg. busses and/or net classes) Can any body give me more detailed instructions so I can change the color of groups of nets? Thanks in advance. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Changing color of DXP From-To's
Eureka, I've found it! After many hours of forum searching, KB searching, and testing, I've deciphered how to make a global color change in the From-To's. KB item 3555 will work with a little help. What the KB 3555 neglected to say was that... Multiple nets can be selected by using the PCB panel, but the "Selection" option in the PCB panel must first be enabled (the default setting for the PCB panel in my DXP04 install was with "Mask" enabled and Selection disabled and it won't work this way). Only then the selected nets can be changed using Inspector. Hope this help others. JM At 08:03 AM 8/2/2004, you wrote: Jim I dont think it works as advertised. I agree I cant globally change the nets either Mike Reagan -----Original Message- From: Jim Monroe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 9:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Changing color of DXP From-To's I can't seem to figure out how to make a global change of color of the From-To's in DXP04. KB item 3555 says that they can be changed "by selecting the nets, and editing the Color field in the Inspector panel". I've tried various methods of selecting nets but they are never listed in the Inspector. I can change them one at a time in the PCB panel but that's too slow and error prone when changing hundreds of nets (eg. busses and/or net classes) Can any body give me more detailed instructions so I can change the color of groups of nets? Thanks in advance. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Changing color of DXP From-To's
I can't seem to figure out how to make a global change of color of the From-To's in DXP04. KB item 3555 says that they can be changed "by selecting the nets, and editing the Color field in the Inspector panel". I've tried various methods of selecting nets but they are never listed in the Inspector. I can change them one at a time in the PCB panel but that's too slow and error prone when changing hundreds of nets (eg. busses and/or net classes) Can any body give me more detailed instructions so I can change the color of groups of nets? Thanks in advance. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Giving DXP another try...
Rene- I wish I could enjoy using DXP as much as I've enjoyed 99se. Maybe you could elaborate about the features "you wouldn't want to miss", because I haven't found them yet. JM At 01:02 PM 7/16/2004, Rene wrote: Steve Wiseman wrote: I've got a project coming up which I'd like to run through DXP as a learning project, since it's not too urgent. While I do have a huge archive of DXP emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED], which I could no doubt work my way through, are there any other resources out there to help the transition? Altium seem to have completely disowned DXP on their website - is 2004 the same thing? I guess what I'm really hoping for is a list of really obvious things that I'll otherwise have to learn the hard way... Thanks for any hints, pointers, warnings, whatever :) I recently made the transition too. I also took a project that wasn't in a hurry. I admit DXP2004 is great. There are many features that I wouldn't want to miss anymore. The menues are untidy as in 99SE, meaning there are a multiple times the same pages as we were used to. Most important: before tryinging something for hours, post a question to a newsgroup, here or at altium and get the problem solved before the motivation is gone. Rene -- Ing.Buro R.Tschaggelar http://www.ibrtses.com Your newsgroups @ http://www.talkto.net * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Giving DXP another try...
Steve- The only place I've seen the "2004" name used is on Altium's web site and marketing materials. The program's splash screen and about menu all call it DXP. I think the marketing whizzes at Altium came up with the 2004 moniker to make it appear to be a new and better product. I wish Altium would just forget the smoke and mirrors and address more of the usability complaints. To be fair though, I understand "04" does have some improvements over the previous version of DXP, though I couldn't tell you what they are since I skipped the DXP upgrade till 04 came out. Glad I didn't do it any sooner! If you haven't kept up with DXP and you're not upgrading to 04, be sure to get the latest service pack 3 (pre-release). I don't know why Protel has never finished that release, but from what I understand it's a must for DXP. I'm at the beginning stages of a large project using 04. It's stalled for the moment but I'll be posting my experiences here. JM At 05:36 AM 7/15/2004, you wrote: I've got a project coming up which I'd like to run through DXP as a learning project, since it's not too urgent. While I do have a huge archive of DXP emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED], which I could no doubt work my way through, are there any other resources out there to help the transition? Altium seem to have completely disowned DXP on their website - is 2004 the same thing? I guess what I'm really hoping for is a list of really obvious things that I'll otherwise have to learn the hard way... Thanks for any hints, pointers, warnings, whatever :) 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Layer
Roger,
It might just be easier and faster to place a keepout fill over the entire
layer that you do not want routed. This should prevent any routes on the
layer as well as all vias .
I haven't tried this with the DXP router yet, but it did work with earlier
routers.
JM
At 05:25 PM 7/8/2004, you wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to make rules for some type of component only route in one
specific layer (bottom or top) in a 2 side board. I'm using the
InComponent('designator') function in the advanced query and make the
constraints for just one type of layer (bottom or top) but Protel still
route that in 2 two layers.
Anybody has any idea?
Thanx
Posted from Association web site by: Roger
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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] Toggling Netlist Macros in 99SE SP6
Steve - Can't say for sure without seeing your schematic, but here is my guess. You are using Sheet Symbols/Port Connections for your netlist scope and your top sheet has one or more GND net labels that are not attached to a GND power port. Therefor you get two GND nets. If you change your netlist scope to Net Labels & Ports Global, the two ground nets will merge to one (but this may also cause other nets to merge that you don't want merged). The quickest way to resolve the problem is to place GND net label on a short wire and also connect a GND power port to the same wire. This will essentially merge your local GND net with your global GND power port net. As far as trace is concerned, never used it so I can't be of much help there. JM At 05:49 AM 6/1/2004, you wrote: I've seen the toggling macros that result from having two pins with the same number, where they are alternately added and deleted from the connections with successive netlist loads. This is similar, but slightly different. I have built a common-mode choke schematic symbol, with 4 pins each of type Passive. I've checked in the list panel and there are no duplicate pins. Looking at the part in the library editor, there are no "inside-out" pins. Likewise the corresponding PCB footprint has exactly four pads, no duplicates, and no funny-business on any of them. I'm still in the habit of explicitly creating the netlist from schematic, and explicitly loading the netlist in the PCB. Each time I do so, in addition to any macros I expect, I also get two extras: the first removes pin 3 of that chocke from its net (Gnd), and the second adds it back to the same net. There are no errors noted. Executing the netlist load causes no adverse effects but works just as would be expected. But then immediately reloading the same netlist (which should result in no changes) produces those same two stray macros. This doesn't directly impact the board I'm laying out, as the net connections end up correct. But I've learned the hard way not to ignore it when Protel does oddball, unexpected things - it's trying unsuccessfully to warn me about some glitch that, sooner or later, will rear its ugly head in a defective batch of boards. Does anybody here have any thoughts on what I should be looking for? Anticipating the first suggestion, I just tried using Schematic's - < Update PCB>. Exactly the same result. In moving the design forward, I added two grounded mechanical holes, by adding two "Testpoint"s on the schematic (single pin component I've used since antiquity) and grounding them there. Now I get three pairs of these stray macros - a pair each for pin 3 of the choke and pin 1 (only pin) of the two new testpoints. The only thing in common is that all three are connected to ground. But no other grounded pins (about a hundred) show any anomalies. Uh-oh, I may be on the track of something here. I just discovered that there are two GND nets in my netlist. Using explicit sheet-port connectivity, but GND power symbols should be common regardless. One GND net relates to the top-level sheet and three subsheets; the other net seems to be all the GND connections for the most recently-created sheet, which is properly nested under the top sheet in the Explorer panel. In trying to turn on the trace option of the Schematic netlist generator, it claims to generate a trace file called filename.tng. But there's no such file on my system after running the netlist, and indeed no recently generated files that could be the output. I'm wandering further and further afield from getting this job out the door, which has to happen in the next couple of days. Basic issues I need to address, then, are: 1) The split GND net MUST be fixed somehow. 2) The stray remove / add macros might be hinting at something dangerous. 3) I can't find the netlist generator trace output. Any and all hints welcome!! Thanks!! Steve Hendrix * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Wheeling with DXP
Tony - I guess I didn't make myself clear. I do want to use the wheel for zooming, but I want it to be the default function for the wheel so that I don't need to hold the CTRL key to use it (mouse zooming with one hand instead of two!). The reason the default wheel setup is ridiculous (to me) is that it seems a waste to reserve the WHEEL and the SHIFT-WHEEL for vertical and horizontal panning when any-direction panning when it is already the function of the right-drag mouse button (again it requires just one hand instead of two). I want zooming to be the default wheel function (instead of vertical panning). BTW, you can also "get much better zoom control" when using keyboard Page-Up or Page-Down if you hold down the SHIFT key (been that way for years). JM At 12:06 AM 6/1/2004, Tony Karavidas wrote: I'm not sure if it can be changed, but it's not ridiculous. You get much better zoom control using the mouse wheel than you do with the Page Up/Down keys. Now changing the non-key, shift key, ctrl key versions of the wheel mouse would be good if zoom is your number 1 use for the wheel. -----Original Message- From: Jim Monroe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 2:20 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] Wheeling with DXP Does anybody know how to change the way the mouse wheel functions in DXP? I want to zoom using the wheel without also having to hold down the CTRL key. The default setting is ridiculous requiring both mouse and keyboard to zoom. If I really wanted to use the keyboard, I'd just use the Page Up/Down keys - that only takes one hand. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP Discussions (was: Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet?)
At 03:16 PM 5/31/2004, Ian wrote: The amount of traffic on this list that discusses DXP/P2004 in detail and has the suggestions and problems is small compared to that on other forums. Ian - You didn't get specific, but judging by many of your prior postings, I assume you are referring to Altium's DXP forums. I am not too surprised that DXP traffic on this forum has been light. I recall seeing posts from you and a few others that recommended that people post DXP questions to the Altium's forum instead of this one. I prefer this forum for a number of reasons, here are a few. First, I don't want the only show in town to be controlled by the vendor of the product. If we don't support and use other forums, they will go away. Second, this forum has been here for many years, almost since I started using Protel back in 1990. The DXP forums are a Johnny come lately and Altium does not even provide forums for their earlier products. Once upon a time they did, but only for a very short time during the mid 90's. And even then, negative comments were often censored. Third, I understand that this forum is monitored by a large number of Altium employees, so Altium knows what's going on even when messages are not posted to their own forum. Forth, It's been proved time and time again that the user's usually have a better grasp of how to best use the products than most of Protel's staff. And even though there are users on Altium's forums, I would still prefer to post here for the previous three reasons. A number of years ago I was told by a Protel Tech Support employee that Protel had instituted a policy that discouraged or forbade Protel employees from participating in this forum (they could look but not touch). So I'll certainly need to use Altium's forum if I require direct feedback from them, and I'll use it if I can't get an answer here, but otherwise it'll be my second choice. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Wheeling with DXP
Does anybody know how to change the way the mouse wheel functions in DXP? I want to zoom using the wheel without also having to hold down the CTRL key. The default setting is ridiculous requiring both mouse and keyboard to zoom. If I really wanted to use the keyboard, I'd just use the Page Up/Down keys - that only takes one hand. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Upgrade to DXP
Laurie, As you probably know, DXP incorporates new features that didn't exist in 99se. So depending on the design and features used in the design, exporting from DXP to 99se may take a little (or a lot) of rework once the file is loaded in 99se. This is always the downside of adding new features, it often requires changes to the file format which are not backward compatible. The alternative would be to never progress and I don't think that's really an alternative. It would probably be easier for everybody if everyone upgraded simultaneously, but that would never happen unless the software was free and net based. I can sympathize with your problems though. Good luck. JM At 12:34 AM 5/31/2004, you wrote: In light of the recent thread on upgrading to DXP I would like to ask the question of those who have (and possibly those that didn't) regarding sharing your files with us Protel 99SE people i.e. Having done your DXP pcb/schematics you need to share them with us 99SE users. How confident can you/we be that ALL the important information is preserved. I would grossly resent being forced to pay AUS$10,000 for DXP just so that I can read the files created by other DXPers. This is a tactic that Microsoft use with stuff like their Office Suite and is not the way to keep good favour. I ask the question because my company supports a number of customers pcb designs (we are a pcb stuffer) and some are now using DXP whilst others use 99SE. We currently use 99SE internally and would prefer to stay with it for now but have had concern from the DXP customers as to the problems they have exporting and whether the 99SE files we get are reliable enough for us to work on. Best Regards Laurie Biddulph http://www.elby-designs.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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet?
Hamid, The reason I'm amazed is that I can't be the first to notice that FSO has major shortcomings. Obviously Protel saw the need for it, so why have they stopped short? I'm not quite as cynical. It's apparent that DXP was the result of truly integrating the various Protel products. A good thing in concept, but I imagine creating a good common interface is a bigger task than we all realize. It looks like Protel's answer was to mimic the IDE (Integrated Development Environment) that programmers use on a daily basis. It also uses a query language which probably makes the Protel programers feel right at home. I think it was short sited because most of what is do is graphical in nature, not text based, and most of us are not programers. The FSO panel was an attempt to make us non-programers more comfortable with DXP. The FSO is simply a mini front end for the query language. It not unlike the 99 style global edit dialog, and it's good as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. Please Protel, continue what you started with FSO and make it truly usable. If Protel doesn't realize it yet, they need to understand that most layout designers are not comfortable with a text based front end for our CAD system (isn't that one of the reasons we abandoned DOS?). CAD is a graphical application and DXP needs a full GUI that doesn't force us to remember arcane commands and syntax. I to like the power of queries, but please don't force it on us. JM At 11:42 PM 5/30/2004, Hamid wrote: Jim Monroe wrote: I am amazed that more than 2 years after DXP's debut its still lacking in such a way. [Regarding global edits] Jim, I am amazed that you are amazed. Step back and see what kind of thinking went into making the change. Someone at a reasonably high level decided (or was convinced by those under him/her) that global edits are not really used and could be replaced by something "better." There may have been some hot internal discussions about it and the person won out. They had to put their credibility on the line to get the change. Maybe this was a new management person that needed to leave their mark on the product or someone that opened their mouth without thinking and could not admit that they hand not thought things through. DXP hits the market and the new feature does not go over well. There is a lot of complaining from the users and they want the old way back. Those that were against the change are chucking and saying "I told you so." At that point, the individual that stuck their credibility on the line to gun for the change has two options: They can admit that they screwed up and put things back the way the were, or they can blame the user and the training and claim that everything else in the world needs to change because they are always right. Apparently that is what happened and the person essentially raised the stakes by sticking to their guns. That point forward, that person's position in the company is tied to the global edits not coming back. While this individual is at the company, there is no way that things will change. If this statement based on any inside info at Altium? No. Do I know all of this to be the fact? No. Then how can I tell? Because after having dealt with many companies, both form the inside and the outside, I can recognize the symptoms of reality colliding with an over-inflated ego. I know of several companies, both big and small, public and private, that have pissed away anywhere from a few million dollars to hundreds of million of dollars because someone took a position and were not willing to admit that they were wrong. The higher up this person is, the harder it is to get rid of them and the greater the damage to the company. Can such an individual kill a product and kill a company? Yes, they can and I have seen it happen. Hamid * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet?
Ian,
Perhaps this thread was a waste of your time because of your familiarity of
DXP, but I found the information presented quite enlightening. Thank you
(and everybody else) for the time you put into your responses.
JM
At 07:49 PM 5/30/2004, you wrote:
On 10:30 AM 31/05/2004, John A. Ross [RSDTV] said:
> Here is an example: Change the designator height and width
> for all '0402'
> footprints.
Jim
For things like this I have just used the list panel as I found it easier
than FSO.
In my favourites I keep some things like
IsDesignator And HasFootprint('0603')
IsDesignator And HasFootprint('0805')
Then all I need do is edit selected columns and the change is applied.
If I follow the FSO route for this type of edit I find it a world of pain.
Jim is right. This is an example of something that is slower in
DXP/P2004. Can still be done but requires some typing and knowlegde of
the query system and hence is difficult when you are going up the learning
curve.
However, it doesn't need to be and I have made a suggestion that would
make it as fast as P99SE. Doesn't help now though. If the Name hyperlink
in the Inspector preserved the selection then the FSO could be used to
select 0402's and then Inspector used to burrow to the designators (Name
in Inspector speak) of these selected components. Currently inspector
does not preserve the selection when burrowing down (or up) when using the
field hyperlinks in Inspector.
So no Jim I can't prove you wrong, yet. I would hope that Altium could
implement this preservation of the selection when burrowing on the
Inspector panel. I asked for it a long time ago but who knows when or if
it would be implemented.
(I refuse to believe that people can't learn the system. If I can do it
then so can others. But yes I know that just because you can do something
it does not mean you like it or that it is necessarily as fast another way.)
As for the comments that the number of favourites would become
unmanageable. You only need to save those queries that you use a lot and
that you find difficult to do in other ways. For instance you would only
need to save John's query once - if you wanted to edit it for 0603 you
could just do that on the fly easily enough. Though if you did do it
heaps for 0603 and 0402 you would then consider saving it. Or scripting
the whole function.
As a counter. Have you ever wanted to swap the nets on two connections.
Say you have a pair of long copper connections that cross at a few
vias. You can see a better way of routing them which involves swapping
them over. You can select the copper, then change the net in
Inspector. In P99SE this would require two globals, one for tracks (and
arcs) and one for vias.
(The P2004 has a little complication in that the connected component pads,
if any, would get changed as well, but this would be solved by not using
the Select Copper function. Hmmm .. I may need to investigate this example
in some more detail. The Inspector will change the nets on the pads,
while P99SE globals would not. So a more complex selection process with a
simple global change vs select copper and a pair of P99SE globals. I
would have to think about this. It is easy if there are no component pads
involved of course as may be the situation when you have disconnected the
terminal pads in order to re-work the routing.)
Wasted too much time on this thread as it is. I should have not responded
to Terry
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] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet?
John - Augh! No wonder I couldn't do this "simple" global edit. And I don't
have any queries in my favorites yet, so I would need to build the query
then save it to my favorites. I had tried to create one using the builder
but it didn't have IsDesignator() as any of the options.
Ian - The implementation of queries is not intuitive, and for us
non-programers it's not easy to learn. With a better interface and/or more
consistency and logic it might be understandable for the rest of us. Sure
its powerful, but more than most of us ever need. It was a rare occasion
that I came across an edit in 99se that couldn't be handled by the simple
99se editing system. I'd prefer to see a much better front end that didn't
"require" the user to have to create (or even see) queries unless he/she
wanted to. It look like FSO is a start but it needs some major work.
Darren - I went through your 6 step method. It did the trick, thanks. Even
so its hardly simple. It takes quite a few more clicks than in 99se (each
step require multiple clicks) plus FOUR dialog/panels. About 10 minutes
later I tried to repeat the edit and could not, even after several
attempts. I had to follow your email again step by step.
From reading the DXP documentation I understand that FSO was added as a
kind of replacement for the 99se global editing dialog. It was done at user
request and was intended to minimize the need for queries to perform
editing. It's certainly better than not having it, but it seems seriously
lacking. I am amazed that more than 2 years after DXP's debut its still
lacking in such a way.
JM
At 05:30 PM 5/30/2004, you wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Monroe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 5:15 AM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet?
>
> At 08:23 PM 5/29/2004, Ian wrote:
> >>The 99SE global edits could be done with just the mouse, or
> a couple
> >>of characters. This means that the right hand stayed on
> the mouse and
> >>the left hand stayed on the keyboard, which is how most of
> the time is
> >>spent in the program.
> >
> >Exactly how I run the vast bulk of the ones I do. The complex ones
> >require complex typing but these are things you couldn't do
> in P99SE or
> >you had to do as much typing.
> >
> >> If you have to type sentences into a dialogue box,
> >
> >That is what the Find Similar Object dialog is designed to stop you
> >having to do. I really do get tired of typing this. Every
> one new to
> >the query language should now write out by hand 100 times -
> "I know what the FSO is."
>
> Ian,
>
> I don't have much DXP experience yet, but so far I'd be
> inclined to agree with Hamid. For a number of simple 99se
> edits that I've tried in DXP, I haven't been able to find a
> simple DXP method.
>
> Here is an example: Change the designator height and width
> for all '0402'
> footprints.
Jim
For things like this I have just used the list panel as I found it easier
than FSO.
In my favourites I keep some things like
IsDesignator And HasFootprint('0603')
IsDesignator And HasFootprint('0805')
Then all I need do is edit selected columns and the change is applied.
If I follow the FSO route for this type of edit I find it a world of pain.
Using FSO, select footprint=same, check create expression as it is a good
guide to what FSO is
actually doing, and uncheck run inspector then click apply.
You now have cleared other selections and correctly selected all 0402's.
The FSO box has done its stuff.
If you then hit F11 for inspector, or ran it from within FSO panel, then
you may find no option to
change text height or width here, so now to the list panel, click the list
tab00.2800.1409
Thread-Index: AcRGj126NmRJ2EC/elected items and you are left with a list
of 0402 only, but still no option to
change text height, hmmm, where did it go?
If the height/width attributes of the designator/comment text were always
available at this point
for direct entry of the value to be applied you would have a home run, but
no, too simple.
Well, the columns and or entries shown in the list panel or inspector are
driven by background
generated scripts/queries which determine which columns are applicable for
editing, the user has
little choice in this as far as I know.
The expression generated by the FSO for select by footprint=0402 would be
like (ObjectKind =
'Component') And (Footprint = '0402') and that just does not cut it as it
does not apply
specifically to designators (guess).
If in the list panel you right click on the column headers and 'choose
columns' you will find the
display m
Re: [PEDA] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet?
At 08:23 PM 5/29/2004, Ian wrote: The 99SE global edits could be done with just the mouse, or a couple of characters. This means that the right hand stayed on the mouse and the left hand stayed on the keyboard, which is how most of the time is spent in the program. Exactly how I run the vast bulk of the ones I do. The complex ones require complex typing but these are things you couldn't do in P99SE or you had to do as much typing. If you have to type sentences into a dialogue box, That is what the Find Similar Object dialog is designed to stop you having to do. I really do get tired of typing this. Every one new to the query language should now write out by hand 100 times - "I know what the FSO is." Ian, I don't have much DXP experience yet, but so far I'd be inclined to agree with Hamid. For a number of simple 99se edits that I've tried in DXP, I haven't been able to find a simple DXP method. Here is an example: Change the designator height and width for all '0402' footprints. This can be done in one dialog box with 7 mouse clicks (excluding typing the new height/width values) in 99se. I have not been unable to find a simple way to do this in DXP. The problem I see in this case is that DXP does not select or mask designators along with their components. I hope that you can prove me wrong. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet?
At 10:25 AM 5/29/2004, Terry wrote: Having just been offered a discount to upgrade from 99SE to 2004 it's time to think about it again. (I knew those special offers would keep coming). Is it fit to use yet or should hold out for a couple more service packs and the next special offer? Terry, Is DXP04 fit to use? I think so, but that doesn't mean you won't run into problems that you don't have in 99se. Is the upgrade a good idea? Well... Let me start by saying that the worthiness of the upgrade depends heavily on the modules that you'll use. My opinions are based on the following. As a contract PCB designer, my past use of Protel 99se breaks down approximately as follows, about 10% schematic, 88% PCB, less than 1% autorouter (wish this was much, much higher), and about 1% Camtastic. I don't have much use for simulation or FPGA development. I have been driving the DXP04 upgrade for only a couple weeks so my comments will be initial impressions. I'll be starting a fairly large (>1800 parts) highspeed layout after the holiday and I'll keep this forum updated as my experience progresses. So far, I find absolutely nothing in the PCB layout module that warrants the cost of upgrading. The features that I most need are still not there. These include, an intelligent auto-interactive component placement for sub-groups of components (what Protel labels as 'Interactive Placement' is just unintelligent array placement), simple pin & gate swapping (came and went way back in Adv PCB 2.x days), better high speed layout tools & rules, auto-interactive routing tools (eg. for diff pairs, buses, matched length, etc.), and a good autorouter. The first four items simply are not there, and the latter (Situs) isn't useable (in my opinion). The best PCB layout enhancement that I've found in DXP04 is the improved split planes (nested planes are now fully supported). Although it's quite nice, it doesn't really improve productivity much. There are lots of little things (both features and interface) that give DXP04 a more professional polished appearance (you can read this as "complex"), but there isn't anything that will enable me to design a better layout or to design it in less time. I'm sure there are other features that DXP enthusiasts will say they can no longer live without. I've looked for them, but if they're there I haven't found them yet. Fortunately many of the 99se hotkeys are still functional. The downside is productivity loss because of the substantial learning curve of queries, selection and masking. The use of focus and selection are dramatically different than 99se and it takes some getting used to. The concept has evolved into selection and masking which are tightly linked to queries which replace 'global editing'. Queries are powerful, and although there are 'helpers' you'll still need to learn the query language to be able to do some of the global editing that was a breeze with 99se (queries also drive the design rules - you always wanted to be a programmer, right?). Another thing, there are too many panels! It's difficult to get an exact count, I stopped counting at 18 and I never left the PCB editor! It takes considerable time to master a good layout for them. The default panel layout doesn't make sense to me and takes away too much real estate from the workspace.. I'm considering setting up a second monitor just to display panels (I'm not yet sure that it's feasible). I think some of the other DXP modules are reason enough to upgrade (if you'll use them), but PCB isn't it. I am happy I upgraded but my reasons are mostly long term economics, not software capabilities. In order of importance they are to stay compatible with the software my clients are using, staying in the upgrade path, and the discount that was offered. I'm confident there will be future feature enhancements that will also justify the upgrade, but it's sure taking a long time. It's been more than two years since DXP was released and in my opinion, the PCB layout isn't better, just different. JM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
