Re: [PEDA] Using P99SE schematic editor for creating general purpose flowcharts.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 September 2004 13:28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] Using P99SE schematic editor for creating general purpose flowcharts. The viso comment was from my experience with Visio years ago (mid 90s). Maybe it's gotten better, but once upon a time, clunker would have been a complimentary terms, at least from me. Aj Ok, I have only used it since 2002 version and it was not too bad, I used SmartDraw 3/4 before that (new versions speak 'MS Visio@ I believe) it was basic, but amazingly easy to use but we needed some office/ms project integration and Visio fitted the bill best, warts and all. http://www.smartdraw.com/enterprise/visio.htm is interesting reading John -Original Message- From: John A. Ross [RSDTV] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] Using P99SE schematic editor for creating general purpose flowcharts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Um... John, Please tell me Visio was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion... Hi aj Er no, Visio was actually a serious suggestion ;-) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Using P99SE schematic editor for creating general purpose flowcharts.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 1:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] Using P99SE schematic editor for creating general purpose flowcharts. Um... John, Please tell me Visio was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion... Hi aj Er no, Visio was actually a serious suggestion ;-) S2F looks pretty cool up front. Have you used S2F, and if so, what are your impressions with its efficacy for reverse engineering code? Is it really any good at the task? How much has to be manually cleaned up after app performs its conversion from code to ? Does it work with lower-level languages, ie, machine code and related? Any big caveats? Limitations? Unadvertised plusses? Personally I do much software, my skills in that area kinda suck to be honest. But I have seen the reports from it and I managed to follow them, so it seems to do a decent enough job in the end but any caveats on how to get to that I cannot answer. The job it was used on was an embedded project and although mainly done in C it does have quite a bit of inline asm as well. But I guess the tool could not possibly be able to guess how every engineeer codes their own applications and I would further guess it may fall over a little on asm stuff inline which is processor specific. Sorry cannot clarify much more John -Original Message- From: John A. Ross [RSDTV] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] Using P99SE schematic editor for creating general purpose flowcharts. Brian http://www.fatesoft.com/s2f/ There is always MS Visio amongst others. John -Original Message- From: Brian Guralnick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Using P99SE schematic editor for creating general purpose flowcharts. To create software flowcharts, to date I've been using P99SE schematic capture. Sheet symbols basically were the functions entering the symbols revealed the sub-layer flowchart. Obviously, these schematics did nothing electrical. Now I'm working on one of my largest software projects to date, involving multiple software engineers. Should I stick with P99SE's schematic capture for my flowchart, or, is there a better utility out there designed for this particular task. Brian Guralnick * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Using P99SE schematic editor for creating general purpose flowcharts.
Brian Is this any help to you? Never used it personally but it was recommended to me by someone a while back after we were requested to add flowcharts to some documentation. http://www.fatesoft.com/s2f/ There is always MS Visio amongst others. John -Original Message- From: Brian Guralnick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 8:16 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] Using P99SE schematic editor for creating general purpose flowcharts. To create software flowcharts, to date I've been using P99SE schematic capture. Sheet symbols basically were the functions entering the symbols revealed the sub-layer flowchart. Obviously, these schematics did nothing electrical. Now I'm working on one of my largest software projects to date, involving multiple software engineers. Should I stick with P99SE's schematic capture for my flowchart, or, is there a better utility out there designed for this particular task. Brian Guralnick * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] XP SP2 stop Protel 99SE working ??
-Original Message- From: Ian Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 August 2004 16:29 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] XP SP2 stop Protel 99SE working ?? Dear all, I am seeing Protel 99SE hanging with scanning documents when opening a ddb file after having installed XP SP2. Will investigate further, but SP2 looks a prime candidate to have caused the problem. Ian http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/sp2mempr. mspx http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=windowsxpsp2 Also a reply on the DXP forum from Altium snip Yes, we have tested DXP with XP SP2 and also XP 64-bit version. These OS's display some problems, but only if you have a 64 bit machine. The problems specifically are to do with scripts and VHDL simulation. These problems should be resolved for the SP2 release. Regards David Wang, Altium snip You can experience some problems if you're running DXP on Athlon64 machine with Windows XP SP2 installed. We intend to fix these issues in SP2, till then there is an easy workaround: Right click on My Computer and select Properties. The System Properties dialog opens. Switch to Advanced tab and click Perfomance Settings. Perfomance Options dialog comes up and the last tab on that dialog is named Data Execution Prevention (DEP). There you can use Add button and add DXP.EXE to the list of programs that are not affected by DEP. That should fix it. Best wishes, Sergey Kostinsky Altium snip All good fun ;-) John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] XP SP2 stop Protel 99SE working ??
Joe http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/winxpsp2. mspx#EABEAA Or direct page http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4 F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5Adisplaylang=en http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/deploy/spdeploy.ms px#XSLTsection126121120120 Is only place at the moment as far as I know. John -Original Message- From: Joe Sapienza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 August 2004 17:22 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] XP SP2 stop Protel 99SE working ?? Excuse me for asking the obvious: I just checked and Billy Gates hasn't put SP2 for XP up in the automatic updates section of the Miscrosoft Website Hence the question Where is everyone getting SP2 for Windows XP? - Original Message - From: John A. Ross [Design] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] XP SP2 stop Protel 99SE working ?? -Original Message- From: Ian Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 August 2004 16:29 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] XP SP2 stop Protel 99SE working ?? Dear all, I am seeing Protel 99SE hanging with scanning documents when opening a ddb file after having installed XP SP2. Will investigate further, but SP2 looks a prime candidate to have caused the problem. Ian http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain /sp2mempr. mspx http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=windowsxpsp2 Also a reply on the DXP forum from Altium snip Yes, we have tested DXP with XP SP2 and also XP 64-bit version. These OS's display some problems, but only if you have a 64 bit machine. The problems specifically are to do with scripts and VHDL simulation. These problems should be resolved for the SP2 release. Regards David Wang, Altium snip You can experience some problems if you're running DXP on Athlon64 machine with Windows XP SP2 installed. We intend to fix these issues in SP2, till then there is an easy workaround: Right click on My Computer and select Properties. The System Properties dialog opens. Switch to Advanced tab and click Perfomance Settings. Perfomance Options dialog comes up and the last tab on that dialog is named Data Execution Prevention (DEP). There you can use Add button and add DXP.EXE to the list of programs that are not affected by DEP. That should fix it. Best wishes, Sergey Kostinsky Altium snip All good fun ;-) John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] P99SE installation
-Original Message- From: Alfonso Baz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 August 2004 06:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] P99SE installation I'm curious if anybody else has noticed the following when installing P99SE SP6 on either WIN2K or WINXP. Recently I upgraded my PC. I noticed after a clean OS install followed by installation of my usual software packages, windows Start-Help and Support didn't work. Also right-clicking My Computer on the desktop and selecting Manage failed to respond. Thanks to XP's system restore, I found the offending software installation. P99SE Alfonso I have XP here for some time now on all workstations (I suspect most others users now have XP also) and the ones with P99SE are fine, 2 of them also have DXP2004SP1 installed as well as other applications. Mixture Dell4500/4600 and 8200/8250/8300/8400's different PU speed and meory types (SD/RIMM/DDR) Never seen the issue you report. Sorry I cannot help, except to say that it should work. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
-Original Message- From: Jim Monroe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 7:54 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [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? Jim Most definitely a wise move although be aware of the trade off on LCD panals as most at 17 will only support 1280x1024 so in some instances a case can be made for a second 21 @ 1600x1200 plus instead. 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? There is also a lot to be said when swapping panels between monitors of same resolution so as not to lose a part of the panel off screen! Yes they can be mixed, I have used matrox cards for long and weary and never seen an issue, first was G100/MilleniumII up to Parhelia (2 monitor mode, don't use 3 monitor stretched). 3. I'd like to hear about multi-display configurations that work especially well (or don't work well). Currently at home I use a Parhelia working in 2 monitor mode, and an additional nVidia PCI card for the third monitor all at 1280x1024 Flat panel display (2 x DVI, 1 x RGB). I thought this would be good for a while but find this configuration slightly less productive than the dual 1600x1200 20 CRT. I had considered a 4th but there is no desk space left :-) John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 power symbols
-Original Message- From: Leo Potjewijd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 August 2004 09:30 To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] changing power symbols I just uploaded my powersymbol.lib to the yahoo forum file area at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/protel-users/files/ so you can all have a peek. Leo On the ones that you use the 'bar' or 'arrow' symbol for, the built in one will place the net name below the bar anyway. The earth symbol will not, which is a pain but I guess as earth should be earth it is not necessary. There is no absolute _must_ to modify teh built-in symbols, but the ones I created have no electrical hotspot and tend to get off-grid when I move them around on the schematic... I _know_ that by making the pin 'visible' there will be a hotspot, but then it also wants a footprint and shows up on BOMs. I know, I know, I'm just being silly here. Well I have had requirements a lot sillier than what you are asking for. I guess what you are really after is the ability to place the power symbol with the net name hidden and just use a single letter to indicate the net it belongs too? John Leo At 2-8-2004 22:43, John A. Ross [RSDTV] wrote: -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 8:57 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] changing power symbols according to Leo they don't meet his drawing standards requirements in the Netherlands Dennis That's what I was meaning as I an mot sure what additional symbols are actually needed, NL is only a puddle jump away from me and I have worked well with Dutch companies before and never been asked for any additional symbols or had any other drafting conventions specified even when I was using UltiCap/UltiBoard, an EDA package by a Dutch company! Which only had circle/bar power objects as default but you could create your own. I am actually a bit more curious on what additional symbols are needed than the process to do it. John John A. Ross [RSDTV] wrote: Dennis Other than for the pure heck of it (as you say, sometimes a valid reason :-) ), what other graphic symbols are actually needed for a power port ? We have bar/circle/arrow/earth Leo, what additional symbols were you after in your original post ? John -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 4:27 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] changing power symbols ok so now we have a challenge! (albeit a meaningless and stupid challenge which is always the best kind) those pesky power symbols must coded in there somewhere! time to start sniffing around the binary files Dennis Saputelli Leo Potjewijd wrote: At 31-7-2004 13:34, Rolf Molitor wrote: You can edit the power symbols like this: Get the System Menu (down arrow) and select Customize. Right click the Power objects and select Edit. There you see all your actual power objects. You can add new power objects here or change the existing ones with right click and New or Properties. When you select Properties you will see what bitmap file this power object uses. Just edit the bitmap to change the view of the power object. Rolf, I probably am doing something wrong, but all I can edit when I follow you description is the button in the toolbar and not the actual power object itself as it appears on the schematic Leo Potjewijd hardware designer Integrated Engineering B.V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +31 20 4620700 -- __ _ Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 2851 21st StreetFax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 www.integratedcontrolsinc.com -- __ _ Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 2851 21st StreetFax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 www.integratedcontrolsinc.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] changing power symbols
Dennis Other than for the pure heck of it (as you say, sometimes a valid reason :-) ), what other graphic symbols are actually needed for a power port ? We have bar/circle/arrow/earth Leo, what additional symbols were you after in your original post ? John -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 4:27 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] changing power symbols ok so now we have a challenge! (albeit a meaningless and stupid challenge which is always the best kind) those pesky power symbols must coded in there somewhere! time to start sniffing around the binary files Dennis Saputelli Leo Potjewijd wrote: At 31-7-2004 13:34, Rolf Molitor wrote: You can edit the power symbols like this: Get the System Menu (down arrow) and select Customize. Right click the Power objects and select Edit. There you see all your actual power objects. You can add new power objects here or change the existing ones with right click and New or Properties. When you select Properties you will see what bitmap file this power object uses. Just edit the bitmap to change the view of the power object. Rolf, I probably am doing something wrong, but all I can edit when I follow you description is the button in the toolbar and not the actual power object itself as it appears on the schematic Leo Potjewijd hardware designer Integrated Engineering B.V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +31 20 4620700 -- __ _ Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 2851 21st StreetFax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 www.integratedcontrolsinc.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] changing power symbols
-Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 8:57 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] changing power symbols according to Leo they don't meet his drawing standards requirements in the Netherlands Dennis That's what I was meaning as I an mot sure what additional symbols are actually needed, NL is only a puddle jump away from me and I have worked well with Dutch companies before and never been asked for any additional symbols or had any other drafting conventions specified even when I was using UltiCap/UltiBoard, an EDA package by a Dutch company! Which only had circle/bar power objects as default but you could create your own. I am actually a bit more curious on what additional symbols are needed than the process to do it. John John A. Ross [RSDTV] wrote: Dennis Other than for the pure heck of it (as you say, sometimes a valid reason :-) ), what other graphic symbols are actually needed for a power port ? We have bar/circle/arrow/earth Leo, what additional symbols were you after in your original post ? John -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 4:27 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] changing power symbols ok so now we have a challenge! (albeit a meaningless and stupid challenge which is always the best kind) those pesky power symbols must coded in there somewhere! time to start sniffing around the binary files Dennis Saputelli Leo Potjewijd wrote: At 31-7-2004 13:34, Rolf Molitor wrote: You can edit the power symbols like this: Get the System Menu (down arrow) and select Customize. Right click the Power objects and select Edit. There you see all your actual power objects. You can add new power objects here or change the existing ones with right click and New or Properties. When you select Properties you will see what bitmap file this power object uses. Just edit the bitmap to change the view of the power object. Rolf, I probably am doing something wrong, but all I can edit when I follow you description is the button in the toolbar and not the actual power object itself as it appears on the schematic Leo Potjewijd hardware designer Integrated Engineering B.V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +31 20 4620700 -- __ _ Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 2851 21st StreetFax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 www.integratedcontrolsinc.com -- __ _ Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 2851 21st StreetFax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 www.integratedcontrolsinc.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] changing power symbols
-Original Message- From: Rolf Molitor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:35 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] changing power symbols You can edit the power symbols like this: Get the System Menu (down arrow) and select Customize. Right click the Power objects and select Edit. There you see all your actual power objects. You can add new power objects here or change the existing ones with right click and New or Properties. When you select Properties you will see what bitmap file this power object uses. Just edit the bitmap to change the view of the power object. Rolf I thought this just changes/adds buttons on the toolbar? It does not actually create a new power object itself does it, just sort/add new buttons with predefined attributes? As far as I know the default power objects cannot be changed except to assign nets/color and some parameters etc by assigning the parameters in the process command. I guess this is the same as I do below. (I cut this from another post) Normally as there is plenty space on the toolbar when using 1600x1200 I just add the buttons found on the power objects toolbar to the main one by right click/toolbar properties, add a new button and then use the parameters to predefine its attributes (and a small custom bitmap into the /system/buttons directory so I can see from the toolbar what it was). When assigned to the main toolbar they can be made a bit more portable as the live in the .rcs file in the same place under : ToolBar 'SchematicTools' 'Fixed Top' I did not use multiple colors here, but if you are placing ports with predefined attributes color coding them would not be a bad idea as the eye can sometimes play tricks when validating your own work :-) Here is a cut/paste from an old client99se.rcs file Separator Button 'C:\P99SE\SYSTEM\BUTTONS\POARWHGND.BMP' 'Sch:PlacePowerPort(Color=111|Orientation=3|S=HGND|Style = 3|$Description=GND power port|repeat=true)' Button 'C:\P99SE\SYSTEM\BUTTONS\POARWAGND.BMP' 'Sch:PlacePowerPort(Color=111|Orientation=3|S=AGND|Style = 1|$Description=aGND power port|repeat=true)' Button 'C:\P99SE\SYSTEM\BUTTONS\POARWGND.BMP' 'Sch:PlacePowerPort(Color=111|Orientation=3|S=GND|Style = 1|$Description=GND power port|repeat=true)' Separator Button 'C:\P99SE\SYSTEM\BUTTONS\POW3V3.BMP' 'Sch:PlacePowerPort(Color=111|Orientation=1|S=3V3A|Style = 0|$Description=3V3A power port|repeat=true)' Button 'C:\P99SE\SYSTEM\BUTTONS\POW5D.BMP' 'Sch:PlacePowerPort(Color=111|Orientation=1|S=5D|Style = 0|$Description=5D power port|repeat=true)' Button 'C:\P99SE\SYSTEM\BUTTONS\POW12V.BMP' 'Sch:PlacePowerPort(Sch:PlacePowerPort(Color=111|Orientation=1|S=12V|Style = 0|$Description=+12 power port|repeat=true)' Separator Same idea I as I applied to things like R/C etc for placing the more common values (100R/1K/10K...). Once you have the customisations keep the rcs file handy, as long as the buttons exist in the /system/buttons folder then all you need do (with 99SE closed) is cut/paste the line in the rcs, rename the parameters attributes and rename the referred to bitmap. It s a lot quicker than doing it manually with the button editor! John - Original Message - From: Dennis Saputelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] changing power symbols you cant make your own power symbols but if you make a part with a pin (it can be very short) you should get a hot spot of course these parts would show in your BOM but this is where 'include blank part value' checkbox comes in handy, should be acceptable what do y'all use across the pond anyway ? Dennis Saputelli Leo Potjewijd wrote: Hi, at the risk of asking an old question: Has anyone found a way to change the shape of the built-in power symbols of P99SE? We use different symbols here in Europe I know I can build my own (I have a wide collection of them) but the lack of an electrical hotspot on these is (finally) getting to my nerves Leo Potjewijd hardware designer Integrated Engineering B.V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +31 20 4620700 - __ _ Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 2851 21st StreetFax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 www.integratedcontrolsinc.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] 99SE SP6 updating footprints
-Original Message- From: Leo Potjewijd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 July 2004 10:12 To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] 99SE SP6 updating footprints At 28-7-2004 22:23, John A. Ross [RSDTV] wrote: If say PCB editor is open with MYLIB library loaded, I open MYLIB for editing, I then add a new footprint to MYLIB, save and close it, Only the save is essential. If I browse the library within the PCB editor the new footprint is not yet available A push process of update PCB still does not make the footprint available. If I remove MYLIB and then add it back in the new footprint is now available for use. You do not have to remove/re-add the library, clicking on it in the navigator pane will do the trick I have several HF 'components' (read: copper structures) that are board specific and need fine-tuning when I create the final PCB; so I switch back and forth a lot and have the library open for editing at the same time I am working in the PCB This neat little trick save loads of time. Leo What I mean is that if a new component is added to the library, on the fly, it does not appear until the library is reloaded. Just clicking on the navigator pane in the PCB editor does not work for me, never has. So I open my PCB for edit, it has the default MYLIB loaded. First part in that list is 0402, so I place that on the PCB. I want to create a new footprint, so quick way to open MYLIB is simply to click EDIT in the navigator panel The library editor is now opened. So I highlight 0402 in the lib editor navigator panel, right click, copy then paste the new footprint into the library, rename the new 0402-DUPLICATE to 0402-2. Save MYLIB. If I go to the PCB editor now, and click the navigator panel as you suggest, the footprint 0402-2 is not available. It only becomes available when the library is removed/reloaded. I can switch back/forward without problem for footprints that exist already in the library, parts created on the fly never seem to appear without a reload of the library. Anything I missed above? John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 SP6 updating footprints
-Original Message- From: Leo Potjewijd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 July 2004 13:08 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] 99SE SP6 updating footprints snip John, I just did what you described: opened an existing pcb, went to the library editor via 'edit' in the navigator, copied and renamed an existing footprint (thus creating a new one), clicked on the save button, stepped back to the pcb and clicked on the library name: presto!, the new component showed up in the list I even checked it with removal of components, that works too for me There is defenitely something very weird going on. Be it in my installation, yours, or both. Leo Thanks for taking time and checking it. I figured it out, it was a critical environment variable on my installation that probably needs replaced :-) Me actually. After reading again what you wrote I found it works if I highlight and click the library name in the Browse part of the navigator panel. I was just clicking in the space below it but within the panel, the wrong lib was highlighted when I tried it before. Thanks John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 SP6 updating footprints
-Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 July 2004 02:24 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] 99SE SP6 updating footprints i'm sure this has been discussed (?) but i just noticed the following in 99SE PCB if you have several or more parts of the same footprint on a board and you type in a new and valid footprint name and do the global thing: copy footprint, footprint=same the one you are editing changes to the new footprint and all the others acquire the NEW FOOTPRINT NAME from the global operation but the footpints don't change to the new one Dennis Not quite sure what you mean here. I tried what I think you were describing quickly on a board here. I picked a 0603 part, changed the value in the footprint field to 0805, clicked global (footprint already checked) and set the combo box to footprint=same, clicked OK and all 202 items were changed OK. If I change the footprint field to a value which does not represent a valid footprint name in the library, then I see a global change in the footprint name according to the selection and no footprint change is applied, but I get a warning for every update instance that fails (footprint not in library), you don't mention a warning, and you state you used a valid footprint name, so I guess this is not the same as you are seeing. But I have seen some very strange behaviour with differences with the loaded (cached) library and the actual library where you have to drop/reload the library to update it. Not sure 'where' the actual pcb being edited 'looks' for the valid footprint but I would guess it would be the cached one so if the new valid footprint was added after the library was added/cached to the PCB editor then something like this could be possible I guess Do not know if this helps you any. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] was Shortcuts in 99SE ?
-Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:46 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] was Shortcuts in 99SE ? at the risk of beating a dead horse ... i don't recall any mention in this list over the years regarding the file description you can enter in the DDB for a given internal file don't know how i missed this and am finding it very useful has anyone else seen this, use it, don't care about it or whatever ? Dennis I seen it, but I do not use it as I never found any way to print it along with the SCH so I prefer to keep the data which I would have used this field for in the actual SCH. I guess its like the summary information in the properties page of any windows file, right clickpropertiessummary where there is the ability to add information to a file also, but not everyone uses it :-) John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] FW: Shortcuts in 99SE ?
-Original Message- From: Terry Creer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 July 2004 03:42 To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: [PEDA] FW: Shortcuts in 99SE ? Apologies for the double post, but I just read Page 30 of the manual a little closer and it mentions this linking process, but doesn't tell you how to do it!!! Anyway, to follow up, I tried it on several external files on my HDD and it works with PCBs, Libs, Schs, Word Docs, but unfortunately not PDFs. Ah well, can't have everything I guess... Terry I thought it did work with PDF using WFS or DDB as long as you did not export it again (it was not readable by Acrobat anymore complained it was corrupt). From memory this issue was because of the header appended to the top of the PDF file by the access database system used by 99SE when it was imported/linked, it overwites the expected %PDF header, and if you exported it again, Acrobat seen a different header than %PDF and deemed the file unreadable. I am quite sure it was OK as long as you did not export it again. I will try it again in a bit to double check. John -Original Message- From: Terry Creer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:53 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: RE: [PEDA] Shortcuts in 99SE ? Hi Dennis, See page 30 of the P99SE Handbook. Just right click in a DDB window and choose 'Link' from the menu (the menu that contains New, Import, Import Folder, Import Project, Link, View). Cheers, TC -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2004 10:31 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shortcuts in 99SE ? in the 99SE DDB system (not the windows file system) it is not possible to add a shortcut (or link) to an external file, is it ? would a be nice feature Dennis Saputelli -- __ _ Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 2851 21st StreetFax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 www.integratedcontrolsinc.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] FW: Shortcuts in 99SE ?
Terry Do you mean like described here http://www.altium.com/protel/kb/kb_item.asp?ID=2117 here ? Then I guess the changes I seen below are the addition ional wrapper ? Makes more sense now. John PDF to start with is say from line 1 line 10 %PDF-1.2 % 8 0 obj /Length 9 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode stream HWM x. +++ After attaching to the Protel container, it can no longer be used externally. If exported and opened again the file is now like this Lines 1-9 filled with Bin data I cannot cut/paste Lines 10-96 are as follows. It takes to line 96 now (was line 10) to get to the same point as the original. +++ 1 0 obj /Creator (Design Explorer - [D:\\Coral TB 005\\Coral TB 005.DDB]) /CreationDate (D:20040209100231Z) /Title (Protel Schematic) /Author (design) /Producer (Acrobat PDFWriter 5.0 for Windows NT) /ModDate (D:20040721093137+02'00') endobj 2 0 obj [ /PDF /Text ] endobj 3 0 obj /Pages 52 0 R /Type /Catalog /Metadata 53 0 R endobj 4 0 obj /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources /Font /F0 6 0 R /F1 10 0 R /F2 12 0 R /ProcSet 2 0 R /Contents 8 0 R endobj 5 0 obj /Kids [ 4 0 R 14 0 R 17 0 R 20 0 R 23 0 R 26 0 R ] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 52 0 R endobj 6 0 obj /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /Name /F0 /BaseFont /TimesNewRoman /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 333 408 500 500 833 778 180 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444 921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722 556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500 333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500 500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 778 500 778 333 500 444 1000 500 500 333 1000 556 333 889 778 611 778 778 333 333 444 444 350 500 1000 333 980 389 333 722 778 444 722 250 333 500 500 500 500 200 500 333 760 276 500 564 333 760 500 400 549 300 300 333 576 453 250 333 300 310 500 750 750 750 444 722 722 722 722 722 722 889 667 611 611 611 611 333 333 333 333 722 722 722 722 722 722 722 564 722 722 722 722 722 722 556 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 667 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 549 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /FontDescriptor 7 0 R endobj 7 0 obj /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /TimesNewRoman /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -250 -216 1174 1000 ] /MissingWidth 326 /StemV 73 /StemH 73 /ItalicAngle 0 /CapHeight 891 /XHeight 446 /Ascent 891 /Descent -216 /Leading 149 /MaxWidth 978 /AvgWidth 401 endobj 8 0 obj /Length 9 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode stream HWM x.. ++ -Original Message- From: Terry Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 July 2004 15:47 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] FW: Shortcuts in 99SE ? On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:40:27 +0100, John wrote: Apologies for the double post, but I just read Page 30 of the manual a little closer and it mentions this linking process, but doesn't tell you how to do it!!! I thought it did work with PDF using WFS or DDB as long as you did not export it again (it was not readable by Acrobat anymore complained it was corrupt). I can store and link to PDFs in either kind of database. I have full Acrobat 6 Pro installed. Acrobat reader probably does not provide the required OLE functionality to support this. In a WFS database Acrobat 6 can't directly open stored PDFs, link or full. From memory this issue was because of the header appended to the top of the PDF file by the access database system used by 99SE when it was imported/linked, it overwites the expected %PDF header, and if you exported it again, Acrobat seen a different header than %PDF and deemed the file unreadable. It isn't an access header. In the 99SE database 'foreign' files are stored as OLE objects which may also be known as scrap files. Such files may have a standard header, I don't know. The actual format of these files is up to the associated OLE application. An OLE application associated with jpeg image editing may decide to store the image in full colour uncompressed format. I have seen 100k jpegs occupy tens of megabytes when imported into P99SE. Microsoft Office applications appear to be able to open OLE scrap files directly. Acrobat can't and I haven't found any other OLE application that can. Cheers, Terry. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Shortcuts in 99SE ?
Dennis, Terry Sorry, my mistake, guess I should go back to sleep now :-) John -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 July 2004 16:59 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shortcuts in 99SE ? John, we are talking about shortcuts or 'links' not importing the file itself into the DDB, so i don't see how the wrapper is an issue Terry, i can't believe i never noticed that after all these years! works great for me, PDFs too but is see the following issues which i find puzzling: i started a new MSACCESS DDB design i dragged in a small schematic and a small board so it would be something a bit like a real design both files were very small, 10K + 900K i then made a LINK to a JPG the file size in the DDB shows 3M but the JPG is only 68K the ICON in the DDB shows the shortcut arrow thingy then i linked to a PDF the PDF external file is about 60K and the DDB link file is about 6K which seems about right so what is up with the JPG case? BTW, the PDF pointer works fine, as does the JPG each launcing their own associated apps also can you expose the properties of the LINK ? i want to see the path that the link contains but it is blank in the right click properties dialog Dennis Saputelli Terry Creer wrote: Hi Dennis, See page 30 of the P99SE Handbook. Just right click in a DDB window and choose 'Link' from the menu (the menu that contains New, Import, Import Folder, Import Project, Link, View). Cheers, TC -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2004 10:31 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shortcuts in 99SE ? in the 99SE DDB system (not the windows file system) it is not possible to add a shortcut (or link) to an external file, is it ? would a be nice feature Dennis Saputelli -- __ _ Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 2851 21st StreetFax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 www.integratedcontrolsinc.com -- __ _ Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 2851 21st StreetFax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 www.integratedcontrolsinc.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] Ver 3.x -- 99SE or DXP??
-Original Message- From: RogerHead [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 July 2004 03:45 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Ver 3.x -- 99SE or DXP?? Hi John, You said In some ways it is actually functionally better but I prefer to view it without all the WinXP finishing touches which makes it look worse than it is. Is there a 'classic' setting somewhere? The library panel really irritates me. It could be so much better. Roger 2 places, Control PanelSystemAdvanced TabPerformanceSettings Adjust for best performance radio button Watch and see all tacky WinXP GUI crud will go away except taskbar. Then Taskbar, properties, I find auto hide a benefit to see the taskbar and panel buttons, better for 2004 and also turn it to classic mode. I have also dragged the taskbar to the top of the screen instead of the bottom. Becomes Win2k like but the crud is gone. Maybe others like it, I just think a lot of it is a waste of visible desktop space John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Ver 3.x -- 99SE or DXP??
-Original Message- From: RogerHead [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Ver 3.x -- 99SE or DXP?? I've used Protel since the V1.1 days. We stopped upgrading after buying a couple of licenses for 3.x, mainly because it does about 99% of our needs. Roger I did not use V3, Autotrax was my last adventure before P98. But I would say that if V3 still fits your needs then stick with it. I've had cursory looks at other versions as they came out, but nothing really grabbed me. Now I'm looking hard (using a trial cd with SP2), but I detest the DXP interface - maybe just a personal thing, but it seems like a lot of froth and bubble, done (not particularly well) by programmers for their own gratification, instead of as a straightforward, hardworking, everyday tool. No you are not alone, many people have commented on the UI. How much of the users views on the poor UI Altium have taken on board, who knows, but they do listen. In some ways it is actually functionally better but I prefer to view it without all the WinXP finishing touches which makes it look worse than it is. Yes I think the developers could have made better use of the panels features and cut down on multiple panels with similar, sometimes overlapping functions, but who are us users really to spoil their fun :-) Am I missing something?? I certainly don't want 'integrated tools'. I'll always use the manufacturer's tools for CPLD/FPGA/..., because I believe that they will be more up-to-date, and with less 'gotchas than when a third party tries to shoehorn it into their own product. Again I might be wrong, but it can be very time-consuming to find whose fault it is when something doesn't work, and even harder to get it fixed. If you do not want to use the tools don't, I do not use the FPGA tools at all, but I have tried them. Leaving the additional tools redundant does not effect other functions. You still need the vendor tools anyway to do the real work, DXP2004 really just adds a capture sim shell. The IP is nice, but not essential. So, my question... although I haven't put 99SE up yet (I have a trial cd), what little I have seen leads me think that I will feel more comfortable with it than DXP. Is there *anything* in DXP that would make it a must-have over 99SE? If you want to change packages to a current one with a future roadmap then save yourself some time and go straight to DXP2004. But consider the roadmap if PCB design is your primary objective and the words in the article that Mike posted earlier where Altium quoted on their view of how much more important FPGA integration was over PCB tool development, ..view as a more important shift than higher speeds, embedded passives or differential pair routing. There were changes P98P99SE so I am assuming V3.5 would be a bit more of a change. So if you have to invest in retraining then try and do it only once, not twice if you decide later on DXP2004 because 2004 will be a big change and better tackled head on and up front and not as a part time expedition. I am pretty sure no-one will knock 99SE SP6 for stability, still has some bugs but they are well known and at least a lot of the UI will be familiar for you. I am still using it every day (legacy design support for external clients) as well as 2004, if I used 2004 all the time I could work with it, but going back to a familiar 99SE environment so often is just a reminder of how much easier 2004 could be to use. I recall many unhappy posts related to the database system in 99SE, and it seems that has been dumped in DXP. Do you lose any significant features in 99SE if you just use the Windows file system? There were some bugs that could kill the database, all well cleared by P99SE SP6 and it is stable, you can always export the contents back to a file system for backups Of course, when they have an auto router that *really* works, then I'll be there... Now, others have much more experience on the comparisons than me, but my impressions are that Situs still has a long way to go just to be on par with some other router offerings and still much in development. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] We Need Your Help!
-Original Message- From: Tom Hausherr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 12:23 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] We Need Your Help! Terry, Phillip Restall - [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a programmer but does not know of an easy way to Batch Move the silkscreen data to the correct layer. Tom The abilities of the DelpiScript engine exposed in 2004 is very powerful indeed, in fact pretty much overkill, but probably not that well documented. I believe selection of the entities would be the critical part, assuming a consistent rule for primitive sizes are applied across all parts already and no rounding errors from Altium side when applying selection filters. Have you tried asking the Protel library center directly on this, its just a suggestion, as both libraries are free I don't see any conflict. I am sure when Altium were modifying their own libraries they did not do them one at a time so they may already have some nifty utilities/scripts they wrote in house that might help Philip as they will have come across the same issues with consistent line widths across parts etc. This assumes a definitive selection of primitives is possible. Perhaps Phil Loughhead or Geoff Harland can put Philip in touch with someone off list, or arrange some help via the developers at Premier (fellow IPC members and instructors) as it is actually a result of a bug in the translator (not present in Pads importer in PCAD I believe, so they know why it happens). Just an idea as I really believe the script engine should be capable of doing this with at least one constant to filter (or nested filters). Should not really be needed but I've cc'd this to dxp list as well to make sure it gets noticed by Altium. I don't do any programming work myself, but can appreciate what the 2004 script engine can be capable of. Here is the situation: The IPC-7351 library has a silkscreen outline and an assembly outline. They are two totally different outlines. The silkscreen is a fake outline and does not represent the 1:1 scale component body. It represents the component, but does not touch any pads or exposed copper. The Assembly Drawing outline is an exact replica of the physical component and it may run right over pads because it's just a drawing. When we converted 9,000 library parts from PADS to Protel everything went smooth except the translator merged the Assembly Outline and the Silkscreen outline to the same layer in Protel. That was the stock PADS to Protel translator provided by Altium. Now we have to manually edit each library part to separate the two distinct outlines. I believe that you do not get this issue from PadsPCAD as the translator does not have this bug. Perhaps a shorter route, if Altium assistance is not offered, would be PadsPCADProtel We can easily write programs that make global edits but we cannot think our way out of this problem. ;) John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] We Need Your Help!
-Original Message- From: Tom Hausherr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:31 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] We Need Your Help! snip Tom The abilities of the DelpiScript engine exposed in 2004 is very powerful indeed, in fact pretty much overkill, but probably not that well documented. John, Can you point me to where it is documented at *ALL* ? I keep seeing people here and elsewhere referring to its capabilities and flexibility, but I've never seen it mentioned - except obliquely - anywhere in the documentation. In fact I'll go one better. One of my main complaints about Protel in general is the difficulty of getting at the voluminous documentation. I find the whole process extremely counter - intuitive. Tom Ill resist a comment or two about the help system, it is getting better ;) If you just type Delphi Script into the Help Search there is quite a few hits. I only know a few people here which have written utilities using the engine. Premier EDA had some PCB utilities fo DXP which included a Copy silk screen to mechanical layer but I do not know if it came with source. Others who have used the engine might volunteer, but that would be up to them. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Licenses
-Original Message- From: Mike Reagan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:49 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Licenses That is pretty interesting data gathered here. The interesting part is that Cadence has been successful in trashing OrCAD from number 1 to a has been. I doubt if PADs schematic has overtaken OrCad. Powerlogic is a non contender, you were joking right? ;) Other than its tight integration with PPCB, well, enough said. DxDesigner is still clumsy compared to Orcad, once its adopted we can see what happens to powerLogic... John -Original Message- From: Tom Hausherr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:30 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] IPC-2581 IPC-7351. Bill, I just talked to Mentor Graphics PADS division and they say that since the 1st release of PADS Software in 1985 they have logged 85,000 licenses. PowerLogic (schematic) and PowerPCB (layout) are separate licenses. There are currently 18,000 PADS-PowerPCB seats on yearly maintenance. It's my personal guess that there are about 35,000 PADS-PowerPCB seats in use. There are many people using old licenses that are not on yearly maintenance due to financial hardships over the past 4 years. Tom Tom Hausherr PCB Libraries CEO, Director of Technology 858.592.4826 Phone 847.745.0450 Fax E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.PCBLibraries.com http://www.PCBYellowPages.com -Original Message- From: Brooks,Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:50 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] IPC-2581 IPC-7351. I wonder just how many licensed seats there are of Protel in the world is that published anywhere? Also I wonder if Pads has published the same info? I didn't participate in the poll so it's at least off by one. LOL... I would venture to say Protel may have more seats that Pads... but they are mostly not in the Southwest of the U.S. How about it Altium... how many active seats of Protel are there? Bill Brooks PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I. Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 http://pcbwizards.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] IPC-2581 IPC-7351. According to what statistical method? -Original Message- From: Tom Hausherr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 7:09 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] IPC-2581 IPC-7351. Ian, We took a poll and Protel is number two in worldwide installations (behind PADS). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] IPC-2581 IPC-7351.
Bill Or the seats could be like the ones I have. I have 2 active seats of my own. For each client that I have who specifies particular tools, I require them to supply me with a licensed seat of the tools (same version) as they use. For P99SE that totals 7. This is actually in case I ever dump Protel myself and they proceed to a newer version than I have. They have to provide their own as it would not be fair to have one client pay for a seat and let the others use it for free :-) So out of total 9 seats, only 2 are ever active, hope that ratio is not across the board. Hope the other 7 did not take part in the poll :-) and say yes... John -Original Message- From: Brooks,Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:50 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] IPC-2581 IPC-7351. I wonder just how many licensed seats there are of Protel in the world is that published anywhere? Also I wonder if Pads has published the same info? I didn't participate in the poll so it's at least off by one. LOL... I would venture to say Protel may have more seats that Pads... but they are mostly not in the Southwest of the U.S. How about it Altium... how many active seats of Protel are there? Bill Brooks PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I. Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 http://pcbwizards.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] IPC-2581 IPC-7351. According to what statistical method? -Original Message- From: Tom Hausherr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 7:09 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] IPC-2581 IPC-7351. Ian, We took a poll and Protel is number two in worldwide installations (behind PADS). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Recommendations please! -- DXP2004 - PADS - Expedition
-Original Message- From: Leon Heller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 June 2004 07:15 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Recommendations please! -- DXP2004 - PADS - Expedition - Original Message - From: Tom Hausherr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 4:33 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Recommendations please! -- DXP2004 - PADS - Expedition John, It would be really great if Altium Protel PCAD had a PADS V4 or V5 import. Altium has been dragging this issue for 4 years when they stopped working on their PADS importer with V3.5. And there's all kinds of quirks with that interface. Pulsonix import designs and libraries from PADS, Accel, P-CAD, Cadstar, OrCAD, Eagle, Ultiboard and Protel. Leon Pulsonix does not support these bi-directionally. As such would only suit companies who handle their own designs on the same platform which negates the importers benefit if you need to supply the deign back in its native format. I was interested in the Pulsonix demo but never got time to run it, the chip utilities were of interest as they seemed to be better priced than the BGA option for Pads but. Protel seems to be standing still with respect to developing layout tools into this area (BGA,COB...) and additional importer support, but Protels Capture tools have came on very well indeed. As has been discovered by Joe, the Pads importer in DXP2004 does not work 100%, but the PCAD one seems to be OK and I am at a loss really to see why the import format to Protel needs to be V3.5 format in the first place but that's what we have. Same old story, one tool never fits all :-) John GM1BSG * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Recommendations please! -- DXP2004 - PADS - Expedition
-Original Message- From: Symanski, Jerry SPAWAR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 9:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Recommendations please! -- DXP2004 - PADS - Expedition Gentlemen, I am currently involved in the all too familiar task of choosing an EDA tool for our group. Jerry Do not envy you this task :-) Our group consists of about 20 engineers. We do small, low power high density systems consisting of analog and digital components. We cover the full spectrum from algorithms through design, fabrication, packaging, programming, testing, documentation and user interfaces. The group has used Protel for many years but now finds ourselves in need of a complete, full spectrum EDA suite. I think you are looking for something that does not exist. IMO all you can hope for is a best fit for the majority of tasks and a good interface to the other tools you need to get the job done. I would not IMO say that any of the 3 are a complete solution for all aspects of the design cycle. I am interested in comments, comparisons, recommendations, etc., from anyone who has experience in using at least two of the latest versions of Expedition, PADS and Protel suites. You are spreading across quite an expanse of $$ here, in fact for 20 seats, it is a petty major gap if you are going to enable full seats for everyone. I do not think you need any advice on Protel if you already use it. For multi user environments I am having serious trouble getting DXP2004 integrated within our internal QA system and ISO without bogging everyone down with un-needed caveats and gotcha notices that need to interfere with a natural flow, something as simple as Save or Save as can produce quite different things at project tree level. This overhead is purely a result of the current way in which files are handled within a project and the risk to design integrity through improper following of critical procedures and no redundancy for the integration of remedial loops to make corrective actions (project rebuild). I have been preparing some idea of mine on this but its not ready yet, perhaps I need to get moving before 2005 is released :-) But I would give your Mentor rep a bit of a commitment test up front as you will be paying major $$$ each year for as long as you own the tools, ask them to come in to your site, and survey/recommend tools based on your needs and specifically ask about training. They can tailor a license package for you so you do not need full suites on everyone's desk at same time. For 20 seats of any combination that should be worth their while. If they will not do this much for you, well, Cadence is worth a call too.. I only use Protel and Pads here, but I work with colleagues in Spain who have nearly 70 people in RD and the whole dept use Mentor productions from end-end. However they do have a warning, they do not speak highly of Mentor support, they prefer to invest in Mentor training for their engineers and then handle product training and support in house. You can draw from that what you will... Sorry for the ramblings John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Recommendations please! -- DXP2004 - PADS - Expedition
-Original Message- From: Tom Hausherr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 10:15 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Recommendations please! -- DXP2004 - PADS - Expedition snip Also, PADS will soon (September / October) have a complete Protel translator so you can move all your legacy work directly over to PADS. Tom Thanks for that snippet ;), perhaps Altium will now escalate the remedial work on the Pads Importer :-) and perhaps even expand to a Plogic or DxD importer as well. Is the planned translator at PCB level only or at capture level also? John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/P2004 comment - storing views
-Original Message- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 June 2004 02:06 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] DXP/P2004 comment - storing views A while ago there was a discussion about P2004 not doing much for PCB designers. This is a note on a small feature to those interested. Something I find I am using more and more now is P2004's ability to save a view of the board (or Sch) to allow easy access - Altium called them Favourites - I would have called them something else like Saved Views but anyway (by the end of a design the area I have been working most in (so I am more likely to have saved as a view is likely to be anything but my favourite :-) I have requested an extension of the facility so it save the layer setup as well as just the view bounds as this would improve the facility. There are also some things about dealing with the Favourites panel that could be improved - but there is an easy enough way around this particular problem. Ian Could be good, put an option in ProjectProject optionsOptions tab for default 'startup?' files for each editor and have 'Save As' startup file defined in the File menu for each editor which stores all the settings except actual parts/netlist? Just an idea John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Spice Simulation (V I) Probes on Schematic?
-Original Message- From: Joe Sapienza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 5:34 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Spice Simulation (V I) Probes on Schematic? John, If you are truly getting ready for retirement maybe we can address you al old man Ross??? Joe Hopefully I have a few years left yet The changeover is inevitable, personally I see where the tool can go and I'm starting to invest my time to it. Working outside a large company I can also see that if layout doesn't wind up outsourced overseas(US) those of us that stay in PCB layout/design will do well, I get the impression that Junior engineers are not the same way as some of us have been, they all sorta think they are bosses, I'm not sure how to accurately articulate my impressions of the current crop of engineers and I trust this is accurate enough to convey my impressions. Customer demand my friend, I have some still on Pads Perform, still have some on Protel 2.8, the majority on 99SE and a very few on DXP2004. When I changed to P98 I managed without to much effort to get the majority to at least keep a seat, From P98 99SE was also a very positive change, despite the DDB introdcuction. I would be more than happy to try and egg them on a little to a common, up to date platform, but the general feelings on DXP, even 2004 has been a bit, well to tell the truth, extremely negative and some of the larger names, which Altium like to boast as customers have point blank refused to accept anything other than 99SE designs. Despite even demontsrting some features in person at one clients site last time I was in Germany, and the engineers liking them, they would not budge from 99SE. The resistance to change to the DXP platform, regardless of their motives, has been extremely poor compared to previous versions. One of our policies for accepting external work is that the client should supply the toolset of there choice to use and they must maintain it with the latest versions (support etc) and the resistance to change has been very noticable. Now, time to hunt some food. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Spice Simulation (V I) Probes on Schematic?
-Original Message- From: Darren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 5:59 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Spice Simulation (V I) Probes on Schematic? Joe/John, Just curious, do you guys work from home doing contract PCB design? This is something I would like to do if there are such opportunities. Darren Although I have an office at home and I do work from here sometimes this is due to personal responsibilities at home which restrict my office availability even although it is only a few miles away. I am a salaried person but also a shareholder in the company I work for. Have been here since 1987 full time and worked with more or less the same people for over 20 years. As part of a team I have to rely on others and they rely on me, no room for slacking, we are all each others motivator/managers. I get calls every day from contract companies and contactors looking for work, I trash some as they are asking for too little, I trash others for asking for over inflated rates and under inflated CV. As yet I have not found one yet that would justify the rates or investment in my time to get their work practices licked into shape. Contracting is a bloody tough game to be in and can sometimes be seriously depressing as I have seen good, skilful guys see it as 'escaping the leash' and have had their efforts thwarted by nothing more than their own lack of skills in marketing and selling themselves or identifying companies with skill gaps they can fill at the right price, and exploiting those needs correctly (to both parties benefit, the secret of longevity). I have seen others who could sell snow to Eskimos and very poor skills indeed, these guys do very well, but tend to 'milk the cow dry' every chance they get and then look for another cow. S... Floats as they say. In this respect the IPC certification programs which list engineers is something I like very much, it's a pity is not a requirement every say 2 years or so to keep it valid, it would weed out a lot of the bogus CV entries I have found! Some of the people I would like I would have to 'head hunt' from other companies. Most of the external work I do is part of a symbiotic relationship with companies we have licensed out reference designs or embedded applications to, they use us as their RD and we use them for sales, marketing and distribution of products. Although we manufacture our own designs for some people we do not employ any sales or marketing staff at all. This relationship has extended over the past 5-7 years to include work on pre release silicon from some of our suppliers, not customers, for the TV sector including test boards for devices pending tape out, recommendations on pin-outs for the IC so that end clients can rout complex devices on min layer counts and some BGA work. This if done as a contract job would be enough to sustain perhaps 1 - 1 1/2 people (volunteers for the 1/2 ?? :-) ) but the travelling and moving/shaking involved in keeping it is difficult. If you are considering it make sure you get plenty leads and some commitment from companies up front, do not be too fussy on the type of work, bread and butter stuff. I hope no-one who does contract work takes too much of my pessimistic look at contacting in the wrong way, not all contractors fit into the 2 categories I have painted above and perhaps they can give you a bit more of a real insight into the 'game' than I can. John Darren - Original Message - From: Joe Sapienza [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Spice Simulation (V I) Probes on Schematic? John, If you are truly getting ready for retirement maybe we can address you al old man Ross??? The changeover is inevitable, personally I see where the tool can go and I'm starting to invest my time to it. Working outside a large company I can also see that if layout doesn't wind up outsourced overseas(US) those of us that stay in PCB layout/design will do well, I get the impression that Junior engineers are not the same way as some of us have been, they all sorta think they are bosses, I'm not sure how to accurately articulate my impressions of the current crop of engineers and I trust this is accurate enough to convey my impressions. Joe - Original Message - From: john [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Spice Simulation (V I) Probes on Schematic? -Original Message- From: Protel Hell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 4:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] Spice Simulation (V I) Probes on Schematic? I'm doing quite nicely Joe, thanks for asking Never left, nor do I intend to, I am fascinated
Re: [PEDA] Spice Simulation (V I) Probes on Schematic?
Ian has collected some things here, http://www.considered.com.au/DXP_vs_P99SE.htm John -Original Message- From: Stephen Noftall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 11:27 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Spice Simulation (V I) Probes on Schematic? John A. Ross [RSDTV] wrote: The resistance to change to the DXP platform, regardless of their motives, has been extremely poor compared to previous versions. One of our policies for accepting external work is that the client should supply the toolset of there choice to use and they must maintain it with the latest versions (support etc) and the resistance to change has been very noticable. Hello all; First post on the forum for me! I understand how you feel John. I have been a Protel/Orcad user since DOS3.1 days. Sometimes, I wish I was still back there ;-) There are times when waiting for the 15 Seconds DXP takes to fire up on my rig that I wish Protel had just concentrated on what I wanted. I still think the original Orcad was a better schematic entry tool than what I use now. But for my question: I have just received Protel PCB 2004. Now, everytime I ask Altium why would I want to upgrade from DXP (SP2) to PCB 2004, I get a cryptic answer (It's our latest software!). Can anyone explain the difference between the two? From all I can gather, they are exactly the same. But what real-world difference is there? Thanks! Stephen Noftall * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] How to open OrCAD schematics in Prote DXP?
-Original Message- From: Darren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 June 2004 06:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] How to open OrCAD schematics in Prote DXP? Greetings. Does anyone know of the best way to translate OrCAD schematics to Protel? My understanding is that EDIF may be the best way to go, but I can not figure out how to open the EDIF file in Protel to be converted to a schematic. Protel opens it as a text file. Is there a way to generate the schematic from the EDIF file? Is there a better way? I also tried opening the *.dsn file that is the OrCAD file format, but Protel does not do a great job of it. the font is too small, and the borders are messed up. There seem to be a few other artifacts that I find unacceptable. Any advice would be appreciated. The reason I want to transfer OrCAD schematics to Protel, is that I want to use OrCAD for doing the simulations, and Protel for the PCB development (for me the simulation capabilities in Protel are inadequate). Darren Why don't you just keep the SCH as Orcad and layout in Protel? All you really need from the imported DSN is a netlist and matching footprints in the PCB library available in the PCB editor. So no need really to have a nice SCH in Protel, just increase sheet size to avoid off sheet objects as I have seen some strange behaviour when compiling with objects outside sheet border, all orcad imports :-) You did not mention what version of Orcad you were translating from. Yes the imports can be untidy, but usually the design is intact once you pick the correct connectivity model. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] P.S. Corrupted database
Steve Might not help but, have you tried exporting the DDB contents to a folder, create a new project DDB with a different name in it, using the windows file system (link) instead? My memory is fuzzy but I can recall an issue where it seemed the structure of the DB got damaged, could be repaired and compacted as a separate operation but would cause errors and would either not compact at close, or crash at close when trying to compact. Worth a try John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 3:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] P.S. Corrupted database I can still open PCBs in other databases, so it doesn't seem to be the Protel installation itself. I did, however, try deleting AdvPCB99SE.Ini in the Windows directory, to no avail. 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] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet?
-Original Message-
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 5:00 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet?
At 11:23 PM 5/29/2004, Ian Wilson wrote:
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.
I knew I should have just shut up and not put my tuppence worth in.
No, Mr. Wilson's experience and commentary are extremely
valuable to us.
Mr. Wasti has, quite clearly, *not* learned how to use DXP
efficiently, so his comments are the voice of inexperience,
coupled with a measure of anger and frustration. Yes, it
should not have been this difficult to make the transition.
But DXP exists as it is.
FOR N = 1 TO 100
PRINT I know what the FSO is.
NEXT
Mr Lomax
More painful like this :-)
(Ian, told you my coding skills were bad)
Just thought I would give you guys who write code for a living a laugh :-)
But the FSO/Inspector does need a tweak or more.
John
/*
* I know what the FSO is
*/
#include stdio.h
void main()
{
char key;
int a;
printf(Do you know what the FSO feature is?\n\n);
printf(Type yes, then hit enter to continue\n);
gets(key);
printf(I know what the FSO is!\n\n);
for(a=1;a=101;a++)
if(a100)
{
printf(Do you know what the FSO feature is?\n\n);
printf(Type yes, then hit enter to continue\n);
gets(key);
printf(I know what the FSO is!\n\n);
}
else
{
printf(Finished);
}
}
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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?
I had dreaded a query language bashing session, Ill only add, as one of the users who find it a stumbling block, due to this forced use of the language as a key feature in 2004, that I find most things slower, not because of the application, but because I struggle with the required skill itself (driving it as Ian put it), so the actual thought that must go into the desired process (and the inevitable self doubt when doing it) actually takes longer than the physical typing it in and running it. Its my own limitations, simple. In Altiums eyes I guess that makes me stupid and not in the user demographic they wish to now target. Will I make enough use of the language daily to ever have it as a natural skill, I doubt it. Is the penalty in wasted time having to use it enough to make me move completely to another toolset, no. I already use other tools and they have just as many plus points as weaknesses, in some cases more weaknesses than DXP/2004 IMO. But are there other features in 2004 that saves time/works better compared to 99SE, yes there is, use of complex time consuming queries is a minority use of my time. But I would like to put forward, as it seems to be always missed out in such exchanges that the engine was available, partly, in 99SE under EditQuery Manager. All that has really happened is that Altium have allowed user 'open' access to the engine in DXP/2004. For a user to guess how big an impact this will have on their daily use I suppose they could ask themselves how often they used the E,Q shortcuts? And how often they could not get 'just exactly' the type of query they wanted? They might find what took 2 to 4 goes in 99SE would take 1 in 2004. But the 2004 product is definitely not focussed on the SCH/PCB market anymore, so changes to the IDE was inevitable. It is more intimidating to find things than use them. Terry, I would not take too much talk over the query system as doom gloom, I was always lousy at software development and gave up a long time ago trying to improve those skills, hence my issues with the query system, but there are much more improvements in 2004 over 99SE than just this one area. John -Original Message- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 4:24 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet? On 12:52 PM 30/05/2004, Hamid Wasti said: Ian Wilson wrote: The learning curve is very significant in only one major commonly used area but this affects quite a few aspects of the software. The query language is like a small programming language that you can use to select and mask objects in your design. This language uses boolean operators (AND, NOT, OR etc) and a provides big bunch of key words like InPolygon, InNet, InNetClass IsPad etc etc. I have installed 2004 today and intend to do one simple 2 layer orphan board in it before deciding whether to stick with it or move to Expedition. So my experience comes from doing 2 orphan boards in DXP with SP2 and what I have heard from others. I have 2 issues with the new method of global editing. First, it is slower. No - it is slower when you are not used to them and used to using all the stuff that can speed them up (like saving favourites, history, the y-hot key, selection memories .). They are slower when you drive them slower - this is not the user's fault necessarily but it is my opinion that this the much talked about learning curve in a nutshell. The difference between being proficient at queries and not is to a significant extent the difference between productivity in P99SE and DXP/P2004 - if it has to be reduced to a single thing. Learn the query language, and the tools that make it easier to use the querying language, and the difference between globals in P99SE and multi-object edits in DXP/P2004 becomes so much less significant that it is no longer a buying decision point. That is for some edits one will be faster, for others it may be the other way around, and for still others not possibly practically in P99SE - the difference becomes insignificant in a project time scale. The question then comes up is what is the learning time to become proficient? Are you better off putting that to learning another application altogether? That is the really hard decision - much harder than whether the old globals are better or worse or slower or faster than the new. 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
Re: [PEDA] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet?
-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 tab at the
bottom, right
click to remove non-selected 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 mode for all attributes set to Automatic. So if you then select to show text
height / width
anyway then you get empty fields in that column which you cannot edit. If I can
display the column I
would expect the fields for that record to be available. Dead end.
You would logically think that all attributes applicable to a selection of same
footprint parts
would be available for edit after correct selection/filter by FSO but they are not,
certainly I
would have expected text height/width to be available for edit in the inspector panel
directly after
FSO for change. Unless some hidden, design or environment setting is stopping this,
but I doubt it
as you can globally change the selections name/comment visibility as well as
type/rotation/height/layer/lock unlock status So why not text height?
This I guess is exactly what you found right?
This is a case where typing, or recall from favourites will be faster than FSO route,
unless my
understanding is also flawed.
Certainly recall from favourites IS faster than 99se for repetition,
F12,favourites,select,applyexpression and do your edit as selection criteria are
already defined and
they can be as complex as you want.
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.
John
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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?
-Original Message-
From: Hamid Wasti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 2:47 AM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet?
John A. Ross [RSDTV] wrote:
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.
How many favorites will I have to save in order to get a baord done?
Hamid
Too many really, or none at all, depending on how you have set up library parts and
default
primitives.
Your example was how to edit all RefDes size for 0402, I would be more likely to
select 0402 on a
dense board and hide all text, which I can do from inspector without any queries. But
everyone is
different.
Using FSO, select footprint=same,...
This I guess is exactly what you found right?
I don't know because I lost you 25% into the dissitation. If
someone claims that that method is just as straightforward as
doing the change in 99SE, I have to wonder about them.
For what you wanted to do I have always gave up using FSO. Sorry you missed my point.
I was actually
agreement with you, in part.
No it is not as straightforward as 99SE was for THIS example, because the attributes
for text are
not always displayed in the inspector or list panels. These methods seem only to list
attributes
common or similar to all of the selection.
Asking for the 99SE type global editing style to be adopted to DXP has been requested
many times,
and more or less glossed over as it does not fit well within the product architecture.
IMO it would not take much to adopt the Inspector/List panel to work better, but until
the Product
managers at Altium see a need for it..
Certainly recall from favourites IS faster than 99se for repetition,
F12,favourites,select,applyexpression and do your edit as selection
criteria are already defined and they can be as complex as you want.
The problem is that the tasks are similar but not identical.
by the time you have a comprehensive lists of favorites, your
list is just too long to be manageable or practical.
Depends on what you are doing and the source of your netlist and libraries in many
respects.
Looking up a list of favourites is not as bad as having to continually repeat the same
sequence in
99SE.
If favourites were available in 99SE I would bet it would be a well used feature.
John
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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?
-Original Message- From: Terry Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 6:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Is Protel 99SE to 2004 upgrade a good idea yet? 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 IMO if you can use the additional features and prepared to tackle the learning curve head on then I would say yes. I got a complimentary upgrade on one seat as I had already upgraded to DXP when DXP was first released. I recently upgraded another seat from 99SE2004 and although I do not regret either upgrade, the path to productivity for me is not as quick as I would like it to be due to my lack of skills in some disciplines (mainly the query language) limit the advantages in 2004 for me, more than shortcomings of the software itself. In addition to these seats I have another 5 client supplied seats, none of those clients wish to upgrade, so I have to jump between 99SE and 2004 quite regularly, and this is the worst way to work and learn, split between 2 quite different environments, sometimes getting back to 99SE seems like a breath of fresh air, sometimes it seems a curse. If you can stick to using 2004 alone, then you will have less of a learning curve than most I would guess and get productive with it far quicker than I. Do not expect to get blown away with Situs, you will find it a bit of an anti climax compared to the marketing hype and thus expectations from it. If you can make use of the multi channel feature then you will save time for sure as this is a core improvement in 2004, you could cover the cost of the upgrade easily just with this one feature, covering the retraining costs is an individual matter. But if you do not feel limited by 99SE feature set, then I think the most honest answer is no. In 2004 you will need to change a lot of the ways in which you currently work and think, but it is not to bad. The areas I have issues on are spread across the PEDA and DXP lists as are some of the benefits. As an existing user I am quite sure your local Altium VAR would be more than happy to arrange an extended trial for you, that way you can judge for yourself :-) John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Flipping a PCB layout - 99SE
-Original Message- From: Abd ulRahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 May 2004 18:33 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Flipping a PCB layout - 99SE snip If the old track does not form a loop with the new, it will be left in place. This is not an antenna removal tool. Just a quick $0.02 worth Bad use or misunderstanding of this feature, along with bad/no grid choices can actually be one of the sources of antennas in Protel John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] TO-263 and TO-220 footprints?
-Original Message- From: Peter Moreton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 May 2004 12:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] TO-263 and TO-220 footprints? Hi, I am trying to create a simple PCB using Protel 99SE, and am nearly there, but cannot seem to find footprints for an LM2940 regulator in a TO-263 package, and a MC7806 regulator in a TO-220 (horizontal) package. Surely these commonly used footprints already exist in the PCB libraries? Peter I would have thought you would have made these yourself. Personally I never liked to use footprints I have not optimised for the process they will go through, but that's me. The TO220 ones definitely exist in the 99SE libraries. Anyhow you can find a quick dump here of footprints that might help. http://www.proteluser.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=62 Or a copy of Brian libraries here may help even more http://www.proteluser.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=17 I'm tearing my hair out (what's left of it!) - about to redesign the PCB in Eagle! No comment :-) John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] 3d viewers.
You could try http://www.qualecad.com/ John -Original Message- From: Darcy Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] 3d viewers. Hey Guys, As a consumer products development company, we're continually trying to shrink our pcb into a smaller form factor. Therefore, it would be really nice to be able to export 3d files that we could assemble into 3d plastics models in order to do clearance checking etc. This is a necessity for us, however right now I do this manually. I know there are a couple products available as add-ons for Protel99SE. Has anybody used either View3d, or Protel IDF 3d Modeler from Desktop EDA? What do you think of them? Darcy Davis Design Engineer, Dynastream Innovations, Inc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] OT: Mentor PADS comparison
-Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:17 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT: Mentor PADS comparison snip Even with a net label on the wire, I still see a diode's pins shorted. Yes, I have a junction but both pins are shorted. Am I missing any thing obvious here? Yes. I wrote that the autobreak facility was in DXP. Now, if I recall correctly -- I can't check on this notebook because my 99SE installation on it is broken -- you can drop a resistor on a wire and the wire *will* be broken, but the middle wire segment is not deleted. You have to manually delete it, one extra step. In practice, you might want to move it out of the way before deleting it But I'm not sure of my memory. It has become simpler in DXP. Does not work for me in 99SE. It is really a DXP feature. 99SE If I have an existing wire and drop a resistor onto it 2 junctions are placed at each resistor pin. But no separate wire segment is created 'under' the part between the 2 pins. If an attempt is made to select the wire segment between the 2 resistor pins (under it) then the whole wire will be selected. No additional 'nodes' have been added at the junctions created at the resistor pins or under the part to isolate that wire segment. Unless I am missing some setting ? John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] My connectivity woes
He all I just wanted to conclude the last issues I mentioned on the global connectivity problems I was having with a legacy design which was 9899SE2004. The warnings issues were a combination of a few things. There was some net labels and ports lurking under some connections which were connected to power ports, must have been me who moved them there when removing my power port connectivity routes off the top/child sheets. I know others worked on the project, but I did a lot of work on this one so I'll need to carry the can for it. Some ports were set to No Style and 0 width so looked like just net labels. But the others I have had to concede defeat on. I deleted the last 2 offending sheets which indicated error from the project and replaced them with ones from the previous revision which had no PCB (only value) changes. This fixed the problem. I exported both sheets as ascii and ran a compare on them, some differences were noted around the 208QFP and on the SDRAM parts, invalid characters that did not belong. I suspect that this design may have been subject to the P98 bug which could cause SCH to be corrupt when using update from cache feature, it's a posibility that this came back to bite me in the ass. I can now run the PCB update and no changes are made to the PCB and no errors introduced, so the SCH seems safe now. Thanks all who helped. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] OT: Mentor PADS comparison
-Original Message- From: Protel Hell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 May 2004 20:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT: Mentor PADS comparison keep in mind with PADS 2004 you have the option to use Orcad, PowerLogic, and ViewDraw as the schematic capture. depending on what you are trying to do will determine which you will want to use, but in reality the one you use will be the one that you either are told to use or are familiar with. Hmmm, Protel ? You can use any capture package that will produe a compatible netlist (as long as the fottprint names match the decal names). Snip you get what you pay for, when buying CAD you should spend what you can afford, Wrong attitude my freind, you spend what is needed to get the job done right. By spend I mean investing in ones own skills as well as the tools, tools are dumb unless driven by someone who knows what they should be doing. If that means multiple tools and some translation so be it. If the cost is beyond ones means then you are in the wrong job. Just a few $0.02 worth JOhn From: John A. Ross [RSDTV] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT: Mentor PADS comparison Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 23:37:05 +0100 -Original Message- From: Nukien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 8:52 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] OT: Mentor PADS comparison Hi All - Somewhat offtopic here ... I'm currently a 99SE devout user - we haven't made the switch to 2004 yet. I've been discussing it with some colleagues, and a couple of them have gone to Mentor's PADS 2004 product. They're still new at it, but are definitely singing praises. Dean I am Jealous :-), I have not got my Pads 2004 copy yet, it was released then a patch was done for some issues (mostly fab releated) but it has not hit my desk yet. Thought I would add that in, for the benefit of one of the employees at my Mentor VAR who also frequents this list :-) Does anyone else here have any experience with it at all ? I would dread the learning curve - going to DXP/2004 while still a curve, is at least in the same family/paradigm. I would really like to hear what some of the pros and cons are between DXP/2004 and PADS/2004. But knowing Pads as I do it wont have changed that much from 5.01, it is a very nice tool, never liked Plogic much and that is where you are going to miss out big as the capture side is a dinosaur to say the least. You learning curve will be less with DXP2004 for sure, it looks different, and has different design approach, but IMO it has been made to look WAY more complex than it needs to be, considering a lot of things in it are the same. There are a lot of features I would have liked to see in DXP that exists in pads, but I fear my requests will fall on deaf ears sometimes, but do not be fooled, there are also a lot of things in Protel I would like to see in Pads as well. All that glitters is not gold :-) What I would strongly advise is that you make a design spec, say a small micro that flashes some LEDs, well, it may as well look good, and do it in the most complex and difficult way. Keep notes times on this exercise, likes dislikes, put 1 LED per sheet, the micro on another, draw ALL the Decals/Footprints yourself, bring the design into PowerPCB and make a complex board outline and a few copper / board cut-outs and some polygons / copper pours. Then produce the fab files (if you use your own SMT place equipment then you will like the CAM outputs) Now repeat exactly the same process design in Protel and when you are finished compare notes. Then you will have a well formed opinion and substance to back it up when confronting your colleagues. Anytime I have seen some-one that impressed with a Pads demo was when it is done by an experienced Pads user/sales person. Hope this helps John _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DataBase Size too big!
-Original Message- From: Michael Biggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 4:20 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] DataBase Size too big! After designing a PCB in 99SE SP6 and my database file keeps getting bigger. Of coarse I always save different file names of my design every so often. But here is my question, after I have deleted all the extra files and deleted my recycle bin files why is my database file still very large? I could start a new database with the extracted .pcb file and it seems to keep all the rules and preferences, but is this the only way? I know this has been discussed somewhere, I just couldn't find it in the archive. Michael Have you compacted the database? Are you using DDB file system? The DDB database size grows at an exponential rate if not compacted at close. Try the little un-named 'Arrow Down' button on the top left of the window, drop down to 'Design Utilities' and you will get a 'Compact Repair Box' I would suggest first backup your database to another location, then first run a 'repair' pass, then run 'compact' After that check the box for 'Perform Compact After Closing Design' box and the operation will be automatic after each session is closed. How big is your DDB file? You can export / import rules from within the PCB editor DesignRulesMenu or Right Click on workspaceRulesMenu Good luck Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWWhttp://www.rsd.tv == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] OT: Mentor PADS comparison
Rene Show a man what to do and he will retain 50% of what he is told at the most, maybe :-) a day is nothing, even with an experienced user. Make a man do it himself and that ratio is a lot more :-) No pain, no gain as they say sometimes. John -Original Message- From: Rene Tschaggelar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 2:32 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT: Mentor PADS comparison John A. Ross [RSDTV] wrote: What I would strongly advise is that you make a design spec, say a small micro that flashes some LEDs, well, it may as well look good, and do it in the most complex and difficult way. Keep notes times on this exercise, likes dislikes, put 1 LED per sheet, the micro on another, draw ALL the Decals/Footprints yourself, bring the design into PowerPCB and make a complex board outline and a few copper / board cut-outs and some polygons / copper pours. Then produce the fab files (if you use your own SMT place equipment then you will like the CAM outputs) Now repeat exactly the same process design in Protel and when you are finished compare notes. Then you will have a well formed opinion and substance to back it up when confronting your colleagues. Anytime I have seen some-one that impressed with a Pads demo was when it is done by an experienced Pads user/sales person. While that would be great it is not payable in terms of time spent to become familiar. Rather spend a day with a professional user and go through all that. 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] Connectivity - Netlist issues
-Original Message- From: Abd ulRahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 5:08 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Connectivity - Netlist issues At 07:14 PM 5/5/2004, John A. Ross [RSDTV] wrote: From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]I also assume that you have verified that the problem does not exist in the 99SE version of the design. If [this is] not true, please correct me! No, this is in the 99SE design I am preparing for DXP2004 import. Okay, let's see if I've got it right now. If there is a bug, it is a 99SE bug. You have a 99SE schematic that, *in 99SE*, generates ERC errors and which assigns the power nets contrary to expectation (i.e., it splits them, as if they were local, not global). You also have problems when you try to import the schematic due to multiple sheet entries with the same name on the same symbol. More or less, I had already translated 14 designs througout last year, some a lot bigger than this one to DXP7.x, then 2004. I had already encountered the multiple sheet entry one port (many to one) but thought I would ask if anyone had a smart workaround to get that working in DXP as re-drafting is a pain and potential point for error. However this design threw me a curve ball with this connectivity issue. I really do reckon that the connectivity may be OK, but the net name is somehow being introduced twice with same nodes or partial matches and that is the error rather than broken connectivity which is just the result of the badly loaded netlist. I am being cautious here as I have found the ERC and Netlist load process seem to treat the netlist differently. When opened in DXP, the compiler chokes because of the power port connectivity issues (assumes demotion to local net for power) and also chokes on the multiple sheet entries. The top sheet can be easily rewired to remove the sheet entry issues but the connectivity issue is driving me nuts. Of course, fixing the sheet entry issues *might* fix the other problem, though the connection would be obscure. Nope, tried that already If my new assumptions are correct, this is a good example of why it is important to (1) set the ERC matrix to show all possible error conditions and warnings, (2) suppress single-pin net warnings where the single-pin condition is intentional, and (3) track down and eliminate all errors, even if they might seem to be harmless. Sometimes an engineer will look at an error, say I don't see anything wrong here and so they pop a No-ERC directive on the error, thus suppressing it. Very bad idea. Even if it seems arbitrary, it is much better, i.e., safer, to satisfy the ERC by how one designs. I never like to see any errors, I also disagree with turning any warnings off including single pin nets. For single pin issues in 99SE I usually just placed a 0.5x0.5mm SMT test pad on those net, so no warnings :-) Taking them out the BOM was a pain, but better than an error If you are in a hurry, understand that haste makes waste and if you decide to barge ahead anyway, at least don't suppress the error message! Leave it, there is no law that a schematic must be free of error markers, and the marker and message next time ERC is run are a reminder that the paperwork is not done. Using a No-ERC marker to suppress the error or not-clearly-understood warning is like spraying perfume instead of cleaning up the mess Don't quite get that one. As you picked up from the other message I can be 'excessively neat' and the whole reason for me attacking the issue was to get to the bottom of it. The workaround of connecting power rails using ports/sheet entries is in theory harmless, and actually only adding redundancy to the connectivity model of global power ports. But you are right, I guess looking back, I did more or less sweep the power port connectivity issue under the carpet on this one due to a successful workaround, not good practice at all really. Trust me, that's not normal for me you can be sure. snip So I intend to pick through the netlist first then all sheets one at a time. That should not be necessary. Since you have an obvious test for the error condition, you can delete whole sheets; if the error condition remains, you have not deleted the problem condition, so you don't need to even look at the sheet you deleted. (Of course, if there is more than one instance of the problem, you might have deleted one of them, but you'll find that out later, and at that time you'll likely know exactly what to look for.) There a few designs like this, not all of them exhibit the same behaviour. I can run some macros and scripts on the netlist to strip it down, if I can follow the sheet order I think ill at least get the right area as all my sheets follow a common annotation methodology. Perhaps I should explain that one. If I have say an output
Re: [PEDA] Connectivity - Netlist issues
-Original Message- From: Abd ulRahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 5:35 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Connectivity - Netlist issues At 07:51 PM 5/5/2004, John A. Ross [RSDTV] wrote: snip There is a bit of pressure on me just now on other projects so I might be overlooking something obvious, too much haste is usually counter productive. Yes. You can focus on what needs to be done now; as to all the upgrades, I'd suggest trying each of them, if it imports fine, or with a few obvious and easily fixable problems, then finish it. If not, set it aside (with the one you've already described). I think I might have gave the impression that this was my first translation, I have designs running in DXP7.x that I translated OK, I have others that need to be done, but the one in question is an anomaly at present. The most common errors I get are either multiple sheet entries of same name (already covered that) and 'off grid' warnings. Off grid warnings are a real pain also as I never understood it. All my SCH in 98/99SE were on 5/5 grid as was all lib parts. I never use off grid objects. Perhaps the DB format changing causes issue. If, after you've worked with a few, it looks like most of the projects have serious problems, then you might put the whole translation project on hold and come back to it when you can, or when one of the translations becomes hot. The translation process at the moment is on an 'as needed ' basis, many have been done, but before any more are done I would like to get any issues documented and procedures formed around them so that I am not always the one that has to do it. That is to say a set of procedures to prepare a 99SE design as DXP friendly to reduce time. In 99SE any changes can be done, a forward annotation update to the PCB and a full PCB DRC done to validate there are no electrical changes or otherwise that will effect PCB design integrity. If there *are* a lot of problems, it would seem that 99SE error conditions were routinely being ignored and dealt with in an ad-hoc manner, thus accumulating problems, pointing out how failing to fix an error condition when it is first found can lead to more error conditions in the future, etc. Not the cases, this designs stubborn attitude is an anomaly, albeit an anomaly that may or may not exist across many designs, a lot of the designs have had power rails routinely connected via sheet entries and sheet ports regardless of any error as a precautionary procedure. This has been done since P98. As far as risk goes, that could be viewed as one, but as I never use a connectivity model other than sheet symbol/port connections the results are consistent and predictable and never had it effect a PCB. But its always possible. As DXP2004 did not like this import, (warned that net was reduced to local) , on this design, as I have done successfully before, I removed all the top sheet level power ports and sheet entries, then edited each sheet to remove the ports/net labels. I still suspect I have either made a mess of the sheet edits in frustration and hidden or moved a net label or net naming object, or the design has a corrupt SCH symbol, or had an update done from a library other than the company validated one, perhaps with hidden pins or pins with power nets assigned (if I find that, I will hang the SOB that did it, as company procedure bans hidden pins or pins with nets pre-assigned when drafting SCH symbols) But my Friday afternoon mission is to nail this down, it will be done before its time to go home. All help is greatly appreciated. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWWhttp://www.rsd.tv == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] OT: Mentor PADS comparison
-Original Message- From: Nukien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 8:52 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] OT: Mentor PADS comparison Hi All - Somewhat offtopic here ... I'm currently a 99SE devout user - we haven't made the switch to 2004 yet. I've been discussing it with some colleagues, and a couple of them have gone to Mentor's PADS 2004 product. They're still new at it, but are definitely singing praises. Dean I am Jealous :-), I have not got my Pads 2004 copy yet, it was released then a patch was done for some issues (mostly fab releated) but it has not hit my desk yet. Thought I would add that in, for the benefit of one of the employees at my Mentor VAR who also frequents this list :-) Does anyone else here have any experience with it at all ? I would dread the learning curve - going to DXP/2004 while still a curve, is at least in the same family/paradigm. I would really like to hear what some of the pros and cons are between DXP/2004 and PADS/2004. But knowing Pads as I do it wont have changed that much from 5.01, it is a very nice tool, never liked Plogic much and that is where you are going to miss out big as the capture side is a dinosaur to say the least. You learning curve will be less with DXP2004 for sure, it looks different, and has different design approach, but IMO it has been made to look WAY more complex than it needs to be, considering a lot of things in it are the same. There are a lot of features I would have liked to see in DXP that exists in pads, but I fear my requests will fall on deaf ears sometimes, but do not be fooled, there are also a lot of things in Protel I would like to see in Pads as well. All that glitters is not gold :-) What I would strongly advise is that you make a design spec, say a small micro that flashes some LEDs, well, it may as well look good, and do it in the most complex and difficult way. Keep notes times on this exercise, likes dislikes, put 1 LED per sheet, the micro on another, draw ALL the Decals/Footprints yourself, bring the design into PowerPCB and make a complex board outline and a few copper / board cut-outs and some polygons / copper pours. Then produce the fab files (if you use your own SMT place equipment then you will like the CAM outputs) Now repeat exactly the same process design in Protel and when you are finished compare notes. Then you will have a well formed opinion and substance to back it up when confronting your colleagues. Anytime I have seen some-one that impressed with a Pads demo was when it is done by an experienced Pads user/sales person. Hope this helps John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Connectivity - Netlist issues
-Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 6:56 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Connectivity - Netlist issues At 08:12 AM 5/5/2004, John A. Ross [Design] wrote: However I made a small test board, parent + 5 child sheets using the same ID key.sch file in it and it does not show the error under the same enviroment so the problem seems localised to the other design (or the number of sheets). Very good. Now, if you've been specific about this, please refresh my memory. My impression is that the problem exists only in DXP, and with this specific design. I also assume that you have verified that the problem does not exist in the 99SE version of the design. If these are not true, please correct me! No, this is in the 99SE design I am preparing for DXP2004 import. When opened in DXP, the compiler chokes because of the power port connectivity issues (assumes demotion to local net for power) and also chokes on the multiple sheet entries. The top sheet can be easily rewired to remove the sheet entry issues but the connectivity issue is driving me nuts. I actually enjoy these challenges but when time is against you it takes the fun out of it :-) I have been collecting some notes, caveats and precautionary tactics to move the last of these 99SE designs I have to DXP2004 (about 60 or so) which is why I have been re-evaluating my workaround of wiring up power nets on the top sheet (thus bypassing the assumed 'global' power connectivity). The end document will be formed to a procedure for others to follow and it is a lot faster and easier to edit / prepare it in 99SE than in DXP2004. Although I have had to put this aside for the moment, currently my train of thought is that a wire label or other additional net naming object is present or exists on some other sheet than the id key.sch one, possibly hidden or moved under a component with the POE touching a pin / wire which is already connected to a power object. This would make sense to me. It is not the first time I have seen the error markers in 99SE placed at the conflict target position and not the source (due to position in netlist). So I intend to pick through the netlist first then all sheets one at a time. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Connectivity - Netlist issues
Hi I have had a few discussions previously on this list about the connectivity models within 99SE and how I have had in some cases seen errors where power ports are not treated as global when using Sheet Symbols/Port connections. Before committing the last of my larger designs to 2004 I would like to track down the error of my ways. Some screenshots here http://www.proteluser.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=68#post68 A short summary is that the design has one parent sheet and the rest are child sheets. No complex hierarchy. Connectivity model is set to sheet Symbol / Port connections as it should be. This is a real design in production, not a test board. But Update PCB fails with errors. If previewed it wants to rip up the power nets completely. If I generate a netlist and then try to load it manually I get a similar issue but with more detail, this time the power nets are ripped up and I get netlist load errors 'net already exists' as it tries to add many instances of the same power net name (one instance per sheet). If I add a sheet entry to each sheet symbol with the name of the power net and as a sheet port to the child sheets all is happy, no errors. My understanding was always that power ports were always global, but I seem to have an exception here, unless I cannot see the wood for the trees. Any suggestions appreciated. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWWhttp://www.rsd.tv == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Sheet entry methodologies in 99SE
Does anyone else use this method for keeping top sheets clean in 99SE? See screenshot http://www.proteluser.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=71#post71 If you look at net labels HA[0..18], HD[0..15] and HA20/HA21/WE0 you will see that I have added additional sheet entries of the same name while using only a single port on the child sheet. Sort of a one (child sheet) to many (parent sheet) and it seems to work fine. But Importing this to 2004 and compile, the compiler does not like this at all. I tried creating the same number of sheet entries as the sheet symbol has but it seems 2004 will choke on same name items. I have been given today the task of translating some more 99SE designs which have between 20-40 sheets and it seems this small workaround has come back to bite me. If anyone has any ideas on a workaround to save redrawing the top sheets 'ugly' then please let mw know. Best regards John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Sheet entry methodologies in 99SE
Ok, got some opinions, thanks Looks like I will need to rework the top sheet connectivity, I had already guessed as much, just wanted a final exploration of the subject before picking up the mouse. As Mr Lomax put it There is such a thing as an excess of neatness! which seems to apply quite well in this case. It has been a personal preference of mine to keep certain top sheets this way, I have never liked crossed lines for wires or buses, bus structures can look confusing when printed in monochrome in Protel. I actually started doing this out of a remedial action brought about by client complaint as a compromise due to Protel not supporting complex buses so control lines had to be drawn seperately from the bus itself. The previous package I used prior to P98 did support complex buses and this was what they were used to (wires did not need to cross busses for connectivity) Thanks all :-) Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWWhttp://www.rsd.tv == -Original Message- From: Leo Potjewijd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 5:33 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Sheet entry methodologies in 99SE At 04-05-2004 16:48, John A. Ross [Design] wrote: Does anyone else use this method for keeping top sheets clean in 99SE? See screenshot http://www.proteluser.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=71#post71 If you look at net labels HA[0..18], HD[0..15] and HA20/HA21/WE0 you will see that I have added additional sheet entries of the same name while using only a single port on the child sheet. Sort of a one (child sheet) to many (parent sheet) and it seems to work fine. Well, I don't use that method. For one reason, it makes it less clear which bus goes where. But Importing this to 2004 and compile, the compiler does not like this at all. I tried creating the same number of sheet entries as the sheet symbol has but it seems 2004 will choke on same name items. Apparently 2004 gets confused too. I have been given today the task of translating some more 99SE designs which have between 20-40 sheets and it seems this small workaround has come back to bite me. If anyone has any ideas on a workaround to save redrawing the top sheets 'ugly' then please let mw know. I make branches in buses using bus entries and specify what bus members are in each branch using net labels; if the bus goes two places with all its members I use a junction and label each section. That way the clutter is minimal and it is always clear which bus goes where with what members. Leo Potjewijd hardware designer Integrated Engineering B.V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +31 20 4620700 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Need more software
-Original Message- From: Mike Reagan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:56 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Need more software snip Camtastic is a step in the right direction. Again I don't like the integration. Specifically, I don't like the fact that every time you generate gerbers it automatically pops up. Protel this is waist of my time. Mike You can disable this by telling it not to open output files after generated. Project Options, Output Options, Open output after compile, uncheck. I know that makes no sense because of this compile word. Ian drops hints about the poor choice of the word 'compile' quite regularly in his postings, but it is still there, perhaps in SP1 ? :-) As regards, net antennas Camtastic, I just tried a board with a spare 2mm trace sticking out from a 1.2mm via and the PCB Design Check comes up clean. I am looking to see if it is me, or the tool before posting more. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Need more software
Sorry Mike Assumption is the mother of all Or so they say Yes I assumed it was in a project :(, never tried it any other way John -Original Message- From: Mike Reagan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 6:01 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Need more software John See, now Ya'll dont read everything I write. No, you can not disable Camtastic unless a project is open. I only design PCB so the Project Button is muted and can not be disabled. Trust me I ve been thru this with tech support also Mike -Original Message- From: John A. Ross [Design] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:21 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Need more software -Original Message- From: Mike Reagan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:56 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Need more software snip Camtastic is a step in the right direction. Again I don't like the integration. Specifically, I don't like the fact that every time you generate gerbers it automatically pops up. Protel this is waist of my time. Mike You can disable this by telling it not to open output files after generated. Project Options, Output Options, Open output after compile, uncheck. I know that makes no sense because of this compile word. Ian drops hints about the poor choice of the word 'compile' quite regularly in his postings, but it is still there, perhaps in SP1 ? :-) As regards, net antennas Camtastic, I just tried a board with a spare 2mm trace sticking out from a 1.2mm via and the PCB Design Check comes up clean. I am looking to see if it is me, or the tool before posting more. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Need more software
, or in the case of new projects, the group root folder. If files are imported to the project, and do not belong to a file group, a copy of the imported files should be auto copied to a /root/project/file type folders first then the /root/project/imports folder if the file type is not assigned (documents, PDF...). They can always be deleted later. With the exception of the next point, the above is not a big deal, it is merely looking up defaults, very little to leave to chance, and elimination of error or just saving time is a good thing right? The view / structure of these files/folders should be followed in the Project browser window in DXP. ## The ODB++ standard defines a structure for file sorting, perhaps we need a DXP file structure standard. Do not know about others, but I detest playing 'hunt the file' games, or not knowing what files are linked to what projects as it uses link files. The file structure and project structure should be 'self contained' or self explanatory, with or without DXP open. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications Ltd 8 BorrowMeadow Road Springkerse Industrial Estate Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office) Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab) Fax +44 [0]1786 474653 GSM +44 [0]7831 373727 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW http://www.rsd.tv == --- You are currently subscribed to dxp For details about using the list, including how to un-subscribe, please refer to http://forums.altium.com/cgi-bin/info.asp Mike Reagan * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
FYI, I reside in the UK but spend a lot of working time also in Sweden and Germany, not so much in China/Korea any more as those operations are well up and running now. US orientated, political nomenclature means little to me although I guess, I better get used to it for NAB next weekend if I want to appreciate the humour ;) John -Original Message- From: Abd ulRahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 2:56 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? At 07:16 PM 4/11/2004, John A. Ross [RSDTV] wrote: You can hardly call me silent [...] I'm not sure where Mr. Ross lives, but in the United States various politicians have been known to use the term silent majority to claim that anyone who disagrees with them merely represents some extremist fringe, and they are the true spokespeople for the majority. My point was that we don't know how the majority feels simply from how we individually feel, nor do we necessarily know it from the squeaky wheels. This is *not* a criticism of squeaky wheels, nor is it any attempt to denigrate Mr. Ross or what he has been saying. As far as being coherent, I will devote as much time, documentation and effort as otherwise required to get my point across, on one simple condition. In my usage of the word, then, Mr. Ross is a single photon. Coherent as I used it would mean some coordinated expression of users, not merely an individual expression. That is as long as I believe my efforts are not wasted, nor in vain, or that they are actually being acknowledged at all. Yes, though the last clause is ... incoherent. :-) At least I couldn't quite make sense of it. But the point is clear from the first part. (Coherent is here used to mean unintelligible, which is *not* how I was using it in my previous post.) The last point is Altiums weakness. An insular community and train of thought. There are many specialists who could compile a survey for Altium, in my experience home grown surveys, even by the most experienced 'marketing' types is flawed from the start. I don't know what kind of surveying Altium has done. I've received informal calls, and it is possible that something was being compiled from these. But I do have in mind a more active form of communication between users and the company. I see helping other users without reward a positive use of my time. As do I. If I think for a moment I am wasting my time I would rather spend it on my kids my family, they are by far my preferred future investment. Understood. I guess you just see my comments as being incoherent, ineffective, a waste of your reading tome and of no practical use. So be it. No, that is not at all how I see Mr. Ross's writing. When I see writing that is a waste of time I pass it by! Mr. Ross, unfortunately, appears to have taken some very general comments I made as if they were directed at him, merely because his post triggered the observations. I'll quote what I wrote that might have occasioned this: Anyway, I'd like to see better communication between Altium and the users, and that is going to require a certain level of organization of the users. You can't communicate with someone who is incoherent, and there is no active mechanism which will allow the users to speak coherently. Incoherent did not refer to Mr. Ross, but to the body of users -- all of us --, who have no means of communicating coherently, that is, with one voice (ideally, representing a broad consensus). The mailing lists function partially toward this direction, sometimes, but not reliably. I'll ignore the other bait ;) There was an implicit invitation at the end of my post for users to join in developing coherence (on [EMAIL PROTECTED], which has decision-making mechanisms); I could speculate that Mr. Ross is saying that he will ignore this, but, to be truthful, I don't really know what he meant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Nanoboard
-Original Message- From: Tony Karavidas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:21 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Nanoboard You could have accepted it and then sold it on this list for $500. There are other people that want it and they won't be getting a free one, so 1/2 price is a good deal. Tony, I did not think about that one. Hmmm, I got one free when I upgraded another seat from 99SEP2004 last month. I had already upgraded another to DXP, so have a free upgrade (no nanobaord) on that one. Although I have been having some fun with it at the moment I doubt if I will ever seriously use it, although one FAE from a distributor who visited me recently thought he could use it to promote Altera devices. If anyone would be interested in it feel free to contact me off list and I can let them know if I decide to put it up for grabs. Cheers John -Original Message- From: Mike Reagan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 11:24 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Would it not be nice? Once again I have to agree with Mr. Brooks. I wanted to purchase PCB and Schematic. I did not want the NanoBoard, PLD, or anything else. Actually if there was a free schematic viewer, I wouldn't need the schematic tools either. Basically, all I wanted was PCB, not even the router. I have a large investment in routers so I don't need to pay extra for Protel's. Well, I had to insist that Altium keep the nanoboard. Literally, I had to insist that it would end up in the trash as soon as I received it. They kept it. One size does not fit all. Marketing has driven this one shoe fits all for the past few years and it aint workin' guys.At least OrCAd has allowed me to purchase the schematic capture without spending 10 grand on the rest of their layout and simulation. Mike Reagan * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
Mr Lomax You can hardly call me silent, I am certainly not in Jami's league when it comes to hell raising but I am certainly not quiet (no insult intended Jami). As far as being coherent, I will devote as much time, documentation and effort as otherwise required to get my point across, on one simple condition. That is as long as I believe my efforts are not wasted, nor in vain, or that they are actually being acknowledged at all. The last point is Altiums weakness. An insular community and train of thought. There are many specialists who could compile a survey for Altium, in my experience home grown surveys, even by the most experienced 'marketing' types is flawed from the start. I see helping other users without reward a positive use of my time. If I think for a moment I am wasting my time I would rather spend it on my kids my family, they are by far my preferred future investment. I guess you just see my comments as being incoherent, ineffective, a waste of your reading tome and of no practical use. So be it. I'll ignore the other bait ;) John -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 10:31 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? At 02:40 PM 4/10/2004, John A. Ross [RSDTV] wrote: It is a sad fact that Altium would prefer to listen to the 'few' than the many as regards how their tools are now styled, viewed and the direction that they have taken. This brings us to a classic problem, that of the alleged silent majority. Unless you actually survey a population, you don't really know what the population, as a whole thinks, and even polls and surveys can be problematic. Many people simply assume that the majority thinks the way they do. I think I have a solution. By the few I mean the 'yes' men who will agree to anything from Altium that betters their own needs [...] Hmmm Isn't it normal for people to agree with something that betters their own needs? It seems fairly clear that some users *like* DXP and others don't. The balance is far from clear. Anyway, I'd like to see better communication between Altium and the users, and that is going to require a certain level of organization of the users. You can't communicate with someone who is incoherent, and there is no active mechanism which will allow the users to speak coherently. So there is just whatever happens to be written on the mailing lists, often by those who are disproportionally motivated to write (and I include myself in this) or whatever Altium privately gleans from isolated users (or, perhaps, determines more scientifically, I certainly don't know the extent or power of Altium's research in this area). And I'm going to have to write about that on [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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] Would it not be nice?
A quote I just seen on DXP list Would it not be nice to be asked the same type of questions on the SCH and PCB tools that have been the 'bread butter' for Altium for so long instead of just the 'new Altium baby'. When you see such feedback, well, I can only repeat myself. I really do see the 2004 roadmap as being a positive move, but they are making it real hard for themselves. From a feature point of view I would have paid my upgrade bucks for dual monitor, multi channel, better Orcad compatibility and proper schematic driven rule sets and leave the 99SE style interface. Proper pin / gate swapping, a VERY high wish on all users wish list, still has not made it, but would have been nice, but we have FPGA tools, so much better than pin / gate swapping. John -Original Message- From: Nick Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 12:00 AM To: DXP Technical Forum Subject: Re: [dxp] NanoBoard snipped I would be interested to know why you feel the need to use ISE and what areas of it are most interesting / useful to you. Best Regards, Nick * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
-Original Message- From: edsi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 6:48 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? snip Altium better start to listen to folks like Ray. Ray came to the same conclusions that everyone else has about DXP without anyone holding a prompter if front of him. Ray's statement are pretty significant from a marketing standpoint It is a sad fact that Altium would prefer to listen to the 'few' than the many as regards how their tools are now styled, viewed and the direction that they have taken. By the few I mean the 'yes' men who will agree to anything from Altium that betters their own needs, it is a shame that Altium cannot think for themselves in this respect. Just because certain users can communicate well with Altium (speak software developer language well) does not make their guidance on product direction a good thing, or a fair representation of the user base as a whole. But when success is measured in pure $ at the bottom line of the companies books instead of product quality, or user base, it is very common for successful companies to believe that first, they can do no wrong (based purely on their financial success and not on the product), second, their users are locked to them so they can do what they want, third, their own opinion (and that of their loyal followers and advocates) is more important than the user base as a whole. Generally companies fooled into a train of thought like this will 'skip' user complaints or good suggestions that do not fit their master plan or take a 'blinkered' view if it does not come from a source they like and will never admit their error to themselves, and so they become isolated from the majority of their user base. Again IMO the trend is to restyle the Enviroment to resemble a software IDE which better suits the FPGA tools integration (or take over), a useful evolution indeed, and re-positions Altium tools pretty well, but I think the core reason is that it is easier for the developers to produce an Enviroment THEY would like, THEY understand, find NATURAL for THEM or use, than spend the time to ask and understand what the PCB designers would actually like. Despite its market re-positioning, I don't think the FPGA tools will stand up well to other FPGA tool vendors on their own, so treating the PCB tools as the poor cousins is a bad decision and IMO a mistake. Feature and functionality wise DXP/2004 is a big improvement, but I have seen nothing added in DXP/2004 that could not have been left inside the 99SE GUI (no retraining, no new skills needed, just more productive tools), but as said above, that would have been a lot harder for developers to meet the UI requirements at the same time as considering the needs of the PCB designer. How many software developers do you know that would prefer DOS boxes brought back and return everyone to command line entries :-) ? Er, no thanks. Sound familiar (query language, scripting...) Altium have did it very badly IMO (glad I am not alone) to the point that the pain is in some cases, simply not worth the gain, due to making simple things harder (un-natural for non software familiar people) to do. Like others, I converted many of my customers from other vendors products to 98/99 purely on its ease of use, short learning curve, stability and I would happily have stood my ground to defend statements I made to promote P98/P99SE when challenged. I cannot in honesty do this with DXP/2004, I would need to respond that unless you do FPGA or need Multi Channel design, you do not gain that much more. I think Altium have seriously underestimated this type of 'sale by recommendation' outlet. Big mistake. I guess they can expect the same from the PCAD community when they move them to the DXP platform. It's a hard and sometimes lonely path to get a good reputation, it's a lot easier to get a bad one. Which path Altium are on, only time will tell. Could I go on about this all day, yes, but that would be boring for all as it is really repetition of all that has gone before as well as being ignored by Altium because it is not what Altium likes to hear. John Reagan -- Original Message -- From: Brooks,Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:12:42 -0700 Ray, I made the mistake that you are considering before. The group I was with in Temecula bought Pads on my misguided recommendation... I was taken in by the demo. The guys made it look so easy, then when I got the software and realized they sold me a package that was stripped down compared to the one they demonstrated... I saw red. If I wanted the package that did all the fancy stuff like interactive routing and push and shove placement etc, I would have to pay thousands more for the 'add-ons'. The
Re: [PEDA] Nanoboard
Jami A printed version is at the rear of the Nanoboard tech manual The design is located in the P2004 examples sub directory C:\P2004\Examples\Reference Designs\NanoBoard-NB1 In my case its C:\2004\ so just change to wherever yours is. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWWhttp://www.rsd.tv == -Original Message- From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:22 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: JaMi Smith Subject: [PEDA] Nanoboard Has anyone reverse engineered the Nanoboard yet? Where's the schematic? JaMi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] reg hole on PCB and library
-Original Message- From: Paresh Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:43 AM To: protel forum Subject: [PEDA] reg hole on PCB and library Hi everybody. I am facing the following problems in 99SE 1. I have designed a single sided PCB for a microcontroller programmer. It has a 7812 regulator chip which is to be soldered and also fitted to the PCB (using a small nut), so that the PCB ground copper acts like a heat sink. To do this, I have placed a rectangular copper fill with a hole in the center and aligning the hole with that of the 7812 (TO220 package).To generate the hole I placed a pad(multilayer) and adjusted its hole size to be equal to X-size and Y-size (all 100 mil).But when I generate a print preview by using following settings, I do not see the hole in the copper fill. The whole copper fill appears as black. The settings I use are : Include Top side Include bottom side Include double sides all are selected(checked) Show holes ..selected(checked) Color set... Black White The layers selected in the preview are Bottom layer Keepout layer Multilayer Can anybody help me to find the hole ? That seems strange, your layer build up works OK for me, show drill hole in preview. Have you tried promoting the multilayer pad to the top of the list? I tried the same thing using a fill on the top layer instead (I know you do not us it) and had to promote the multilayer to the top before I could see the hole for the 'tab' Try moving the 'multilayer' layer to the top and have all other layers below it. 2. My second problem is regarding libraries. When I load a new schematic, is there any way to know the library from where each component was taken by the designer of the schematic ? If you double-click on a component , it shows the library reference,footprint etc. but the library is not known. Similarly in PCB editor, it shows the footprint etc. but the library is not shown. I have never had to do that so I do not know. Working with multiple libraries with possibly same name parts is always a bad idea. However if you have concerns, you can create a separate project library from the PCB and SCH For PCB it would be Design, Make Library. All footprints currently active on your PCB will be merged into one library. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Antenna coil
For spirals you could try Brians script as well for drafting after doin 'what ifs' in the other application. http://www.proteluser.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=17 John -Original Message- From: matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 10:18 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Antenna coil you may try to design a spiral inductor instead . Download the free software called Appcad (from Agilent) , it has spiral inductors design. Play some what if scenarios with it and you'll see if you can do it one way or another, with and without vias . Best Regards, Matt Tudor , MSEE - Original Message - From: John C. Echols [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:32 PM Subject: [PEDA] Antenna coil I'm the guy still using Protel 1.61 (1992) with Windows 3.11 and I'm on a phone linenow that you're through laughing my question is - my present project requires a coil for an antenna for a prox card reader. The coil is about 3.25 X 4.25, 700uHy and takes 60 turns of mag wire. Can I do this with traces? The easiest would be 30 turns on one side and one via to do 30 on the back. I'd probably go .004/.004 so it's not too hard for the board house and would only take .24 width of board space. Will this work or is the spacing too big? Or do I need to do one turn on top, the next on bottom, next on top, etc? All the vias would take up too much room. Thanks for the help. John Echols * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Antenna coil
I never sleep John -Original Message- From: Brian Guralnick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 11:56 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Antenna coil For spirals you could try Brians script as well for drafting after doin 'what ifs' in the other application. http://www.proteluser.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=17 John Hey, I was just replying to that as well... You won hitting the Send on your email by a few seconds... _ Brian Guralnick - Original Message - From: John A. Ross [RSDTV] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 5:57 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Antenna coil -Original Message- From: matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 10:18 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Antenna coil you may try to design a spiral inductor instead . Download the free software called Appcad (from Agilent) , it has spiral inductors design. Play some what if scenarios with it and you'll see if you can do it one way or another, with and without vias . Best Regards, Matt Tudor , MSEE - Original Message - From: John C. Echols [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:32 PM Subject: [PEDA] Antenna coil I'm the guy still using Protel 1.61 (1992) with Windows 3.11 and I'm on a phone linenow that you're through laughing my question is - my present project requires a coil for an antenna for a prox card reader. The coil is about 3.25 X 4.25, 700uHy and takes 60 turns of mag wire. Can I do this with traces? The easiest would be 30 turns on one side and one via to do 30 on the back. I'd probably go .004/.004 so it's not too hard for the board house and would only take .24 width of board space. Will this work or is the spacing too big? Or do I need to do one turn on top, the next on bottom, next on top, etc? All the vias would take up too much room. Thanks for the help. John Echols * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Component Type (Ex:2004 Global edits)
-Original Message- From: edsi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 7:21 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Component Type (Ex:2004 Global edits) snip Component type: I would be willing to quiz every engineer I have worked with for the past 30 years and 99 percent would not be able to correcty answer a definition of Standard, mechanical, graphical, NET TIE, etc. Nor would they care or even use it even if they could Brian This was one of the most asked for features on this list, since as far back as P98, not the DXP one, and cause for many people complaining about how items in the SCH such as nuts/washers/bolts/insulators. can be shown on the SCH, included in the BOM, but not required for the PCB. There were cries to have this functionality for P99 release as I recall and in subsequent SP's but it never happened. The net tie is the result of many discussions on the 'Lomax short' work around and allows for differently names nets such as isolated gnds to be tied to a single point. Again, many cries of why this was not supported as standard. Graphical is for things not required in BOM but wanted on PCB, like hazard warning in PSU, ESD symbol, logo and so on. Although the naming does not follow what would be recognised as 'standard' terms, the terms are not that obtuse as to hide their function. I don't need to tell you the benefits of these additions in DXP, you can see that for yourself. Each one of these was a workaround in 99SE, now standard in DXP and they do save time. These features would not be top of my 'most hated' list in DXP by a long shot, guess most people already know the parts I seriously dislike. You had some other comments on netlist management ECO, as you know I also work a lot with netlists from clients or between tools where I do not have access to the source documents. I would agree this could be made a lot more user friendly in DXP. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] 2004 Global edits
If I understand correctly what Mike was trying to achieve by 'programming', was handled with a few mouse clicks for selection (shift-Click in DXP for select should have made it easier) and the T,I,P shortcut which still exists in 2004, to select how you wanted it positioned in 99SE. It use to work on hidden text. IMO its actually an example of how the over-engineering of the GUI/Panels and the query system impacts on productivity and when you look at what is needing to be done why jump through the loops of FSO/Inspector/link For a global positioning of comments, no way can the panels loops be quicker than ESATIP and mouse clicky. The FSO/Inspector panel has its uses and I still think the Inspector panel deserves an apply button at the bottom. If its support that's needed to restore simple edits like this to some sort of sensible procedure then, for what's its worth, I give it. Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick. John -Original Message- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:38 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 Global edits On 09:07 AM 27/03/2004, Phillip Stevens said: Click on the *text* of the comment or designator. (not the component itself.) Run find similar objects. With all of the objects selected you want to apply the change to, Click to the right of Autoposition in the inspector window. Select the position you want from the pull down list. I haven't actually tried this on my PCB design here, but I believe this is the way it's done. ---Phil Phil, this will work if you have the designators selected and not the components. If Mike has the components selected then you can add a further step to select the designators of selected components. Run a selection query of: IsComponentSelected and IsDesignator Now you have the designators selected and you can position them as you want with the AutoPosition attribute. Now I know, Mike, from previous discussion that you may not like the programming. But that is the current solution. I have been asking Altium to make this sort of edit easier. If you have just components selected you will see in the Inspector that the Name and Component Comment fields are hyperlinks. I think that when you click on one of these hyperlinks you should be able to edit those attributes on all selected components (in effect this would cause the selection to drill down across all the selected components). However, currently the system will only edit the attribute of one of the components (after drilling down). If you agree with what I am proposing I suggest you let Altium know - this is not the forum to do that. I have made my point a number of times, I am not sure if there is any support for this concept. I am surprised that Tech Support couldn't figure this out. I am sure Geoff Harland would have set them right quick smart. The IsComponentSelected, and it's ilk, keywords were added after detailed discussion and back and forth over selection methodolgies and task descriptions by users. It is actually a pretty good example of how the users (that bothered) have had a significant impact on the program - not to say that I think everything about DXP/P2004 is good, just that the users have influenced quite a bit of it, at least within the bounds of the overall architecture. Ian e Hi Y'all e Does anyone know how to auto position the references on selected e components only in 2004. I just talked to Tech Support and managed e to stump them for a day. Any help is appreciated. e Mike Reagan e EDSI * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] 2004 DXP Looks Great,
-Original Message- From: Protel Hell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great, productivity, productivity, productivity those are the three things that need improvement in DXP Do you have suggestions how? You could help by posting what you like, do not like, or what you see as non-productive with your proposed solution, any other constructive comments here or to The dxp mailing list at http://forums.altium.com Or at http://www.proteluser.com/bbs/forumdisplay.php?f=10 John From: Brooks,Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great, Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:01:07 -0800 My advice to Altium, Improve our productivity through the use of smart tools, not more complexity. _ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar FREE! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Common PCB footprint specifications
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] Common PCB footprint specifications -Original Message- From: John A. Ross [Design] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:00 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Common PCB footprint specifications If Protel could assign a different footprint for rotation, or side, based on some sort of logical system, then it would make life so much easier to define DFM rules even at SCH level. Perhaps that's worth a new feature request on the DXP forum :) FYI, PCAD has this feature and it seems to work quite well. As PCAD moves toward DXP (as I assume it will) I'd be surprised if it didn't show up in DXP. Gary I was used to this feature before in Ultimate (now EWB) from a long time ago, and missed it very much I was looking at PCAD a while back but as I have just upgraded another seat of P99SE to DXP Ill press on with it for now and see what I can do to push for such features in future SP's. I would think such features would be a popular addition for most people. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications Ltd 8 BorrowMeadow Road Springkerse Industrial Estate Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office) Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab) Fax +44 [0]1786 474653 GSM +44 [0]7831 373727 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW http://www.rsd.tv == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Mouse insists first click is a double-click
-Original Message- From: Leo Potjewijd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:03 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Mouse insists first click is a double-click At 15-03-2004 16:09, Carpenter, Dean wrote: Hi All - OK, this is an odd one ... Recently 99SE started insisting that I did a double-click on the mouse when starting an operation. But only for the first time. snip Phew ! What a relief ! I thought I was the only one... had worn out my trackball (again)... drank too much... Leo Is drinking too much possible ? :-) John (Guiness is food of life) was developing Parkinson's desease... was going nuts... It happened on my system too, and started quite suddenly; no percievable link to any previous action (installed software and the likes). I'm using a M$ optical trackball. I haven't noticed it (yet) on the various place commands, but first noticed it on the measure commands. Pehaps because it is more noticable there... Thought it was the trackball driver, downloaded the latest stuff direct from M$: no success. Thought it was the trackball itself, digged up the ol' trusty Logitech Marble (no wheel): no success. Thought it was the KVM switch, wired the trackball around it: partial success. That last one will need some clarification: I had the weird situation (again, all of a sudden: it used to work fine) that the first trackball move after using the scrollwheel generated an 'enter'. Extremely annoying when you're near completion of a three-hour backup procedure and the only button on the screen is 'cancel'. Well, that was solved by connecting the trackball directly to the PC. Since I haven't really noticed it yet on the place commands I thought it might be the microswitch, but since it does not happen in any other software that cannot be. When the schedule permits, I'll do a little digging and experimenting; but that will probably wander off into the next week. Leo Potjewijd hardware designer Integrated Engineering B.V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +31 20 4620700 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] The road to DXP, one mans story, warning long post, (was)2004 DXP Looks Great,
-Original Message- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:17 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] The road to DXP, one mans story, warning long post, (was)2004 DXP Looks Great, also long reply - generally in agreement with John. On 12:21 AM 11/03/2004, John A. Ross [Design] said: ..snip.. When the DDB came out is was almost universally denigrated. Then lots of people went quiet about it and now we have admissions that people liked it. (I am not saying you were one of the people that changed view over time; I was though). I was of the same view on the first release of 99 (not 99SE), I cried give me back my WFS as well, especially after 99 burned me badly with the new ddb file system, I got flashbacks of Capture DSN files and corrupt cache John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] The road to DXP, one mans story, warning long post, (was)2004 DXP Looks Great,
-Original Message- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:17 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] The road to DXP, one mans story, warning long post, (was)2004 DXP Looks Great, also long reply - generally in agreement with John. On 12:21 AM 11/03/2004, John A. Ross [Design] said: ..snip.. In a single user or workstation environment where the whole design is driven/managed by one person, it is workable and very flexible, an improvement, but start expanding it to other users, then the project system without CVS is 'over flexible' and in some cases to risky. When the DDB came out is was almost universally denigrated. Then lots of people went quiet about it and now we have admissions that people liked it. (I am not saying you were one of the people that changed view over time; I was though). DXP, and P2004, uses normal disk files rather than the DDB. The project file is a simple series of links to files along with configuration info - all very much like a software development environment as you say. So what in DXP/P2004 makes it *worse* than traditional (disk file-based) systems for configuration control? Ian A lot of other tools I use have a fixed folder system, although usually the folder locations can be user defined by config menu or file. When I get to the question, on my checklists for documentation risk assessment, of how I can be sure the correct files in the correct place and keep project integrity for archives and portability I have to answer that as the project system is 100% link based, and can be corrupted during normal use by simply forgetting some workaround or a click of the mouse. You mentioned one point below but when you have 1st user + x more, or multiple projects running at same time, you need to have your wits about you, its scary. The additional overhead of managing this is nuts. I find that, with DXP/P2004, I am more likely to muck up a project when using the Save-As command as it causes the project link to change - which is often *not* what I want. I know tend to use the Save Copy As command and manually deal with the project updates. This is irritating and a possible source of problems. Correct, corruption to the project structure should not occur, it is the foundation of all we do, in this case it is definitely an area that the software should be working for us to ensure integrity, not the other way about. It is possible to include one Sch file in multiple projects. I am doing that on a design right now. One Sch sheet exists in three PCB projects. This does take some management and care, but does have advantages. It is possible to design an aspect into the sheet that is inconsistent with one of the other projects. But design re-use always has this issue. All these projects reside in the same folder but I am considering splitting it into separate folders. As you know I managed to do some design reuse in 99SE that worked fine, some manual tweaking yes, some rigid procedures on Cref/net name management sheet numbering needed but it is do-able. But what I always did, is keep the sheets in another project and treated them as a 'sheet library' if you will. All sheets and PCB blocks were kept in that one container for picking like parts. Would you prefer to see me forced to copy that Sch sheet three times and so now risk a design branch or would your rigid folder/project relationship have some means of dealing with this? I can see advantages both ways. Yes, but not manually, the software should do it for you when it is imported to the new project, when used the files should be copied to the project container that was to include them, and worked from there. I think you already seen the risks, if one sheet is changed, it will affect all projects it is included in, even if the change is not needed in say 1 of 3 projects it is re-used in. In another posts, as well as the folder structure, I also requested a property be added to the SCH page itself to enable\disable referential updates. This would be a benign change to the SCH file structure really. When the re-used sheet is imported into the current project container, a prompt to enable\disable these updates on import, would be all that is required initially as a user check. No 'silent' changes. Should be default, disabled. This additional sheet property would both allow sheets to be updated under user control, or disable updates because of intentional, project specific sheet changes like component values or fit/not fit options. I have a project library that is building as I design the three related systems. This SchLib is part of each of the three PCB projects (project library, not just a PCBLib installed in the Libraries panel). What do you see as the config control risks here? If different users are each dealing with a separate one of the related PCB projects
Re: [PEDA] Common PCB footprint specifications
-Original Message- From: Ray Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Common PCB footprint specifications Hello, I'm sure this is a repeat, but is there a simple specification readily available that gives the commonly accepted (if there is such a thing) dimensions for 0402, 0603, ..., SIOC-14, etc., and all the other standard footprints? I don't really want to wade through a bunch of technical stuff to derive all of this myself and I certainly don't want to trust a priori the patterns that come with Protel or any other product. It's really annoying when part manufacturers don't provide these footprints, assuming they are common knowledge. Ray I have accumulated quite a library of such footprints but most of them will have been optimised to suit our in house processes more than following the IPC standards. The supplied Protel IPC land patterns are not too bad, they are certainly a good basis to build your own on. But most libraries stop at the land pattern stage, which is what the IPC are looking to change. A lot of the way the IPC are trying to structure library conventions are along the lines of what I was already doing for years anyway, not because it is good, but because it make life easier for us internally if the naming conventions for footprints already match vision library footprints on placement machines (which then relates to mechanical dimensions as well, as a Murata 16V X7R 0603 will have different dimensions to a Kemet 16V X7R 0603 in same voltage) and other EDA packages we use etc. I especially like the way the new IPC recommendations take account of things like, 0 deg positions in tape or tray, if Protel could also make allowances for rotation on non-polarised chip parts (only use 0,90) to reduce un-necessary head rotations on turret head placers that would be even better as I currently use an in house utility to parse the PP files and check for string matches on footprint part number to identify non-polarised parts and it will replace 360 or 180 values with 0 and 270 values with 90. In DXP I planned to use a parameter for that at SCH level, so I only need to check for one match, but that's another story, no time for documenting or agreeing how this should be done internally yet. Same with pad sizes, I slightly oversize SMT pads in some cases against IPC recommendations (not much) to allow for place tolerances when reducing Z height down pressure, Vac release and place speed, especially on Chip r/c's as well as wave flow direction and so on. Same for connector placement, especially for IDC and connector rows 2.54mm, I sometimes enlarge the pads beyond IPC recommendations in one direction to get the best out of the features on our wave soldering equipment (Vitronics-Soltec with Select-X debridging). If Protel could assign a different footprint for rotation, or side, based on some sort of logical system, then it would make life so much easier to define DFM rules even at SCH level. Perhaps that's worth a new feature request on the DXP forum :) To me a library has to be more than just a symbols collection, or the manual pre-processing required diminishes its value, very little third party libraries do this, so IMO are not worth it. I like the IPC new offerings for library recommendations very much, and would like to see it adopted, even although some of the naming recommendations may choke some placement machines offline programming software or optimisers software a bit like white space, characters, case sensitivity and a lot of other things that should be non-issues in this day/age. I prefer a direct import approach to programming these machines, Gerber import, pattern search and processing is alright, but takes to long and can be error prone. If anyone wants me to split upload the library contents I have here, ill do it as a part time job, but I guess most people will have these things already, or prefer to use their own in-house libraries. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Common PCB footprint specifications
Ray I know your pain, I started off life as a designer, then a layout engineer and after working with a lot of sub contractors did my bit in process engineering, then in service/manufacturing doing failure analysis and feeding that back to design where I ended up (again) and due to the experience I had stayed there doing a better job (IMO anyway) than I did in the first place. But I think your frustrations are getting to you a bit, or my long response tipped you over the edge (sorry), but as you mentioned in your reply below, you had issues with data sheets and also manufacturing, because of library/footprint issues, so as I said, a library has to be more than it looks. And you cannot rely on the data sheets 100% unless it has a report attached to it with all manufacturing details, Motorlola and NSC do a lot of this, but most passive companies do not. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWWhttp://www.rsd.tv == -Original Message- From: Ray Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:48 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Common PCB footprint specifications Everyone, Thanks for all the responses on footprints. This whole issue is pretty sickening actually. Since we produce low quantities of diverse products we have no dedicated PCB layout people. All engineers do their own circuit designs and parts specification and ultimately are expected to do tiny PCB layouts of everything and get them to work. The thing that gets me is that it seems like it would be extremely simple for parts vendors to provide land patterns for their parts along with the mechanical drawings of the parts themselves. Some do but most don't. I just talked to Maxim about this and they said they simply don't provide this information. They recommended IPCSM782. Of course a good percentage of the parts you need are not listed in this document and a lot of them that are there do not match the recommendations of the vendors of the parts. I asked Maxim how they layout their own eval boards since they provide no guidelines and no guidelines exist in IPCSM782. They didn't have an answer but I suspect they rely on rules of thumb and intuition, which is what we end up doing with our designs here most of the time. After enough bad yields and scolding from our PCB fabricators we manage to stumble into something that seems to work. I did find what I thought was a good layout for 0402, 0603, etc. from AVX capacitors. Upon closer inspection, however, I found that their recommended footprints violated their own guidelines given on a different page of the same document. Go figure! Ray Mitchell At 04:59 PM 3/11/2004 +, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Ray Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Common PCB footprint specifications Hello, I'm sure this is a repeat, but is there a simple specification readily available that gives the commonly accepted (if there is such a thing) dimensions for 0402, 0603, ..., SIOC-14, etc., and all the other standard footprints? I don't really want to wade through a bunch of technical stuff to derive all of this myself and I certainly don't want to trust a priori the patterns that come with Protel or any other product. It's really annoying when part manufacturers don't provide these footprints, assuming they are common knowledge. Ray I have accumulated quite a library of such footprints but most of them will have been optimised to suit our in house processes more than following the IPC standards. The supplied Protel IPC land patterns are not too bad, they are certainly a good basis to build your own on. But most libraries stop at the land pattern stage, which is what the IPC are looking to change. A lot of the way the IPC are trying to structure library conventions are along the lines of what I was already doing for years anyway, not because it is good, but because it make life easier for us internally if the naming conventions for footprints already match vision library footprints on placement machines (which then relates to mechanical dimensions as well, as a Murata 16V X7R 0603 will have different dimensions to a Kemet 16V X7R 0603 in same voltage) and other EDA packages we use etc. I especially like the way the new IPC recommendations take account of things like, 0 deg positions in tape or tray, if Protel could also make allowances for rotation on non-polarised chip parts (only use 0,90) to reduce un-necessary head rotations on turret head placers that would be even better as I currently use an in house utility to parse the PP files and check for string matches on footprint part number to identify
[PEDA] Are the DXP manuals worth the fuss anyway?
Just an observation of mine, I think Mr Lomax already suggested that the manuals would probably be better written by users, rather than developers, and he is most likely correct. The precious little snippets of info that would make a new users life so much easier are most often missing, as the developers\technical authors will probably take some steps for granted. This is not to say the technical writers employed by Altium are not good, but they already know the software too well and hence produce what I would call a technical or reference manual, rather than a user manual. I test my user manuals on staff to make sure they can follow operations or work instructions without error, I specifically use staff not familiar with the process to be tested to gauge the manuals effectiveness. Any comments are included in the remedial action process loop and fixed before release. For the amount of features in DXP I guess the manual would need to be really thick and the manual could well end up sucking as much resources as the software itself! if Altium followed the procedures above, just to be outdated when new features are added. As for updates well So I guess I would need to say that PDF manuals are better for now, along with the additional papers articles published by Altium. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWWhttp://www.rsd.tv == -Original Message- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:49 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great, On 12:16 PM 10/03/2004, DUTTON Phil said: Bill, My DXP is still in the box. ..snip.. There are some good things in DXP, but there are many features that really don't seem to help my productivity. I am intrigued by this. How do the people that haven't used something know it is not more (or less) productive than what they are using. I guess it happens not to be the sort of statement I would make, so I am interested in the answer. I tend to spend longer than others investigating tools to see what I like and dislike; I suspect I waste too much time on this sort of thing. I can't see how one knows that something is no good until you try it. It may very well be the case that the features and fixes are not worth your time and effort. The trick with all this stuff is picking when, and *where*, to jump. Some people are using DXP and P2004. Do they have a competitive advantage or not? What about those using other CAE programs? I don't know the answer to this. I have still not see a detailed comparison, done by real knowledgeable users, of a wide range of CAE programs. The closest I have seen is the comments by John Ross (thanks, John). I do know what I prefer to use, but I don't know if I am more or less productive than all the other options out there. How does one know? All the best, Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] Oops .Are the DXP manuals worth the fuss anyway?
Ian, My last post looks like a reply to you, it wasn't, it was just easier to reply to a post than create a new message. I just forgot to delete the original post, sorry. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWWhttp://www.rsd.tv == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] The road to DXP, one mans story, warning long post, (was)2004 DXP Looks Great,
-Original Message- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:49 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great, On 12:16 PM 10/03/2004, DUTTON Phil said: Bill, My DXP is still in the box. ..snip.. snipped Some people are using DXP and P2004. Do they have a competitive advantage or not? What about those using other CAE programs? I don't know the answer to this. I have still not see a detailed comparison, done by real knowledgeable users, of a wide range of CAE programs. The closest I have seen is the comments by John Ross (thanks, John). I do know what I prefer to use, but I don't know if I am more or less productive than all the other options out there. How does one know? Ian If I try to be objective I still have issues with DXP, and not just because I was in transition to DXP from 99SE, but also the changes required in work practices. But I keep trying anyway. I found the change in working practice very difficult, I spent a lot of time at work setting up quite rigid procedures to eliminate as much as I could, the possibilities for error, from selecting a part to service procedures notices in the field. The 'DXP way' does not lend itself towards this easily. In a single user or workstation environment where the whole design is driven/managed by one person, it is workable and very flexible, an improvement, but start expanding it to other users, then the project system without CVS is 'over flexible' and in some cases to risky. I saw this, once I spent the time to understand what it does, after trying to document the project management system within DXP, for our own internal procedures manual quality documents, in this respect I guess I got over confident with the 99SE ddb system because of the single container method it used. DXP is very counter productive in this respect. For such a project based system within DXP to work, without CVS, it really needs a more rigid project, folder based structure. I already posted some suggestion on the DXP list. In that post I described the DXP project system (without CVS) as 'over flexible'. Without CVS, DXP project integrity is at risk, especially in a multi user environment, compared against 99SE where the ddb structure allowed permissions to be set within a single data container. From a GUI view I found the excessive use of panels in DXP for the same or similar tasks a risk, some things could be done not applied, some could be undone. The panel organisation was not always logical causing additional (unnecessary work thought) I think some issues were logged for this and it also appears on the DXP/99SE comparison list on your home page. This is a very common fault in most software as these feature types GUI are usually decided by Developers, rather than users, developers are normally too close to realise they are over-engineering or misinterpreted the users suggestions (Cannot see the wood for the trees). Hence DXP has the feel of a software IDE, rather than a SCH=PCB platform, which will not sit well with anyone not used to software IDE's or trying it for the first time, first impressions tend to 'taint' the users objectiveness towards any benefits they find after that and also restrict the amount of effort they will invest in it due to the perceived pain it will cause. It is a harder sell, even to oneself, that time spent on DXP will be a benefit when one is already happy with 99SE. I do use multiple tools, my tool of choice for design entry is Protel, I measure their respective worth\benefits to me in a few ways, some of which may only be a benefit to me, as they are keyed to the way I work, how many clicks to get everyday tasks done, process time to avoid error for common tasks, how much time I need to spend learning new tricks to get it to work, investment in retraining vs. frequency of use of new features and so on. I also look at what the software does for me automatically (constrained of course) and if I have to keep thinking 'what next'. If I have to keep thinking about the next step I need to take, after 3-6 months of using the software, I call it 'clunky' or at least it deserves the title non-intuitive, if it does not become a 'natural' conditioned response in my working time it is not as productive as it should, or could be. DXP fits in that category. I expect the software to work for me, no me work harder for the software. I really do feel a facelift would give productivity benefits in DXP. I gave up with the router in 98/99/DXP almost from the start and decided to waste no more time on it, I use another layout/router package for boards that need it. Works better for me that way, although I have had some boards, using Protel router, pass my desk, that look pretty good to me, but how much time it took to get that way who knows. The above is just some thoughts of mine, Ill skip the temptation to rant about the query system, as my
Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great,
-Original Message- From: Mike Reagan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:01 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great, For those of you that dont know, we are honored to have MASTER JEDI Bill Brooks among us. Mr. Brooks was a top qualifier in the TOP GUN contest. Already used to his many posts in Technet forums :) Bill, wanted to ask was the training class worth it? We have 11 engineers at Cornet Technology that are still using 98. We have 11 seats of unopened DXP and I am trying to convince management to get their engineering department to use 2004.What can we expect to learn from the training? My Colleague, Markus was at one of the training courses, he had planned to attend some more, Markus care to add something here? He did say they were usefull, and well worth it just to skip some of the steep learning curve, but I would prefer he put it in his own words. John Mike Reagan -Original Message- From: Brooks,Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:12 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great, In my case, we upgraded a few machines to get the latest PCB and schematic tools because the discount was available and I didn't hear too many complaints about the DXP software on the other forum... though the asking for help is constant... If it was easier to use I would expect to see mostly newbies over there walking through some of the more difficult steps... We paid the money for a training class. I used it on a couple of designs and was very frustrated with it... So I put the box away and kept using the one I could use 99SE. I have felt frustrated with almost every new release... I guess that's human nature... When I got 98 I found out that they had broken some features that were in 2.8 2.5 I can't remember the number now... but I asked them to send me a copy of the older release too when I needed to send something to PADS it would still work in the older software but not in 98. ASCII out the file and read it into the older software and jump through the hoops and viola! A PADS file.. Why did they break it? Who knows... So at one point in order to do my work I needed 3 versions of Protel, Orcad Schematic and Autocad to get my job done. They still don't have an 'all in one' package even though the sales pitch would have you believe it. When they came out with 99 I waited until the roar of complaints died down and when they got to service pack 3 I figured it would be okay but they came out with 99SE instead oh boy I resisted that one for a long time too.. until finally when I changed jobs I was forced into it. I have been using it after figuring out that the windows filing system was the only way to go to avoid loosing track of what 'copy of a copy of a backup version of the file' was the right one sheeze.. I longed for a PCB package to edit PCB's and a Schematic Package to edit schematics... and all this other stuff could go in the trash for all I cared. So now we are up to service pack 6 on 99SE and there is a new release, DXP. So I waited again when DXP came out... and it looks like I didn't wait long enough. So we shall see how the 2004 product shapes up... but I expect it to be consistent with the previous releases... buggy for the first 3 service packs and harder to use all together. I guess that's why I 'ranted on ' a bit on the sales pitch of how great it was... but I can guarantee I won't 'get my knickers in a knot' worrying about it. (I just love that one... 'Knickers in a Knot'... I heard that on TV the other night grin) Bill Brooks PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I. Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 -Original Message- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 7:53 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great, On 02:08 PM 10/03/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Ian Wilson wrote: I am intrigued by this. How do the people that haven't used something know it is not more (or less) productive than what they are using. That one is easy to answer. Go back and read the posts again. Almost every individual, including me, has indicated that they actually tried DXP before putting it away. I understand that and did read it the posts. I was not commenting on whether DXP is better or worse that P99SE. My question was asking Phil how he *knew* it was less productive if it was still in the box. He replied to say it was installed but he no longer used it. This is a clarification my overly literal brain can deal with. I do know there are lots of people around that have used DXP to some degree and given up. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few months. Bye for now, Ian
Re: [PEDA] Autorouter speed, (was New PC tested with Protel for at least 1 month now...)
-Original Message- From: Brian Guralnick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:04 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] Autorouter speed, (was New PC tested with Protel for at least 1 month now...) Just tried out the autorouter, the example autorouter 'board 1' routed in 29 seconds. Brian Was that in 99SE, using standard Board1.ddb file with defaults for router? I did something similar a month or two ago, I just found the following from my notes. I did this initially to see if the productivity benefit was there for the investment in a new PC. But it also opened my eyes to Situs (not that I use it anyway). Enviroment 1 Dell 8200, single PIV 2.0GHz, XP ProSp1, 756mB RIMM, Matrox G550 Outlook 2003/IE6 and DXP open Running Board1.ddb, Board 1, accept all defaults. 99SE Routing completion 100%, Connections routed 286, Connections remaining 0, Elapsed Routing Time : 0:0:31 DXP SP2 --- All I have here for now is SP2 Board 1 (99SE version), imported to DXP, accept all defaults. Routing completion 100%, Connections routed 286, Connections remaining 0, Elapsed Routing Time : 0:04:26 Board 1 (DXP version), Routing completion 100%, Connections routed 286, Connections remaining 0, Elapsed Routing Time : 0:06:03 Enviroment 2 Proliant ML350G3, Dual Xeon 2.8Ghz, 4gB ECC DDR, SCSI Raid 5 plus one drive for cache, Matrox G550, Serverworks MoBo W2K3 server, MS Exchange, ISA and Sharepoint all running, usually with 11-15 clients attached (plus PC from production floor) Management logs show none of the CPUS were stressed and memory usage only peaked at 68% Board1.ddb, Board 1, accept all defaults. 99SE Routing completion 100%, Connections routed 286, Connections remaining 0, Elapsed Routing Time : 0:0:25 DXP All I have here for now is SP2 Board 1 (99SE version), imported to DXP, accept all defaults. Routing completion 100%, Connections routed 286, Connections remaining 0, Elapsed Routing Time : 0:3:59 Board 1 (DXP version), Routing completion 100%, Connections routed 286, Connections remaining 0, Elapsed Routing Time : 0:06:35 I guess a similar exercise with other routers. John - Original Message - From: Brian Guralnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] New PC tested with Protel for at least 1 month now... I'm glad to hear someone has had good luck with ASUS. Some time ago I went through several ASUS 400MHz CUSL2 motherboards, different CPUs, different brands of memory, different power supplies, and everything else to try to stop random crashes. It wasn't just with Protel either. I finally ended up slowing the memory bus down to 100MHz even though everything was spec'd at 133.I'll never touch ASUS again. I was using Win2K. That was the problem with my Asus dual 1GHz PIII. To fix it, I had to set in the bios, add 1.5ns on the SDRAM latch. DDR ram provides an output latch clock which the motherboard chipset times itself to getting rid of these old type problems. _ Brian Guralnick - Original Message - From: Ray Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] New PC tested with Protel for at least 1 month now... I'm glad to hear someone has had good luck with ASUS. Some time ago I went through several ASUS 400MHz CUSL2 motherboards, different CPUs, different brands of memory, different power supplies, and everything else to try to stop random crashes. It wasn't just with Protel either. I finally ended up slowing the memory bus down to 100MHz even though everything was spec'd at 133.I'll never touch ASUS again. I was using Win2K. Has anyone had any problems with Protel with Intel motherboards? I've heard their not barnburners but are extremely stable. At 03:19 PM 3/10/2004 -0500, you wrote: I do believe the stability of my new system is that all the peripherals, 24 bit/96KHz sound, USB, 1394, Ethernet, SATA raid controller, ATA raid controller are all on the motherboard the video card was also made by Asus ensuring a trouble free 8X AGP functionality. It even more stable than my old Dual PIII 1 GHz. Also, the 2 X 120 Gbyte Western Digital HDs read write at over 100 Megabytes / second on a continuous basis. I'm sure if I added 1 card to the PCI bus, the boot time would probably double. Additional, I have successfully over clocked this motherboard to 4.1 GHz, though, I don't think it's worth the potential headaches. _ Brian Guralnick - Original Message - From: Tony Karavidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PEDA] Quit Complaining!!! ( 2004 DXP Looks Great)
-Original Message- From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 12:06 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: JaMi Smith Subject: Re: [PEDA] Quit Complaining!!! ( 2004 DXP Looks Great) snip, As an interesting side note to this discussion of the above two issues, I am willing to bet that if someone were able to come up with a reliable low cost (or no cost) design translator, so as to be able to reliably directly translate a current design from DXP directly into say Mentor Expedition, or Mentor PADs, that you would see a whole lot of people with their box in their hands lining up to get their money back for DXP, losses on training notwithstanding. Jami If you check my previous posts you will see I use PPCB all the time, I specifically use it now for Blaze as the router. I have to have a copy anyway for client support so I make use of it that way. I gave up expending energy on Protels routers since P98, as even then, it was inferior to Spectra 6 or the Bartels one I used. I expended my energy instead on getting more productive, right tool for the job and all that, as for netlist translation tools they can either be written in house (command line clunky but work) or there are many available which target PPCB as an end target. www.cadprosystems.com http://www.lynnerup-ecad.dk And a lot more. Protel is VERY hard to beat for a capture tool. Direct translation in my case is at Netlist/ECO level, where I have the data in nice, readable ASCII format. Mike has had very good things about the Konnekt router, Pat Nystrom has his testimonial to it on their front page, but I have had no time to play yet. Hopefully with Altiums new licensing system it will be possible to just order the modules you use and skip the others. I fear the concept of a 'all in one wonder' suite is a pipe dream, so I look to get the best from what I have available. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] company schematic libraries
-Original Message- From: Dom Bragge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 1:21 AM To: Protel EDA forum Subject: [PEDA] company schematic libraries I just wish to ping you on how you setup your own company schematic libraries. There seem to be so many ways to skin this cat I just wanted to get a feel for how others make solid libraries. When designing PCBs, I personally like to have specific parts in the libraries. Do you, for instance, try have a library with specific parts (e.g. 1k, 1k2 etc) or do you go for the generic RES symbol. If you go for the specific, do you simply copy the generic res symbol then modify the parameters appropriately? What do you name the part? For company ABC, something like ABC_RES0805_1k, ABC_RES0805_1k2 or what? Where do you build in your company part number. What do you use all the other parameters for. Dom I think you have a pretty good grasp of the issues anyway, but as a preference I always use a proven company library, I do not use the supplied Protel ones. In this company library I will create individual parts that require it (semi/discretes/actives etc) and generic parts, like say Rohm 0603 just as MCR006_F and will add the value comment like 1K2 in SCH place operation, same idea for chip caps, ecaps and so on. Although I do not make the company lib read only, and as they can only be used in DDB format, I have the permissions set to only allow one user to change the library. DXP helps a bit, with the use of integrated (pre-compiled) libs, but I would have preferred a method to 'lock' the IntLibs so that decompilation to source libs was not possible (or passworded anyway) Each engineer has the use of their own 'scratchpad' library for parts they have to create 'on the fly', this is exactly as it sounds. Before any new parts are used in a design, the proposed part must first go through an approval process. First it has to be checked approved by another engineer, purchasing production. Then after drafting the parts for the design in the scratchpad lib, checked again by another engineer (elimination of risk/error type process loop) they can be submitted to the main lib. Only parts in the main library can be used for release boards (and in some cases final approval is not complete until after assembly and approved by production engineers). Seems a lot of work, but this is only initially, after a while you have a library that is well proven and this makes the design a lot easier and it can be assembled with a higher level of confidence, that a respin will not be needed for even production issues (assuming the design itself has had a DFM audit on it anyway as part of the design process) John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] company schematic libraries
-Original Message- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:41 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] company schematic libraries Snip I call this the one-part, one-symbol system. It sounds like work but it is not hard to manage - unless you have overblown restrictive part number management systems that means it takes 2 week to get a new part number issued. Ian Sometimes when the responsibilities of spec, draft, design, purchasing availability and worse customer approval/sign off, manufacturing et all, are handled by different people at split sites, a common part number system is the only way to do it for the required paper trail. If managed properly, it actually works better for multi user environments or split sites and helps reduce error (auto generate barcode checks for pick lists reels, purchase ). Of course the whole system is a lot easier when managed by one person, one part, one symbol i.e. overall responsibility at one desk. I guess this might be straying a bit as it is more a procedures issue than library management, but is worth considering when planning a library structure. I wish I still had the luxury of being able to do everything myself, I really do, but over-complex systems are just things some of us 'unfortunates' have to live with :-( John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Complex Hierarchy to PCB layout ?
Dave Very strange The pasted free primitives should adopt the net names for the pads they are dropped into, only exception I have came across is when the tracks or vias are dropped onto a polygon or plane and seem to have adopted the polygon / plane net instead of the pad itself. I am working in Sweden just now, Ill be back in the UK on Thursday so I can look more then, I always cleared planes polygons before doing this. Update free primitives from component pads wil only really work if the free primitives have 'no net' in the first place. Sorry for short reply. John -Original Message- From: Dave C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:43 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Complex Hierarchy to PCB layout ? Summary: After replicating placement and routing of a section in the PCB, I'm having problems assigning the net name to tracks, vias, polygons, etc. from the net name assigned to the pad it connects to on the new replicated section. I tried John's suggestion and I replicated the placement of the parts. I also copied the tracks, polygons, vias, etc. from the original copy to the new one. So, now I have the original copy routed correctly with every track, via and polygon assigned to its correspoding net. And I also have the new copy with its tracks, vias, etc. but none of these routing elements have a net assigned. So far, everything ok. Then, I first tried in the netlist manager to update free primitives from pads. That messed it all up, my previous routed section and the new one, both were assigned a random net name all over (vias, tracks, everything; it even renamed my part's pins). So, then I didn't save those last changes, and back to the point before using the netlist manager, I tried to Update PCB from the schematics and I selected the choice Assign net to connected copper. (I didn't generate component or net classes since I already had them created). Well, it assigned all of the routing to my Digital ground (DGND), including the original routing (the one that had a net name already), and it also renamed the parts' pins to DGND. So, the net class DGND has all of my parts' pads. The rest of the net classes are all empty. Then, I cleared all nets and net classes, and let the Update PCB to create them again, and it did the same thing. It assigned all my pads and tracks to DGND. Any suggestions. Thanks again. David --- John A. Ross [Design] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave That's why I mentioned using a sensible grid to snap to when placing the parts, sorry I missed giving the reason for my statement 'use a sensible grid' as of course the larger the grid, easier to move the parts and snap to the grid as the parts are identical they will have the same origin. Always in a hierarchy I have controlled how the sheets have been annotated, by giving them a separate number sequence. Perhaps you could manually update the parts with a prefix of 1xx on just the sheet you want to replicate? Look forward to the follow up. John __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Complex Hierarchy to PCB layout ?
-Original Message- From: Dave C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 12:20 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Complex Hierarchy to PCB layout ? John, Well, thanks a lot, really. That is a very good suggestion, it makes a lot of sense. It still takes some redundant work, but it may not be as bad as renaming all of the parts' designators. I'm trying it as of now, though it's taking time to match the parts and place them. I was about to annotate the schematics in increments of 100s like you did, but I didn't at the end... I should have. My parts are all numbered sequentially now. It sure would help a lot having all parts in the duplicated sections to be numbered with just an offset of 100, that way it would be a lot faster the matching of the parts in the layout. Dave That's why I mentioned using a sensible grid to snap to when placing the parts, sorry I missed giving the reason for my statement 'use a sensible grid' as of course the larger the grid, easier to move the parts and snap to the grid as the parts are identical they will have the same origin. Always in a hierarchy I have controlled how the sheets have been annotated, by giving them a separate number sequence. Perhaps you could manually update the parts with a prefix of 1xx on just the sheet you want to replicate? Look forward to the follow up. John Next week I'll post a follow up on this.. see how it works. Thanks. David --- John A. Ross [RSDTV] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is definitely a case where DXP would save you tons of time (do not believe I said that, but its true). Anyhow you can achieve what you want in 99SE but it is a very complex process and nearly every stage is error prone as you already realise. In some cases I have done it this way I made a single channel sheet called AOL.SCH, annotated it with range 100-199. So I have my first channel. AOL.SCH was then copied and renamed to AOR.SCH. The component designators on AOR.SCH were then reset (current sheet only) so as not to conflict with AOL.SCH Set the project options for re-annotation so that AOR.SCH is assigned CREFs 200-299. Now both channels are in. Update your PCB using the synchroniser so component classes are created. Within the PCB Editor, place each channel in its own room. Place route the first channel AOL.SCH, use a sensible grid and when you are finished routing you can look to AOR.SCH channel Move the matching components from channel AOR.SCH (unrouted channel) into the same location in the room for AOL.SCH (routed channel) You will get clearance errors but ignore them for now. Once all placement is complete you have 2 identical placed component channels but only one is routed. At this point make sure there are no active selections by using De-Select ALL command. Under Browse PCB panel bring up the component class generated by the synchroniser for AOR.SCH and click select. With the AOR.SCH channel parts now selected, move the component group to the desired location for channel AOR.SCH Now you have two placed channels that are identical but only one routed. At this point make sure there are no active selections by using De-Select ALL command. Now for the routing, now select all objects within the AOL.SCH area, routes, parts and all. Under Browse PCB panel bring up the component class generated by the synchroniser for AOL.SCH and click select. This will de-select the parts within the AOL.SCH group but will leave all routing objects selected. Now use the editcopy command and select a suitable focus point for the cut/paste operation that now needs done (always found a component pad was best to 'snap to'), click on the focus point. Now use the editpaste command and click on the identical location point on the AOR.SCH channel, all routes should now be copied in the exact same place on the second channel. As pasted primitives have their net assignments stripped automatically, the pasted objects should automatically inherit the net names associated to the component pads on which they are pasted to. If not you can always update free primitives from component pads. Pasting of routing objects only works if no routing objects exist in the paste area already (like polygons and so on) It's a lot of work, DXP takes care of most of this duplication work for you. Good luck John __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
Re: [PEDA] Complex Hierarchy to PCB layout ?
-Original Message- From: Dave C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 5:18 PM To: Forum Protel EDA Subject: [PEDA] Complex Hierarchy to PCB layout ? Greetings Protel users, Scenario: Schematic design heavily based on complex hierarchy for duplicating certain parts of the design. Sort of like a stereo system with a left and right channel. After the design is flattened, every part gets it own designator and it's ready for PCB layout. Can anyone suggest a method for replicating the PCB layout (relative placement, tracks, vias, polygons, etc.) for these parts of the design which are identical except for the designators and local net names ? I know I can select, copy and paste part the layout. The copy will have incremented designators (default), or it may have duplicate designators too. But how can I synchronize this PCB layout copy to the duplicated schematic (say, the left channel) without having to manually rename the designators, which is prone to errors. David This is definitely a case where DXP would save you tons of time (do not believe I said that, but its true). Anyhow you can achieve what you want in 99SE but it is a very complex process and nearly every stage is error prone as you already realise. In some cases I have done it this way I made a single channel sheet called AOL.SCH, annotated it with range 100-199. So I have my first channel. AOL.SCH was then copied and renamed to AOR.SCH. The component designators on AOR.SCH were then reset (current sheet only) so as not to conflict with AOL.SCH Set the project options for re-annotation so that AOR.SCH is assigned CREFs 200-299. Now both channels are in. Update your PCB using the synchroniser so component classes are created. Within the PCB Editor, place each channel in its own room. Place route the first channel AOL.SCH, use a sensible grid and when you are finished routing you can look to AOR.SCH channel Move the matching components from channel AOR.SCH (unrouted channel) into the same location in the room for AOL.SCH (routed channel) You will get clearance errors but ignore them for now. Once all placement is complete you have 2 identical placed component channels but only one is routed. At this point make sure there are no active selections by using De-Select ALL command. Under Browse PCB panel bring up the component class generated by the synchroniser for AOR.SCH and click select. With the AOR.SCH channel parts now selected, move the component group to the desired location for channel AOR.SCH Now you have two placed channels that are identical but only one routed. At this point make sure there are no active selections by using De-Select ALL command. Now for the routing, now select all objects within the AOL.SCH area, routes, parts and all. Under Browse PCB panel bring up the component class generated by the synchroniser for AOL.SCH and click select. This will de-select the parts within the AOL.SCH group but will leave all routing objects selected. Now use the editcopy command and select a suitable focus point for the cut/paste operation that now needs done (always found a component pad was best to 'snap to'), click on the focus point. Now use the editpaste command and click on the identical location point on the AOR.SCH channel, all routes should now be copied in the exact same place on the second channel. As pasted primitives have their net assignments stripped automatically, the pasted objects should automatically inherit the net names associated to the component pads on which they are pasted to. If not you can always update free primitives from component pads. Pasting of routing objects only works if no routing objects exist in the paste area already (like polygons and so on) It's a lot of work, DXP takes care of most of this duplication work for you. Good luck John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 review
-Original Message- From: Kiba Dempsey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] DXP review Does anyone know where I can find any independent reviews on the DXP software? There has been some notes, comments, gripes and comparisons for DXP since its first release, against its predecessor, by existing Protel users. These will probably be out of date with P2004 release so I would not take them as being 100% correct. http://www.considered.com.au/DXP_vs_P99SE.htm But no completely independent full reviews I know of, which IMO would have been a mistake anyway given DXPs current state. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] File Format Not Recognized
Just my $0.02 My Protel 99 SCH files actually show as 'Microsoft Schedule+ Application' association My Protel 99 PCB files actually show as 'PowerPCB Design' association I have Win AutoUpdate disabled I have Capture 9.2 installed, Plogic, PowerPcb and some others. Only time I ever have an issue when opening a file, is when I try to open it directly, If I start any of the applications first, and open from within the app, they are all fine, I have never seen a connectivity issue, all the apps including Protel run fine. All is happy, except when I try to launch an application by double clicking a file of a particular type, which always seemed the wrong way round to me, file associations has never really been that reliable anyway, unless you have one PC, one application which is not practical. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWWhttp://www.rsd.tv == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] imported footprint
-Original Message- From: bob stephens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 8:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] imported footprint I have imported an Orcad .DSN project into DXP and need to modify the design and re-layout the board. The imported files resulted in four SchDoc's, one PCB and one SchLib - my question is how do I extract the footprint information for the components from the PCB? The schematic symbols are all in the SchLib, but I'd like to reuse the custom SMD footprints without having to remake them all from scratch. Does anyone know a way to do this? Bob You should still be able to use the Design, Make PCB Library tool in the DXP PCB editor assuming you have saved the .max file as a Protel PCB file. JOhn * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This message is sent using PostCast Server Professional Trial: http://www.postcastserver.com/
Re: [PEDA] Nothing to do with Synchroniser won't recognise components
-Original Message- From: Protel Hell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] Synchroniser won't recognise components are the rules for email different outside the U'S.? You mean like this? :-) I did not think the US had made a standard for email reply, yet. But IMHO point by point replies are the most efficient way of responding. What use is having an answer before a question. it has been the custom in a thread to add your comments to the top of the email, that way people know what you are adding to the thread, they also have a history of what has been said because each person adds to the original conversation, Only for those people already following or familiar with the thread. Or for people using a threaded view of the topic. For anyone else it is hard to read when the answer appears before the question. I notice many of you go through the email reformatting what has previously been said and intermixing your replies Most efficient way to format responses to individual answers. the goal of communication is shared meaning, why is it everyone always tries to change the way we communicate? is the standard way really that bad? I have always answered this way. if you respond, there is no need to write a novel, KISS Others can write the novel, I have just responded with my $0.02 worth BTW, I did not edit anything, just hit the reply button, look what has happened to the thread Nope, but if I had grouped all my responses in one lump of text at the top, anyone else other than you, reading this thread, would have to first scroll down to read the question and then back to the top to read the response and so on. Might just be me, but I prefer it like this, as my eyes are getting too old to play 'ping pong' with messages that I have to page up/page down the screen to scroll around to read. I like to have it all in front of me or in a logical order, Q/A In any event, should I be in need of help, I will always be extremely grateful for any response I receive, regardless of how it is formatted as the content is more important than its aesthetic appearance or any single users perception of proper etiquette. All Best John From: Ian Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] Synchroniser won't recognise components Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:23:56 +1100 On 07:36 AM 4/02/2004, Jon Elson said: Leo Potjewijd wrote: Hello. I am trying to update an existing PCB (196U passive backplane): it needs to be shorter, lose some connectors and gain two connectors of a different type. I changed the schematic (just a single sheet) to include all connectors and their interconnections (almost all of them got a new refdes); then I changed the PCB manually to add the new ones, delete the unwanted ones and renumbered them all according to the new schematic. When I run 'update PCB' the synchroniser does not recognise two (different) connectors: it claims that J7 is not on the PCB (which it is) and that J13 is not on the schematic (which it is). I checked all fields, names etc of the components in question but cannot find anything wrong. Ugh, you've de-synchronized the synchronizer. This occasionally happens when you manually change parts on the PCB and then try to synchronize. Once it happens, the synchronizer is very difficult to get working right again, although it sometimes clears itself. I think the easiest way to clear the hidden synch handles is to save the PCB file as an ASCII file and the close and re-open. When you try to re-synch the Match by Designator dialog will pop up to help you make the initial match. Leo - you would probably have been better off only making the manual changes in Sch and then done an update. this should have created macros to delete and change components as required and then you could have finished off the PCB. This is what I do - almost all changes are driven from the Sch via the Update PCB (synchroniser). Rarely would I muck about on both the Sch and the PCB at the same time unless I am really careful. Occasionally I will change the footprint of a component on the PCB and then use the Update Sch to push that change back to the Sch. Ian Wilson This message is sent using PostCast Server Professional Trial: http://www.postcastserver.com/ _ There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-uspage=hotmail/es2ST=1 This message is sent using PostCast Server Professional Trial: http://www.postcastserver.com/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: *
Re: [PEDA] basic protel dxp questions
-Original Message- From: Knutson, Randy Wayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 11:04 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] basic protel dxp questions Hi, I was wondering if any DXP users were on this forum because I have a few questions that I think should be easy to answer but for the life of me I just can't seem to figure them out. 1. When I place a resistor I see 3 parameters for that part: R?, res, 1K How do I globally turn off the 'res' parameter so that when I place a part I only see R? and 1K This only applies to some of the parts in the default DXP libraries. The value you are seeing as RES1 comes from the comment field. Use shortcuts T, P then select 'Default Primitives', double click 'Part' from the list of primitives and uncheck the box to the right of 'Comment' field and click OK. All of the parts you will place will no not have the RES1 visible as your 'comment' field is now hidden. If you have already placed a lot of parts, then you should use the find similar object function and change all these to non visible as well. Just be careful as the 'comment' field was actually used as the value in 99se... So imported sheets will not have the value= parameter in the SCH symbol and will not show you any value for the part as you have hidden it! 2. I was wondering what general strategies you guys and gals use to route your boards. Do you manually route important stuff and let the auto router take care of the rest? ANY advice would be greatly appreciated! In any attempts that I have made to use the Protel router from when 98 version was released till now, has ended in pain, more pain failure. This is in my case, it might do the job for you very well, try it out. I have seen some examples of some dense boards auto routed in Protel (or at least it was claimed they were routed in Protel) and they look very good indeed, I have never been able to get such results, but it is sure possible. Have you experimented with the PCB Benchmark test board supplied with DXP to see for yourself? It is promised that there will be BIG improvements to the DXP router for P2004 release, I really hope this is true, Situs was very disappointing at first release, and not much better at SP1 to SP2 or even Sp3pre. Mostly I will route by hand in 99SE or DXP. For dense boards with complex rules which I would use an auto router for, I gave up with Protel a long time ago for day-day work and now I prefer another more stable router/layout path. But I can still hope Situs can deliver the goods some day. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications Ltd 8 BorrowMeadow Road Springkerse Industrial Estate Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office) Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab) Fax +44 [0]1786 474653 GSM +44 [0]7831 373727 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW http://www.rsd.tv == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This message is sent using PostCast Server Professional Trial: http://www.postcastserver.com/
Re: [PEDA] TO-220 4th pin?
-Original Message- From: Dom Bragge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:23 AM To: protel Subject: [PEDA] TO-220 4th pin? I just would like to ask a question about how you handle TO-220 footprints ( the like)... I have the three (electrical) pin device, that's fine. I'm placing the T)-220's flat on the board. What if I want to (selectively) put copper on the top layer under the TO-220 have a suitable soldermask antipad? This could aid in cooling without resorting to an actual heatsink. How should I best do that? Do I place on the board a free pad, rectangle, with a hole the same size as the hole for the TO-220 tab? Seems a bit ugly, two holes etc etc but it should probably give me the SMask opening. Do I make a 4pin lib part, have a 4th pin on the footprint being the large hole add a polygon connected to that net? I suppose I'll have to add an opening for the SMask on the TO-220 footprint as well. Dom I usually keep 2 footprints available and one SCH symbol. The SCH symbol is always the same, 3 pins plus Tab (pin4), the footprint can then have several choices, normally I have a manufacturer prefix, and then TO220H or TO220V. If I intend to use this symbol with a vertical TO220 footprint I just add the No ERC marker to the 4th pin. PCB update just ignores pin 4 then, as does the DRC. I never add the fill or copper to the horiz version in the library, I do it manually afterwards as it is too much hassle when doing updates to have to update free primitives from... All the time. Easiest thing is to see it, so I uploaded a TO220 example from my user library to http://www.proteluser.com/download/to220/Export.zip Ignore the paste definitions layer, that is for something else ;) Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWWhttp://www.rsd.tv = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Orcad vs. Protel (was: Leaving Protel)
-Original Message- From: Kerry Berland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:11 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Orcad vs. Protel (was: Leaving Protel) We did a custom project last year in which we were asked to use Orcad Layout in place of Protel. It was an ordeal. Lacked behind Protel in dozens of ways. Error checking was poor, user interface difficult to learn, limited undo, many other shortcomings. Our opinion--their schematic capture program is decent, their layout program was truly awful. Kerry, Yes their layout tool is awful indeed, but keeping up some knowledge of Orcad capture is still a good skill to have as it is very popular still the preferred tool for design entry for many large companies. In any event if you have to translate any designs to Protel it is handy to know where the errors came from in Orcad. Later on we did another custom project with some very talented engineers. Got to talking about layout packages. One engineer said, well, out here in Southern California, a lot of people use Orcad's schematic capture program, but virtually nobody uses their layout package. For the period of time I worked in sunny California I was used to using Orcad capture/Pads layout as this was the most common combination deployed throughout the design team (60-70 seats Capture, 10 or so of Pads) I found there. It is also a very common combination in Asia as well. Have heard of a lot of people using PADS, some using PCAD, some Protel, but very rarely run into people using Orcad for layout. Pads is extremely popular. They have respected their users investments in training, experience, familiarity with GUI etc much more than other vendors by keeping the GUI the same for many years, just adding to it, so it looks clunky, outdated and ugly, but like most tools, once someone has experience, shortcut keys make light work of any job. Does not have to look nice to work good. PCAD is the same in many respects, except the latest evolutions after the Altium influence. They both have good points bad, just like Protel, guess its down to which tools you can use to get the job done well and in the least time. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications Ltd 8 BorrowMeadow Road Springkerse Industrial Estate Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office) Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab) Fax +44 [0]1786 474653 GSM +44 [0]7831 373727 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW http://www.rsd.tv == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Toolbar File question
-Original Message- From: Joe Sapienza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 7:34 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] Toolbar File question Ok here's one simple question beacuase I'm getting old and forgetful If I want to tranfer my customized toolbars from one system to another is it all in the .DFT file or is it some other file? Normally all the customisations are in the client99.rcs file I believe. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Schematic Symbol Import
-Original Message- From: Steve Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Schematic Symbol Import Is there a way to import Mentor or EDIF schematic symbols into DXP? I have found schematic symbols on Motorola's web site. I'm really trying to avoid drawing symbols for a 783 pin device. Steve Which part on Mots site are you trying to convert? Can you give me the URL? John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Schematic Symbol Import
Steve I already found it from your post in the DXP list. I have tried to open these files and export a Orcad library for you but I keep getting an error on export. The orcad librray you could open in DXP. I have asked my colleague in Spain who uses Board Architect if he can open the Mentor files and re-export them. But I wont get an answer till tommorrow. But I think that's quicker than editing all pins by hand. As an alternative, I have asked him to give me a CSV dump of the pin list and you could use the speadsheet method in DXP to create the part. Will get back to you tomorrow Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWWhttp://www.rsd.tv == -Original Message- From: Steve Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 2:39 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Schematic Symbol Import John, Here's the url: http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?cod e=MPC8540 About 3/4 down is a schematics section for part symbols. I'm wondering if there is a way to import these. Thanks, Steve -Original Message- From: John A. Ross [Design] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 4:54 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Schematic Symbol Import -Original Message- From: Steve Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Schematic Symbol Import Is there a way to import Mentor or EDIF schematic symbols into DXP? I have found schematic symbols on Motorola's web site. I'm really trying to avoid drawing symbols for a 783 pin device. Steve Which part on Mots site are you trying to convert? Can you give me the URL? John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Grouping parts to form Parent part
-Original Message- From: Wiper, Craig (VER) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:34 PM To: DXP Technical Forum Subject: Re: [dxp] Grouping parts to form Parent part John, Isn't there already a 'grouping' function in DXP? I thought it was under Tools/Convert/Create Union From Selected Components. I've never had a reason to use it, but you might give it a try and see if it's close to what you're asking for. Craig, Many thanks, nice one. I had not even noticed it. I'll dig out the docs later and read some now I know what to search for :-) In fact I found the same menu items in 99SE as well (embarrassed now) I tried it out, and its most of the way there. But it will only do components, so free pads etc are out, they cannot even be added to the 'union'. Its not always convenient to make a component for a mounting hole. It is also possible to clear all unions globally, which restricts it a little, as this could be prone to accidental deletion of the union, which in the case of a connector array, made to match an enclosure aperture, could end up spoiling a lot of work. But if we could have it tweaked so that it could be assigned as a parameter UnionId=x, where x is the group it belongs to, these would need to be manually removed so would be a bit more secure and less prone to accidental deletion. It may even be able to pass this parameter from the SCH where the parts association may be better visualised. I'm actually off to dig around the menus to see what else is hiding in there, that's not very well documented. Sometimes best hiding place is in plain sight. Any more gems like that, keep 'em coming. John Craig Wiper GENERAL DYNAMICS - OTS Healdsburg, CA -Original Message- From: John A. Ross [Design] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:02 AM To: DXP Technical Forum Subject: [dxp] Grouping parts to form Parent part Hi After following a thread on the PEDA list I was wondering if an additional feature would be considered by Altium at this stage as an enhancement to the PCB editor. I had never really thought about this until now. I have kept the request as simple as I can, as I think any added belle and whistles would just make a simple thing difficult. The basic idea would be to have a parameter added to parts placed on the PCB to be 'grouped' and effectively locked together in the same way most graphics / office applications can group items (say GroupID=x for sake of giving it a name). No need to run queries, selection of anything difficult on a per operation basis, just a group. Any items picked up or selected from the PCB workspace (parts, pads etc) included in GroupID=x would automatically be treated as part of a 'parent' part and also moved (like an invisible, permanent selection although that might be bad terminology). Of course this can be done by selection as well, on an individual basis, but this is not efficient when making the first placement of a new board. But if the parts, retaining their individual boundary box properties, were always 'locked' (grouped) together, instead of just primitives belonging to a single library part with a large boundary area, then it would be possible to make up a larger 'parent part' with fixed mechanical offsets for the objects grouped in it, like the mounting holes and connectors for daughter/main board assemblies and still be able to make proper use of clearance and DRC rules for the individual parts. The 'group' selection would effectively be invisible to the DRC system, as DRC / rules, would be applied only to the individual parts in the 'group' as they would normally. This could be seen as an enhancement as any 'group' parts would always be moved by the same amount and you can be sure the rest of the parts will be in the right place. The ability to group, instead of keeping a library part, avoids the issues of placing/selecting/moving/focussing on other parts primitives placed within the 'boundary box' area of the larger part under the 'daughter' board area (large part) and still be able to make proper use of clearance and DRC rules as the parts themselves, within the group exist still, as only individual objects in the database, so rules are applied directly to them as normal. Sorry for any repetitiveness above, but its one of those things that is easier to show, than describe, but you know what I mean, hopefully ;-) Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications Ltd 8 BorrowMeadow Road Springkerse Industrial Estate Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office) Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab) Fax +44 [0]1786 474653 GSM +44 [0]7831 373727 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW http://www.rsd.tv == --- You are currently subscribed to dxp For details about
Re: [PEDA] Problems with ports
Phil have you checked to se if Orcad ports have been enabled? Tools,Preferences,Scematic tab, OrCad load options, check box OrCad TM ports should be unchecked for all sheets/projects If it is checked it will resize port to suit text length, if you uncheck it you might need to globally resize all the ports again. John -Original Message- From: DUTTON Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:04 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] Problems with ports Hello, I'm having a schematic problem with 99SE SP6. Unexpectedly, and with no input on my part, all of my ports have changed length to suit the text that they contain and can no longer be edited by dragging or otherwise to alter their length. Has anyone come across this and found a solution? (I have DXP, but am not using it yet. The ports are ok if I convert the design to a DXP project.) regards, Phil. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Transparent footprints
-Original Message- From: Laurie Biddulph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 6:33 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] Transparent footprints Hi, I hope you all had a happy Xmas. I need to place two large components on a pcb that will actually be on spacers and connected to the main board by short wire links. As the items are relatively large (one of them is one of those standard 2- or 4-line LCD modules) the footprint for these will be quite large yet be basically empty - there will be four spacers, one for each corner, plus a short multi-way connector. Is there any way of creating this as a component footprint so that it may be correctly moved and position on the main board yet still allow Protel to freely place components and tracks in the free area under these components? As the position of the spacers relative to the connector is fairly critical it is preferable that this is one single component. I believe you ca do this, although component selection within the boundry box of the larger part will be dificult. I also think you will need to turn off component clearance checking between parts otherwise you will get DRC errors for all parts 'under' the larger part as technically it will have 0 clearance. John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Solder mask...
-Original Message- From: Tom Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:26 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] Solder mask... Is it ok to block open the solder mask on gull-wing i.c.'s with .4mm AND .5mm pitches? It seems to get enough web in between the pads to stick will cause a LPI registration thats too tight, with possible smearing. And if you make the pads themselves too narrow -- thats another problem. Tom I always block open the pads on these pitches. It is not so easy to get a manufacturer to get SM registration right at these tolerances although it is possible. Most quick turn boards I have had to take as 'free issue' parts to assemble, which have not blocked off these areas, I have had quality issues with the finished joints around these fine pitch pads. I have never had an issue with blocking them open, biggest solder mask issue I have ever had was when the SM thickness to finished pad height differential was too much (SM height was bigger than finished pad by a lot) and we had gasketing issues from the paste screen to the pad, causing problems like, paste bleeding out on the PCB side of the screen, some shorts, failed 3d inspection after print cycle, loose solder ball symptoms and aperture blockages, with our MPM printer having to make undue clean cycles between prints. Also undue print down force had to be applied to squeegee blades, increasing wear and decreasing accuracy. Never had solder ball or short issues as long as the board is printed correctly and the oven specifically profiled to suit your board. (also optimise paste volumee, height, reductions...) John * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] What is the meaning of DXP
-Original Message- From: Protel Hell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] What is the meaning of DXP Protel reminds me of the early versions of ViewDraw, not easy to learn or use, I don't know where you are at or background Viewdraw, or as it is called now Pads/DX Designer is not that much better now. Up to P99SE the simplicity of the Protel user interface beat Viewdraw or PowerLogic (which I used from DOS version also). I have only used Protel since P98 came out, but used Orcad since SDT IV / Powerlogic since P2000 / Viewdraw (hated that, gave up) With DXP Altium decided a more cluttered environment was in order and spoiled that simplicity a bit IMO not only for previous Protel users but new ones as well. I think it was haste, or developers with a new toy (nice panels) and a little additional razz for marketing but I have a feeling the comments on the DXP list to rationalise the functions within the panels to tidy them up and reduce the amount open at one time will get a fair hearing. all you have to do to see how well sch pcb match in Protel is look at the cardboard triangle thing they give you, if I every remember all that I'll either: be committed to insane asylum or forget everything else I know It is far more natural than you think. I hope my bitching is seen as constructive by Altium, ViewDraw which I compared it to is much easier to learn and productivity has increased than it was in the past, hopefully DXP will improve too No one usually bitches more about DXP as regards the UI and project/file management structure than me. But as far as comparing Viewdraw and DXP, I would have to pick DXP every time, warts and all. John From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] What is the meaning of DXP Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:56:03 -0500 At 02:40 PM 12/16/2003, Protel Hell wrote: so what's the excuse for pcb not matching schematic? The history was two different DOS programs... Then there are differences in what is natural with schematics and what is natural with PCB design. In schematic, symbol representation is important but not electrically functional, in PCB, most everything creates a physical structure with important characteristics. It is clear that the programs were not originally designed to have a common way of doing things; sometimes this is appropriate, sometimes it is merely irritating. I hope they work on the productivity, it is obvious the system was designed more from the EE designers perspective, and that's great, but for the person that only does pcb design it is very slow, I hope I never have to do a large board with this, I'll use something else if it is up to me As a printed circuit designer, I found Protel quite easy to use, I started with Protel 98. (I had used the Autotrax demo years before to write a Tango - Protel bidirectional translator, but the real key to my Protel experience was Tango itself, since it was pretty much an Autotrax killer, written by Accel to grab the U.S. market of Protel, for whom they had been the U.S. rep.) I'm not sure I agree that Protel is designed more from the EE designers perspective, partly because I'm not sure exactly what Mr. Protel Hell means. Protel definitely appeals more to engineers than to in-house printed circuit design specialists, but the reasons for that are complex, having a lot to do with the kinds of characters who are attracted to -- or qualified for -- the two fields. I'm a printed circuit designer, a specialist to be sure, but my training and inclinations are more like an engineer and, when I worked at large companies, tended to get along very well with the engineers and not always so well with other designers.. Protel is a highly flexible design system, there are usually many ways to accomplish a task, and it has an open database, which gives even more flexibility. I might be called a printed circuit design engineer, rather than a CAD specialist per se. I was never shy to dig into the inner workings of the programs I worked with, to write my own utilities to manipulate databases when the command set of the program didn't do what I needed, or didn't do it with sufficient power and speed. I find it interesting that I almost completely stopped writing utilities when I started using Protel, because the program already did most of what I needed to do; what remained could usually be handled simply by opening up the ASCII database with Word or Excel. Productivity is a double-edged sword. Sometimes what makes a program difficult to learn can increase productivity for one who has learned it; the reverse can be true as well, i.e., what makes a program more productive can make it harder
