Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-10 Thread Graeme Zimmer


 It was a crappy car and equally crappy boat.

There were many different Boat-cars.

One wonderful story is The Voyage of the Half Safe.

About a tiny amphibious Jeep which managed to circumnavigate the world.


 Zim

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-08 Thread lloyd . good

Ahhh Mr Jenkins,
I was wondering when you would jump into the fray. I've missed your soft
demeanor and objectiveness. It has been so long since I've been indirectly
compared to an aging dweeb and twits. I should have explained that I do
not differentiate between PCB designer and Engineer as the two are not
mutually exclusive. I do consider Protel an Electrical and Electronic
Engineering tool. I don't consider it a Mechanical Engineering tool, nor do
I consider E/E Engineers as capable at packaging design as Mech Engineers.
As far as what Altium/Protel advertises and deliversgee the sales guy
might have stretched the truth a littleNEWS FLASHMarketing didn't
tell the whole truth. Oh my god...
Exactly what myopic eutopia have you been living in?
Regardless, I have grown weary of this banter and my personal assistant is
late bringing my coffee, I'm going to have to jump in my gold-plated golf
cart and track him/her down. He/she is probably playing beach volleyball
with all the guys down in the 3D CAD dept. 

Regards,



Mr Good, Please explain why Protel advertised a 3D-viewer tool as part of
the suite upgrade price  for P99/SE. While you're at it, please explain why
Protel EDA is a PCB-designer's tool and not an  electrical and electronics
engineer's EDA tool as well (as it has been advertised for years). I
realize that many PCB-designers have different motivations than engineers,
but you obviously don't   realize the opposite.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-08 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 06:33 PM 2/7/2002 -0800, John Williams wrote:
  A little interference
  checking, nothing terribly fancy, in Protel would go a long way. Just
  height checking, fine, as long as it is easy to set up height regions,
  simple or complex. More complex models for components, better as an option,
  terrible if they are a necessity.

This function is available in QualECAD View3D.

Take a look at:

  http://www.qualecad.com/page7.html

QualECAD has been highly recommended by users. Yes, it appears that 
QualECAD allows the assignment of a height attribute to rooms, and it 
detects height violations based on the footprint 3-D models (and QualECAD 
gives users, if I am correct, gives users access to the models).

However, this is, if I am correct, a viewer. On-line DRC of height 
restriction would be *much* more useful in a practical sense. Being able to 
pick up a component and see immediately -- by the appearance of the error 
color -- that there is a height violation -- cuts out a huge amount of work.

It is like on-line DRC in general. The original CAD DRCs were batch 
programs run after the design was done. That was a great improvement, but 
on-line DRC was a true productivity boon. Fixing errors could take ten 
times as much time as making things right in the first place. Sometimes 
late discovery of an error is a major disaster, if a lot of work has been 
done that depends, say, on components location. Even if routing has been 
postponed to get approval of placement, many components might need to be 
moved to fix a problem. Much, much better if the height violation is 
avoided from the beginning.

This is a *placement* tool, thinking of 3-D in terms of viewing and 
checking is quite limited, it is the placement assistance that is truly 
important. Autoplace would necessarily respect height rules as well. It is 
difficult to think of a more central operation to PCB design than placement!


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread robi artwork




Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread lloyd . good

Robi et al,
While I agree that the Protel 3D viewer is absolutely useless, we have been
using the 3D utility from Desktop-EDA to export into Solidworks. In
Solidworks we assembly products with multiple PCBs, design the
plastics/metal works, add overlays and create AVI's of the whole assembly,
so that our customers don't have to speak or read any particular language.
We can do clearance checks, show hidden features in otherwise covered
locations, the advantages are endless. To limit oneself by saying, If you
do you homework - properly... is like saying, I don't need a computer, I
have a slide rule that works just fine.
Sounds like some projects are not as complex as others.
IMHO
Lloyd Good

-Original Message-
From: robi artwork [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 5:29 AM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D


Hallo Waldemar - tut mir Leid dass ich dir da widerspreche - aber::
Hi everyone - sorry that  I disagree with that; but::

I don't see a 3D Viewer as a must - If you do you homework - properly
It seems to me more of a laziness of the engineer  to look after the height 
restictions.
I never had a 3D Viewer - I nevere want one.
If things need to be placed in a low area - you just need to take care of 
it and watch out.
robi

At 13:03 07/02/02 +0100, you wrote:

  Looks nice. But what use is there ?
   From a prototype that has been tested I can make a shot
  with a digital camera. This image is then used for fabrication
  and documentation.
  I realize there might be advantages when working with very
  bulky parts, assuming collisions are visible. But with TQFP
  and 1206 cases, 3D is not that spectacular. Showing off with
  a nicley textured connector, rendered with 10k triangles ?
 -- snipp --

Rene,
 you are right if you are designing baords used in a simple case.
But imagine you are designing for a case where only partly is enough room
to
place even a TANT_C Capacitor, to say nothing of a connector
And now imagine the mechCAD-engeneer beside you is using an 3D-CAD while
you
have to set placement rules and drawings in mech-layers to find out wether
or
not you can place this part here .
Believe me, you will long for a 3D-tool.  :-)


regards

Waldemar



Robi Artwork  -  PCB Design Bureau
PO-Box 199,Lot 33 Jamaica Drive
Deception Bay  Q4508Australia
--
C/o Robi Bittler
Ph: 07-3203 0634
Fx: 07-3203 3958  -  only on request


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Brad Velander

Hi Lloyd,
your comments are very true for the Desktop-EDA package. However I
think some of the points expressed were misunderstood. The 'Protel' viewer
is a toy with virtually no useful purpose. Protel needs to align themselves
with the industry and develop a true 3D mechanical interface (sorry forget
the acronym) rather then a viewer. The Protel viewer is useless,
absolutely useless. Would ACAD, Solidworks or any other get away with a
pretty viewer in their products, no you need output suitably formatted for
inclusion in the next level of development tools? Showing a pretty picture
(even one with user defined models) serves no measurable useful purpose.
This is what I think some of the other posters have been trying to say. The
Qual-ECAD or Desktop-EDA tools are a proper path for 3D development, not a
simple Protel viewer.

Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

Lead PCB Designer
Norsat International Inc.
Microwave Products
Tel   (604) 292-9089 (direct line)
Fax  (604) 292-9010
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.norsat.com

See us at Booth 323 at Satellite 2002 in Washington, DC March 6-8.



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 8:03 AM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D


Robi et al,
While I agree that the Protel 3D viewer is absolutely useless, we have been
using the 3D utility from Desktop-EDA to export into Solidworks. In
Solidworks we assembly products with multiple PCBs, design the
plastics/metal works, add overlays and create AVI's of the whole assembly,
so that our customers don't have to speak or read any particular language.
We can do clearance checks, show hidden features in otherwise covered
locations, the advantages are endless. To limit oneself by saying, If you
do you homework - properly... is like saying, I don't need a computer, I
have a slide rule that works just fine.
Sounds like some projects are not as complex as others.
IMHO
Lloyd Good


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread lloyd . good

Brad,
I understand the sentiment of the Protel viewer by others in the forum. I
suppose the point that I am trying to make it that Protel is an EDA tool not
a 3D CAD package. I don't expect it to be. I use it for what it is intended,
not for what is not intended. Ergo, I use the 3D export utility and change
programs to complete my intention. Similarily, I would not wear a parachute
to go SCUBA diving, nor vice versa.  Protel is an EDA package, don't expect
it to do your mechanical work. It provides a near useless 3D viewer, yes,
but if this propagates the usage of another program to which the transition
is seamless, then perhaps it has had some use after all. I digress, Protel
should not expand the 3D viewers functionality, it should embed the export
utility to a plethora of 3D programs and/or generic transform genres. STEP,
IGES etc..
Regards,


-Original Message-
From: Brad Velander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:48 AM
To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D


Hi Lloyd,
your comments are very true for the Desktop-EDA package. However I
think some of the points expressed were misunderstood. The 'Protel' viewer
is a toy with virtually no useful purpose. Protel needs to align themselves
with the industry and develop a true 3D mechanical interface (sorry forget
the acronym) rather then a viewer. The Protel viewer is useless,
absolutely useless. Would ACAD, Solidworks or any other get away with a
pretty viewer in their products, no you need output suitably formatted for
inclusion in the next level of development tools? Showing a pretty picture
(even one with user defined models) serves no measurable useful purpose.
This is what I think some of the other posters have been trying to say. The
Qual-ECAD or Desktop-EDA tools are a proper path for 3D development, not a
simple Protel viewer.

Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

Lead PCB Designer
Norsat International Inc.
Microwave Products
Tel   (604) 292-9089 (direct line)
Fax  (604) 292-9010
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.norsat.com

See us at Booth 323 at Satellite 2002 in Washington, DC March 6-8.

snip

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 12:49 PM 2/7/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Protel is an EDA package, don't expect
it to do your mechanical work.

Certainly it is not necessary for Protel to do what a true 3-D drafting 
package would do. However, meeting the problems of fitting parts on a PCB, 
which is a very limited subset of the field of 3-D drafting, is mission 
critical for PCB designers.

Many users will not want to have to convert all their libraries to include 
3-D information; but gradually available libraries would come to include 
such information. For the program to be able to accept it is, in my view, 
fundamental. Basically a 3-D model can be associated with any footprint. 
Protel is doing that right now, with automatic assignment of models, just 
as a demonstration. So users who don't need 3-D information could simply 
not make those libraries available, and they would not need to set 3-D rules.

And once those models are available, and once users can make their own 
models, a user could make an environment model or, ideally, import one from 
a 3-D CAD package, and then detect rule violations in 3-D.

This is not very far from where we are already, and it is a logical step in 
the development of the program. And it would be quite useful for many 
designers.

What is needed:

(1) User ability to make and/or import 3-D models.
(2) Rule checking (similar to present placement rule checking).

This is pretty elementary, compared what is needed for mechanical work.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Mike Reagan

Very well stated LLoyd!


 Brad,
 I understand the sentiment of the Protel viewer by others in the forum. I
 suppose the point that I am trying to make it that Protel is an EDA tool
not
 a 3D CAD package. I don't expect it to be. I use it for what it is
intended,
 not for what is not intended. Ergo, I use the 3D export utility and change
 programs to complete my intention. Similarily, I would not wear a
parachute
 to go SCUBA diving, nor vice versa.  Protel is an EDA package, don't
expect
 it to do your mechanical work. It provides a near useless 3D viewer, yes,
 but if this propagates the usage of another program to which the
transition
 is seamless, then perhaps it has had some use after all. I digress, Protel
 should not expand the 3D viewers functionality, it should embed the export
 utility to a plethora of 3D programs and/or generic transform genres.
STEP,
 IGES etc..
 Regards,




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread lloyd . good

Many users will not want to have to convert all their libraries to include 
3-D information 
This is my point exactly. Some PCB designers have no interest in the 3D
world, so let's not create a proverbial white elephant inside of Protel. The
functionality you request would add cost, or possibly an add-on package.
Hmmm extra packagessounds like the road the PADs and Orcads have been
down before. And frankly I'm not interested in going down that road again.
You don't use a car in the lake nor do you use a boat on roads, but as long
as you have a boat trailer to transport back and forth to the different
mediums.. (perhaps a flakey analogy!?)
Still disagreeing ...respectfully,
Lloyd


-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:24 AM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D


At 12:49 PM 2/7/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Protel is an EDA package, don't expect
it to do your mechanical work.

Certainly it is not necessary for Protel to do what a true 3-D drafting 
package would do. However, meeting the problems of fitting parts on a PCB, 
which is a very limited subset of the field of 3-D drafting, is mission 
critical for PCB designers.

Many users will not want to have to convert all their libraries to include 
3-D information; but gradually available libraries would come to include 
such information. For the program to be able to accept it is, in my view, 
fundamental. Basically a 3-D model can be associated with any footprint. 
Protel is doing that right now, with automatic assignment of models, just 
as a demonstration. So users who don't need 3-D information could simply 
not make those libraries available, and they would not need to set 3-D
rules.

And once those models are available, and once users can make their own 
models, a user could make an environment model or, ideally, import one from 
a 3-D CAD package, and then detect rule violations in 3-D.

This is not very far from where we are already, and it is a logical step in 
the development of the program. And it would be quite useful for many 
designers.

What is needed:

(1) User ability to make and/or import 3-D models.
(2) Rule checking (similar to present placement rule checking).

This is pretty elementary, compared what is needed for mechanical work.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Bob Wolfe

Lloyd,
I would whole heartily agree with you.
There was a CAD system VeriBest that was based on Bentley's
MicroStation and therefor needed it to run, there was two editors
the PCB side and the drafting side, and yes one could say that
there was great power in that combination, however the PCB  side was never
quite the PCB package it should have been due to the limitations and
controls of MicroStation. It was very cumbersome to deal with the two
editors.
You were stuck using both no matter what to do certain functions to complete
a design.
It was another company and for Bentley to change MicroStation
just for VeriBest was not in the cards. Thus when they removed MicroStation
it ultimately became a very good PCB tool, on its own, now Mentor owns them.
Also there were just as many who wanted Microstation as those who didn't, so
you can't
please everyone.
That being said I would agree to leave the EDA tools to do what a
EDA tools should do, and provide proper export and import to the appropriate
tools
to do mechanical drawing, checking etc. Translations are always fraught with
some problems
too but there are a few reasonably good standards out there to provide
adequate
interface to these other tools provided the EDA CAD vendor implements them
properly.
I guess the one downside is you need to purchase and learn other programs,
but if one really wants
or needs a good drafting package one should buy and learn one.
We should not forget though that an EDA package should however provide at
least a minimum capability to output minimum sufficient documentation to
fab, assemble and test a board.
May not be the way you want the documentation, but none the less any fab
house etc should be able to produce a board with it.
Or that really is like buying the car without tires.
I really don't expect my EDA package to be a full blown 2D/3D/Finite
Analysis package. It is nice to be able to simply view it though also.
I do wish though Protel had a little better dimensioning capabilty though.
Thanks
Bob

Robert M. Wolfe, C.I.D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D


 Brad,
 I understand the sentiment of the Protel viewer by others in the forum. I
 suppose the point that I am trying to make it that Protel is an EDA tool
not
 a 3D CAD package. I don't expect it to be. I use it for what it is
intended,
 not for what is not intended. Ergo, I use the 3D export utility and change
 programs to complete my intention. Similarily, I would not wear a
parachute
 to go SCUBA diving, nor vice versa.  Protel is an EDA package, don't
expect
 it to do your mechanical work. It provides a near useless 3D viewer, yes,
 but if this propagates the usage of another program to which the
transition
 is seamless, then perhaps it has had some use after all. I digress, Protel
 should not expand the 3D viewers functionality, it should embed the export
 utility to a plethora of 3D programs and/or generic transform genres.
STEP,
 IGES etc..
 Regards,


 -Original Message-
 From: Brad Velander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:48 AM
 To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
 Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D


 Hi Lloyd,
 your comments are very true for the Desktop-EDA package. However I
 think some of the points expressed were misunderstood. The 'Protel'
viewer
 is a toy with virtually no useful purpose. Protel needs to align
themselves
 with the industry and develop a true 3D mechanical interface (sorry forget
 the acronym) rather then a viewer. The Protel viewer is useless,
 absolutely useless. Would ACAD, Solidworks or any other get away with a
 pretty viewer in their products, no you need output suitably formatted for
 inclusion in the next level of development tools? Showing a pretty picture
 (even one with user defined models) serves no measurable useful purpose.
 This is what I think some of the other posters have been trying to say.
The
 Qual-ECAD or Desktop-EDA tools are a proper path for 3D development, not a
 simple Protel viewer.

 Sincerely,
 Brad Velander.

 Lead PCB Designer
 Norsat International Inc.
 Microwave Products
 Tel   (604) 292-9089 (direct line)
 Fax  (604) 292-9010
 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.norsat.com

 See us at Booth 323 at Satellite 2002 in Washington, DC March 6-8.

 snip



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Ted Tontis

In the 50's there was a car that was also a boat. You could drive it on both
land and water. I just thought it was kind of ironic that you used that
particular one.:)

Ted 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:56 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D


Many users will not want to have to convert all their libraries to include 
3-D information 
This is my point exactly. Some PCB designers have no interest in the 3D
world, so let's not create a proverbial white elephant inside of Protel. The
functionality you request would add cost, or possibly an add-on package.
Hmmm extra packagessounds like the road the PADs and Orcads have been
down before. And frankly I'm not interested in going down that road again.
You don't use a car in the lake nor do you use a boat on roads, but as long
as you have a boat trailer to transport back and forth to the different
mediums.. (perhaps a flakey analogy!?)
Still disagreeing ...respectfully,
Lloyd


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Fred A Rupinski

I wish that the viewer did provide an accurate, pretty picture (as implied
below). A comprehensive, easy to use 3D Viewer certainly DOES have value
for those of us who need to generate proposals and reports. Yes, one pretty
picture is still worth a thousand words. Many clients are swayed if they
see a comprehensive graphic preview of the PCB.

But the Protel viewer is virtually useless. Except for a few generic parts,
components are rendered as gray blobs. There is no reasonable way to
generate realistic components. I would never insult a client or embarrass
myself by presenting this type of rendering.

A true 3D CAD compatible interface is another issue beyond that of a viewer
for client visualization. Yes, it could be a useful engineering development
tool.

Regards,
Fred A Rupinski

- Original Message -
From: Brad Velander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D


 Hi Lloyd,
 your comments are very true for the Desktop-EDA package. However I
 think some of the points expressed were misunderstood. The 'Protel'
viewer
 is a toy with virtually no useful purpose. Protel needs to align
themselves
 with the industry and develop a true 3D mechanical interface (sorry forget
 the acronym) rather then a viewer. The Protel viewer is useless,
 absolutely useless. Would ACAD, Solidworks or any other get away with a
 pretty viewer in their products, no you need output suitably formatted for
 inclusion in the next level of development tools? Showing a pretty picture
 (even one with user defined models) serves no measurable useful purpose.
 This is what I think some of the other posters have been trying to say.
The
 Qual-ECAD or Desktop-EDA tools are a proper path for 3D development, not a
 simple Protel viewer.

 Sincerely,
 Brad Velander.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread lloyd . good

Ted, 
Even as I wrote it I was thinking about that particular boat-car, and I knew
someone would bring it up. haha As I remember that idea also sunk.
Cheers,

-Original Message-
From: Ted Tontis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:04 PM
To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D


In the 50's there was a car that was also a boat. You could drive it on both
land and water. I just thought it was kind of ironic that you used that
particular one.:)

Ted 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:56 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D


Many users will not want to have to convert all their libraries to include 
3-D information 
This is my point exactly. Some PCB designers have no interest in the 3D
world, so let's not create a proverbial white elephant inside of Protel. The
functionality you request would add cost, or possibly an add-on package.
Hmmm extra packagessounds like the road the PADs and Orcads have been
down before. And frankly I'm not interested in going down that road again.
You don't use a car in the lake nor do you use a boat on roads, but as long
as you have a boat trailer to transport back and forth to the different
mediums.. (perhaps a flakey analogy!?)
Still disagreeing ...respectfully,
Lloyd


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 10:28 PM 2/7/2002 +1000, robi artwork wrote:

I don't see a 3D Viewer as a must - If you do you homework - properly
It seems to me more of a laziness of the engineer  to look after the 
height restictions.

This, I will note, was an offensive comment. Laziness is perjorative; if 
we look at what it means we will realize that a good engineer is, in 
certain ways, lazy. A great deal of progress has come from the kind of 
laziness that Robi is dismissing.

A desire for computers to do accounting work, something that did not exist 
when I was born -- except for some business machines that might possibly 
qualify as computers in the most limited sense --, could certainly be more 
of a laziness of an accountant to do his arithmetic.

I never had a 3D Viewer - I nevere want one.

We can see that we would never consider Robi for any complex work!

If things need to be placed in a low area - you just need to take care of 
it and watch out.

Well, duh!

I did some pretty complex work with tape and mylar. But I was pretty lazy, 
I did not like to take all that time to stand there with someone else 
verifying all the connections against the schematic. So I took a VIC-20 
computer and wrote software to allow fast entry of net lists, optimized to 
minimize keystrokes, and then integrate the information from all layers of 
a design to make a single net list (the vias were numbered). This net list 
was then compared to a net list made from the schematic. Using diazo copies 
of the design allowed us to check the design at the pencil stage, in 
parallel with the taping step. It was, in fact, more accurate than the 
usual two-person checking procedure. Yes, I was lazy, and the result was 
better design, faster, and faster equals either cheaper or more lucrative 
or both. And both are desireable.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 01:56 PM 2/7/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many users will not want to have to convert all their libraries to include
3-D information
This is my point exactly. Some PCB designers have no interest in the 3D
world, so let's not create a proverbial white elephant inside of Protel.

Lloyd missed my point. A good implementation will not require users to 
provide 3-D information. It will merely allow them to attach a 3-D model to 
a footprint. Thus there would be no legacy issues.

The
functionality you request would add cost, or possibly an add-on package.
Hmmm extra packagessounds like the road the PADs and Orcads have been
down before. And frankly I'm not interested in going down that road again.

The functionality is almost there, additional cost would be minor. Protel 
already did most of the work in providing the viewer. Sure, if there were 
substantial additional cost, it could become an add-on, like the excellent 
-- I understand -- Qual-ECAD package. Altium might simply buy Qual-ECAD, 
which makes sense if Qual-ECAD is on offer at a reasonable price.

The decision was already made, obviously, to provide 3-D functionality. Why 
they did not give us access to the models, a relatively simple step, I 
don't know, that's a mystery.

You don't use a car in the lake nor do you use a boat on roads, but as long
as you have a boat trailer to transport back and forth to the different
mediums.. (perhaps a flakey analogy!?)

Yes, pretty flakey. It is routine for me as a PCB designer to be 
considering vertical interference issues. Most of the time they are simple 
enough that, yes, I don't need interference checking. But we asked for a 
way to deal with height information a long time ago, there was broad 
consensus that it would be useful.

There is a height field already assigned in the PCB file format. This is 
enough for simple checking, but some components are pretty complex in shape 
and a single height won't cut it. What I'm asking for does not require a 
database change. Instead, a text file could associate 3-D models with 
footprint names. If the file does not have an entry for a footprint, the 
height attribute would be used. We need to have editor access to the height 
attribute, both in the footprint library editor and in the PCB.

This is not a great deal to ask for. I think the only work actually needed 
as a first step is give us access to the height attribute.

The reason why this truly belongs as part of a sophisticated PCB design 
package is that *placement* belongs in the PCB design package. It is 
entirely too cumbersome to have to move designs in and out of various 
programs just to figure out where on the PCB to put a part, assuming that 
there is a model of the environment. Yes, 3-D placement rule checking would 
need to be added as well. I'd want to be able to move a part around and see 
the error color appear and disappear.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

While a viewer could be useful, the real prize is interference checking. 
It's just that the same information could be used for both, i.e., if you do 
one, it is not that much more to do both. I'd consider the viewer the more 
difficult one, and much of that work is, as I noted, already done.

As a minimum, I'd want to be able to edit the height field for components 
and set a height model for the PCB. Exactly how that model is implemented 
is quite open. One could use a mech layer with drawn regions and a piece of 
text in each region to define the height: that is a method that would not 
require much of anything to implement.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread lloyd . good

Mr Lomax,
I don't believe that I missed your point at all, I just don't agree. There
is no such thing as a simple 3D model. If all you want is simple height,
you might want to follow Robi's advice and calculate the separations with a
pencil and paper. If you need interference checking as you stated in the
follow up email to this one, then you have to consider the complexity of the
components true shape and mating surfaces, if any. 
This is not done simply and if I may say so, not Altium's responsibility. I
agree that Altium would be best served by including/buying/incorporating the
utilities of Desktop-EDA or the Qualecad sort, but leave the 3D world to the
3D CAD softwares. The beauty of this scenario is that it already exists and
works very well. You know, don't re-invent the wheel
The Desktop-EDA solution involving Solidworks is completely bi-directional
and associative. When I send a preliminary layout via export to my 3D CAD
counterpart, he does my interference checks including connector mating,
packaging etc. If something needs to be moved, he does it and sends back the
new layout which I need only to finish routing.
Again, I'd like to apologize for the flakey analogy of boat and car.
Regards,


-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:53 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D


At 01:56 PM 2/7/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many users will not want to have to convert all their libraries to include
3-D information
This is my point exactly. Some PCB designers have no interest in the 3D
world, so let's not create a proverbial white elephant inside of Protel.

Lloyd missed my point. A good implementation will not require users to 
provide 3-D information. It will merely allow them to attach a 3-D model to 
a footprint. Thus there would be no legacy issues.
snip

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Jon Elson

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

 At 01:56 PM 2/7/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Many users will not want to have to convert all their libraries to include
 3-D information
 This is my point exactly. Some PCB designers have no interest in the 3D
 world, so let's not create a proverbial white elephant inside of Protel.

 Lloyd missed my point. A good implementation will not require users to
 provide 3-D information. It will merely allow them to attach a 3-D model to
 a footprint. Thus there would be no legacy issues.

Although this will certainly work, and may be the best arrangement for the
package, it might be more general to have different component names in the
component library that use the same PC board footprint, but have different
heights.
This would be very common with radial lead caps, for instance.  The 3D
definition could be in one of the extra component fields.

 Yes, pretty flakey. It is routine for me as a PCB designer to be
 considering vertical interference issues. Most of the time they are simple
 enough that, yes, I don't need interference checking. But we asked for a
 way to deal with height information a long time ago, there was broad
 consensus that it would be useful.

While I don't use 3D tools to handle this at present, (mostly because
Protel doesn't have an interface that is obviously useful for this purpose
that I'm aware of) I sure do have to consider this, as I do multiple PC boards
that stack and/or nest on occasion.  This interference is a real nasty surprise

when you have boards fabbed and assembled, and THEN the problem is
discovered!

 There is a height field already assigned in the PCB file format. This is
 enough for simple checking, but some components are pretty complex in shape
 and a single height won't cut it. What I'm asking for does not require a
 database change. Instead, a text file could associate 3-D models with
 footprint names. If the file does not have an entry for a footprint, the
 height attribute would be used. We need to have editor access to the height
 attribute, both in the footprint library editor and in the PCB.

Presumably, then, given just component location, rotation and type, an external

package could do the job.  It also needs PC board outline info.  Probably a
spreadsheet output would be sufficient, then a custom program to convert
to form acceptable to a 3-D tool.

Jon


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Andrew Jenkins

On 01:56 PM 2/7/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many users will not want to have to convert all their libraries to include 
3-D information 
This is my point exactly. Some PCB designers have no interest in the 3D
world, so let's not create a proverbial white elephant inside of Protel.

Yes, but not all Protel users are PCB-designers, nor clearly do all Protel users share 
your limited sense of what Protel should or shouldn't be able to do, especially when 
it has advertised itself as more than just a PCB-designers interface, and more 
importantly, _charged_ users for that ability in the upgrade cost from P98 to P99/SE.

aj

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread robi artwork




Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Andrew Jenkins

On 05:09 PM 2/7/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr Lomax,
I don't believe that I missed your point at all, I just don't agree. There
is no such thing as a simple 3D model. If all you want is simple height,
you might want to follow Robi's advice and calculate the separations with a
pencil and paper. If you need interference checking as you stated in the
follow up email to this one, then you have to consider the complexity of the
components true shape and mating surfaces, if any. 

Mr Good, Please explain why Protel advertised a 3D-viewer tool as part of the suite 
upgrade price for P99/SE. While you're at it, please explain why Protel EDA is a 
PCB-designer's tool and not an electrical and electronics engineer's EDA tool as well 
(as it has been advertised for years). I realize that many PCB-designers have 
different motivations than engineers, but you obviously don't realize the opposite.

This is not done simply and if I may say so, not Altium's responsibility. 

You may say the moon is made of cheese if you like. If Altium has opened the can of 
worms, as they obviously have by including the broken utility, then Altium has a 
responsibility to complete the process and repair it. Otherwise, Altium can be 
legitimately viewed as deceptive and mis-managed, if not also incompetent. If, as a 
result of advise like yours, Altium does not complete the process, then Altium can 
also be viewed as tailoring Protel EDA, a package marketed to engineers and 
PCB-designers alike, to only the needs and desires of their PCB-designer customers, a 
conclusion that engineers should perhaps begin thinking about, prior to $$Phoenix$$, 
if engineers don't want to simply become (or continue to be) a cash-cow for the narrow 
objectives of _some_ well-connected Protel PCB-designers.

I
agree that Altium would be best served by including/buying/incorporating the
utilities of Desktop-EDA or the Qualecad sort, but leave the 3D world to the
3D CAD softwares. The beauty of this scenario is that it already exists and
works very well. You know, don't re-invent the wheel

Yes, I, for one, am quite familiar with that theory. I was told it again and again by 
the aging dweeb who said I was wasting my time with software PCB-design back in the 
mid-80's, since tape was the only way that REAL PCB-design was accomplished, and 
everything else was just mental masturbation, just as I've had to listen to people 
who blathered on that w2k was a joke, (and now whole-heartedly embrace it) and yet 
others who argued that we'd never have need for 512M of memory (not to mention the 
twits who argued incessantly that RAM-based soundcards would never have a chance in 
hell of making it, not to mention that they'd never have decent quality output, etc, 
etc, etc... Maybe it's time for someone to consider retirement, as someone's theories 
are clearly a bit outdated by present technical methodologies at work in all but 
large, cash-rich or otherwise bloated organizations.

The Desktop-EDA solution involving Solidworks is completely bi-directional
and associative.

And expensive. Did you mention that? No. Protel advertised a built-in 3D capability 
for P99/SE, implying that such an additional cost for a secondary CAD package like 
solid-works, Autocad, or similar would be obviated by the included utility (if what 
they actually sent can be called that...) . However, they did not state that one would 
have to purchase Solid-works, nor did they complete the process internally, nor did 
they allow their customers access to the file format for those 3D-models so that their 
customers could complete the process on their own. That your organization affords 
Solid works is...well...nice for you. That at least some customers weighed the 
advertised built-in 3D capability of Protel 99/SE in the upgrade decision (myself 
included) is also of merit, and IMO should not be dismissed simply because someone who 
works in a cash-rich  environment where draftsmen likely still exist has doubts about 
its merit.

  When I send a preliminary layout via export to my 3D CAD
counterpart,

Yes, I know...exactly like when I send my napkin sketches to the draftsman...oops... 
he (and nearly all of his fellow draftsmen) got laid-off fifteen years ago because of 
their functional obsolescence...Hmmm...forgot for a second that we engineers no longer 
(as a rule) have at our disposal (or generally have need for) draftsmen, since our 
software does all of that (with the addition of our concomitant computer skills) for 
us...I digress...Succinctly: Not all organizations have a 3D-Cad counterpart available 
for this work. We do it ourselves! (gasp) 

Now that I think of it, perhaps I should simply have dictated this to my personal 
secretary and had it hand delivered to you by my courier instead of typing it in 
myself...

Protel should either fix it or send out refund checks.

rant off

aj

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: 

Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Matt Pobursky

A guy in my boyhood home (a small town on an inland lake very
near Lake Michigan) had one of those -- an awful light
greenish-blue colored thing. I always chuckled seeing the two
tiny little propellers on it as he drove by... I remember seeing
him drive it into the water at a boat launching ramp a few times
and watch it struggle to just make much headway as it bobbed
around.

It was a crappy car and equally crappy boat. I think that says
something about dual-use products in general, especially when the
two operating environments are not that similar. How many flying
cars (predicted in the 50's and early 60's to be all the rage by
now) do you see around? ;)

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:03:51 -0600, Ted Tontis wrote:
In the 50's there was a car that was also a boat. You could
drive it on both land and water. I just thought it was kind of
ironic that you used that particular one.:)

Ted


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 05:09 PM 2/7/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr Lomax,
I don't believe that I missed your point at all, I just don't agree. There
is no such thing as a simple 3D model. If all you want is simple height,
you might want to follow Robi's advice and calculate the separations with a
pencil and paper.

I was tempted to stop reading at this point I should have. Instead, 
after writing the first part of what is below, I went back and read the 
rest of Mr. Good's post. It got worse.

Simple height checking would be quite useful. The current database allows 
for it. Why even have a height field if there is no way to use it?

Really, I'm surprised by Mr. Good. As they say, the Good is the enemy of 
the Best.

Now, here is what I read next:

The Desktop-EDA solution involving Solidworks is completely bi-directional
and associative. When I send a preliminary layout via export to my 3D CAD
counterpart, he does my interference checks including connector mating,
packaging etc. If something needs to be moved, he does it and sends back the
new layout which I need only to finish routing.

And there goes the schedule. Yes, there is the 3D CAD guy -- in some 
companies -- and, yes, he is going to check the work. But it is much more 
efficient if he gets what is already right. Every time the job has to go 
back, there is a delay, and there is more delay if changes need to be made, 
because those changes need to be communicated, and then the results checked 
again.

This is not how to run a business in today's world. It works when there is 
lots of time, but even then it does not work well, just tolerably.

In many companies, there is no 3-D CAD guy and interference checking is 
done by trying to stuff the parts together in a box. A little interference 
checking, nothing terribly fancy, in Protel would go a long way. Just 
height checking, fine, as long as it is easy to set up height regions, 
simple or complex. More complex models for components, better as an option, 
terrible if they are a necessity.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread John Williams


Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

 In many companies, there is no 3-D CAD guy and interference checking is
 done by trying to stuff the parts together in a box. A little interference
 checking, nothing terribly fancy, in Protel would go a long way. Just
 height checking, fine, as long as it is easy to set up height regions,
 simple or complex. More complex models for components, better as an option,
 terrible if they are a necessity.

This function is available in QualECAD View3D.

Take a look at:

 http://www.qualecad.com/page7.html


John Williams


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Tony Karavidas

That QualECAD s/w looks great!

Why doesn't Protel just BUY QualECAD?? They buy other seemingly useless
stuff...this one would be the opposite.

Tony

 -Original Message-
 From: John Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:33 PM
 To: Protel EDA Forum
 Subject: Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D



 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

  In many companies, there is no 3-D CAD guy and interference checking is
  done by trying to stuff the parts together in a box. A little
 interference
  checking, nothing terribly fancy, in Protel would go a long way. Just
  height checking, fine, as long as it is easy to set up height regions,
  simple or complex. More complex models for components, better
 as an option,
  terrible if they are a necessity.

 This function is available in QualECAD View3D.

 Take a look at:

  http://www.qualecad.com/page7.html


 John Williams



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Re: [PEDA] Re[3]: View PCB 3D

2002-02-07 Thread Dennis Saputelli

i agree that something which was obviously presented as a 'buy me'
feature and which has no benefit other than to impress a Dilbert type
manager should either have been fixed, improved or at least apologized
for.
(BTW, it is ok to end a sentence with a preposition, advice to the
contrary notwithstanding)

as to the refund check i don't think that it is either in the mail or
part of the license agreement

in fact if the present trend continues (and i hate to float any new
ideas), and not in particular to Protel, we will soon have to PAY to
report bugs ('bugs' otherwise in other fields of endeavor more properly
referred to as 'errors' or 'mistakes' or 'oversights')

of course as the future seems to portend (UCITA anyone?) after our time
limited use EULA runs out we will not have to PAY for the right to be
able to report 'bugs', we will simply be out of business

Dennis Saputelli


Andrew Jenkins wrote:
 
 On 05:09 PM 2/7/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Protel should either fix it or send out refund checks.
 

-- 
___
www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc.
   tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street  
  fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *