: [PEDA] OT Metric vs Imperial
Nick: the collective is talking and you will be assimilated! (Ok, I guess
you'd only get that if you were a Star Trek fan.)
It's great that the CEO is on here reading and thinking about what
everyone
is saying. That is a really good sign IMO.
I think everyone
At 09:13 AM 8/3/2002 +1000, Nick Martin wrote:
Doesn't matter much *what* he wrote, it would have been a bit surprising
that Mr. Martin would write to the DXP list (but why not, the other top
Protel/Altium officers/managers have written there), but that he also wrote
to the PEDA Forum is
-Original Message-
From: Nick Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 August 2002 00:13
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT Metric vs Imperial
If anyone has specific examples of Metric/Imperial round-off
problems in
Protel DXP could you please share these with us
At 06:37 PM 8/4/2002 +0100, John Ross wrote:
I have a few samples, all in 99SE I am afraid, as I wont spend the time on
DXP as it does not offer any of the added features I would use, or worth
paying ATS for. It will be more cost effective for me to spend the time
evaluating other vendors
-Original Message-
From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 02 August 2002 00:47
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT Metric vs Imperial
On 12:08 PM 1/08/2002 -0400, vincent mail said:
John Ross wrote:
Metric or Imperial does not make any real difference (except individual
-Original Message-
From: Ian Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 02 August 2002 09:24
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT Metric vs Imperial
[cut]
The definition of an inch is derived from this. 1 inch = 0.0254
metres. Note
it was only during the 2nd world war
with (mils or
mm).
John Williams
- Original Message -
From: vincent mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT Metric vs Imperial
...
If protel programmers switch to a 'smallest common number' base
29.99mm and think Hey this should be 30mm
and accidently go and edit it to 30.999mm. G.
Ian
-Original Message-
From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 02 August 2002 00:47
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT Metric vs Imperial
On 12
I agree the rounding errors in Protel PCB between metric and imperial are
really annoying, making things fall off grid. Many a time I have editted
a
pad/part/track when I see 29.99mm and think Hey this should be 30mm
and accidently go and edit it to 30.999mm. G.
I just
(direct line)
Fax (604) 292-9010
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.norsat.com
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 9:22 AM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT Metric vs Imperial
how to the other pcb cad programs
I need some opinions/help.
What is the best was to design the power pins (VCC, VEE, GND, etc) on a
multi-part schematic symbol for, say, a hex inverter. Seems if they are
hidden they can get missed, but if they stick out they clutter the
schematic.
-Shawn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT Metric vs Imperial
I need some opinions/help.
What is the best was to design the power pins (VCC, VEE, GND, etc) on a
multi-part schematic symbol for, say, a hex inverter. Seems if they are
hidden they can get
respond to Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT Metric vs Imperial
I need some opinions/help.
What is the best was to design the power pins (VCC, VEE, GND, etc) on a
multi-part schematic symbol for, say, a hex inverter. Seems
I agree, both systems can be supported properly if Protel wished to. That
was my point.
But I prefer to be a little more gracious to the users who prefer to work
in Imp units by not forcing metric upon them.
Imperial users win either way as the conversion is clean with the metric
database.
: Re: [PEDA] OT Metric vs Imperial
I agree, both systems can be supported properly if Protel wished to.
That
was my point.
But I prefer to be a little more gracious to the users who prefer to
work
in Imp units by not forcing metric upon them.
Imperial users win either way
Yikes! I left home without my autograph book ;-)
The roundoff issues we experience in our particular case do not relate to
'hard' problems but to a general clumsiness in dealing with the numbers
generated when dealing with the 'other' units system. A cleaner units
conversion as a result of the
multiple data sheets when building parts
and not have to flip back and forth. It would DEFINITELY be a productivity
enhancer!
Tony
-Original Message-
From: Don Ingram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 4:37 AM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT Metric
-Original Message-
From: John Haddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 01 August 2002 16:31
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT Metric vs Imperial
If the base units are metric then there will be NO rounding errors in
conversion!
e.g. if the base unit is one micron then 0.1
On 01:31 AM 2/08/2002 +1000, John Haddy said:
John,
If the base units are metric then there will be NO rounding errors in
conversion!
e.g. if the base unit is one micron then 0.1 thou = 2540 base units
EXACTLY - there's
no error introduced.
Exactly - by choosing the base unit as 1 um
On 12:08 PM 1/08/2002 -0400, vincent mail said:
John Ross wrote:
Metric or Imperial does not make any real difference (except individual
preference) except when having to convert.
yep agree
I think the point is that Protel has never handled Metric properly due
to, what I assume is shoddy
22 matches
Mail list logo
