Re: [PEDA] Vias do not tent when expected
On 01:14 PM 5/03/2004, Dennis Saputelli said: there is one more point that may need clarification and which may be at the root of the original post the 'default' setting applied in Tool Prefs Defaults ONLY applies when using the Place Via command if instead you are manually routing a board and the * key when changing layers then the via in the Via routing style is used and it does not carry the tenting attribute even if it matches the size hole of the default via Great point and I betcha that is the root cause. Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Vias do not tent when expected
At 04-03-04 17:44, you wrote: hi Leo i can't reproduce your problem, please see if i did it right i set via default paramter to tent Check. i set a design rule to a big expansion to make it obvious note: i used via specification in design rule to apply only to the diameter and hole size of the defualt via type Check. The specification is not necessary i then placed some vias nad they were tented on an individual vias i unchecked 'tenting' and the big expansion showed up. Check. this is all as expected Check. did i miss something ? Yep. All the vias that are placed during interactive routing (switching layers) show the big expansion , all the vias that are placed with the Place Via command are tented. I route all my boards (postage-stamp size, very dense, 4 or 6 layers) by hand, I don't trust the autorouter to create anything useful. snippety-snip I just about had it with P99SE. *** WARNING : rant coming up *** Because Protel99SE.exe has caused errors and will be closed. An error log is being created (and NOT for the first time). Last weeks' crash left 5(!) Ddb's too damaged to repair and I lost three days piecing the bits back together from a backup tape that could not be loaded back in one piece. Something good came out of that though: a brand new SunFire V60x... I installed only the bear necessities on W2kPro and converted the restorated Ddb's to the windows file system on a local HDD. Alas, it didn't help.. Todays crash 'only' lost me two hours of work because the P99SE auto-backup feature (set for 30 minutes) didn't do its job.. Sorry for the rant guys, I just had to blow off some steam (two weeks behind schedule now) The weirdest part by far of all of this is that I did NOT EVER have a P99SE crash at home (the via problem _is_ present at the home system too). That system (P2 @ 910 MHz) is running the _same_ W2kPro and P99SEsp6 (and loads of other stuff that doesn't run at work) on the _same_ amount of memory (768 MB). No network though, and a different virus scanner (Norman at home vs McAfee at work; both set to leave .Ddb files alone)... Right now, I'm in for some _very_ drastic measures. Any hints? Leo * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Vias do not tent when expected
Hi Leo, I just confirmed everything you described. Auto placed vias follow the via solder mask expansion rule. The default tenting attribute is ignored. Manually placed vias have the default attributes including tenting. Brock Russell At 01:34 PM 04/03/04 +0100, Leo Potjewijd wrote: At 03-03-2004 23:35, Ian Wilson wrote: On 12:28 AM 4/03/2004, Leo Potjewijd said: Hi. I just discovered something strange: I like my vias tented so I keep the tenting checkbox in the default via settings dialog checked. While interactively routing a PCB I noticed that the automatically placed vias did not get tented (and the forementioned checkbox is still checked) I do not want to end up with a board that has some vias tented and some not, and the global edit on the complete board afterwards is too easiliy forgotten. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but haven't a clue Please help me out, guys.. There are two ways to force tenting on vias - or at least there are two places to control the solder mask expansion. The via has a tenting attribute and there is a design rule that controls solder mask expansion. I have no idea which has precedence, I would hope the tenting attribute of the via. However you may want to check, and play with, the Manufacturing-Solder Mask expansion rule. If you make the rule expansion ridiculously big do the auto-placed vias follow the silly expansion? I just did. They (the autoplaced vias) did, too Seems the rule takes precedence over the default setting. Only when the mfg rule specifically targets vias it has any effect, a rule specifying expansion for just surface and thru-hole pads does not change the expansion for the vias Before we had the tenting attribute you had to apply a large enough negative expansion to force tenting. The checkbox being tented but the actual via being untented does sound very odd - unless there is a conflict between the rules and the tent attribute. Are the auto-placed vias the same dimensions as the manual placed vias? Yep. Are they both vias? Again, yep. The manual ones aren't free pads are they? (Just asking some possibly silly questions.) Hey, everyone stands the chance to overlook the obvious... What happens if you save as ASCII and then re-load? What does the ASCII file show for a tented and untented via? The ASCII records are not hard to read. AhemI would not say not hard to read, just not hard to understand..;) The ASCII file states a neat tenting=true for the tented vias; for the non-tented vias there is no such statement. I would expect 'tenting=false', but its completely missing Reloading the ASCII file does not solve the problem. Further probing reveals no solutions but yet another mystery: the via annular rings are calculated different from pad annular rings... I've seen this one before, but still have no clues. To top it all off: I'm running a fresh P99SE/sp6 installation on a brand new computer under a fresh installed W2kPro/sp4, all files on local disk. I just about had it with P99SE. 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] Vias do not tent when expected
At 05-03-04 03:14, Dennis Saputelli wrote: see my earlier response on this snip-snip the 'default' setting applied in Tool Prefs Defaults ONLY applies when using the Place Via command As I understand now (thanks also to the wonderful explanation given by Abd about an hour earlier) if instead you are manually routing a board and the * key when changing layers then the via in the Via routing style is used and it does not carry the tenting attribute even if it matches the size hole of the default via ..and that's exactly what triggered my original posting. All said and done, I guess my only real complaint is that there is no 'tenting' checkbox in the rule definition dialog (or did I miss it?), I leave it at that. I think that forcing tented vias by specifying a negative clearance is a little less than obvious to the casual observer, but if that is the only way to get there: what the heck! In order to save at least a little bandwith I will now snip off all repeats from all previous postings which would make up more than 80% of this post.. For the interested people that just tuned in': an 'archive-get' on this subject will reproduce the whole discussion 'on your doorstep', so to speak ;-) Thanks you Brock, Dennis, Ian and Abd. Leo * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Vias do not tent when expected
At 08:40 PM 3/4/2004, Leo Potjewijd wrote: All the vias that are placed during interactive routing (switching layers) show the big expansion , all the vias that are placed with the Place Via command are tented. From all the discussion which has preceded, this is exactly expected behavior. The Default Via is set to Tent, and the default only controls manual placement of vias. Autorouting and Route Interactive use a via specification from design rules (Routing Via Style). In the design rules, one controls tenting by creating a negative solder mask expansion (Manufacturing/Solder Mask Expansion/Via Specification). An alternate method to use, particularly if one wants to tent some vias and not others, is to convert all or some vias to free pads; the pad name can then be used to control whether tenting happens or not. *** WARNING : rant coming up *** Because Protel99SE.exe has caused errors and will be closed. My condolences. [...] The weirdest part by far of all of this is that I did NOT EVER have a P99SE crash at home (the via problem _is_ present at the home system too). Just to repeat, there isn't really a via problem, rather a misunderstanding of how the Default works and how tenting is controlled. Autorouted and Route Interactive-created vias do *not* follow the Default settings. That system (P2 @ 910 MHz) is running the _same_ W2kPro and P99SEsp6 (and loads of other stuff that doesn't run at work) on the _same_ amount of memory (768 MB). No network though, and a different virus scanner (Norman at home vs McAfee at work; both set to leave .Ddb files alone)... Right now, I'm in for some _very_ drastic measures. Any hints? First of all, the virus scanner and network differences are not likely to be the cause, in my opinion. Rather the most likely causes, at least the ones I'd first suspect, are the video card or a memory problem, i.e., a bad chip. There are video cards known to cause Protel to crash ATI cards were famous for this. And a bad memory can cause, of course, all kinds of problems. Sometimes they will only show up with one program that happens to be vulnerable. As far as the bad memory possibility is concerned, I'd swap around memory devices, if possible, or at least run some very thorough memory test utilities, the kind that you let run all night It is always possible, as well, that a particular installation has gotten trashed in some way, so reinstalling may be in order. Remember, when reinstalling Protel, to delete the *99SE* files in the System folder. (They aren't likely to be the problem here, but why not be thorough?) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Vias do not tent when expected
At 03-03-2004 23:35, Ian Wilson wrote: On 12:28 AM 4/03/2004, Leo Potjewijd said: Hi. I just discovered something strange: I like my vias tented so I keep the tenting checkbox in the default via settings dialog checked. While interactively routing a PCB I noticed that the automatically placed vias did not get tented (and the forementioned checkbox is still checked) I do not want to end up with a board that has some vias tented and some not, and the global edit on the complete board afterwards is too easiliy forgotten. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but haven't a clue Please help me out, guys.. There are two ways to force tenting on vias - or at least there are two places to control the solder mask expansion. The via has a tenting attribute and there is a design rule that controls solder mask expansion. I have no idea which has precedence, I would hope the tenting attribute of the via. However you may want to check, and play with, the Manufacturing-Solder Mask expansion rule. If you make the rule expansion ridiculously big do the auto-placed vias follow the silly expansion? I just did. They (the autoplaced vias) did, too Seems the rule takes precedence over the default setting. Only when the mfg rule specifically targets vias it has any effect, a rule specifying expansion for just surface and thru-hole pads does not change the expansion for the vias Before we had the tenting attribute you had to apply a large enough negative expansion to force tenting. The checkbox being tented but the actual via being untented does sound very odd - unless there is a conflict between the rules and the tent attribute. Are the auto-placed vias the same dimensions as the manual placed vias? Yep. Are they both vias? Again, yep. The manual ones aren't free pads are they? (Just asking some possibly silly questions.) Hey, everyone stands the chance to overlook the obvious... What happens if you save as ASCII and then re-load? What does the ASCII file show for a tented and untented via? The ASCII records are not hard to read. AhemI would not say not hard to read, just not hard to understand..;) The ASCII file states a neat tenting=true for the tented vias; for the non-tented vias there is no such statement. I would expect 'tenting=false', but its completely missing Reloading the ASCII file does not solve the problem. Further probing reveals no solutions but yet another mystery: the via annular rings are calculated different from pad annular rings... I've seen this one before, but still have no clues. To top it all off: I'm running a fresh P99SE/sp6 installation on a brand new computer under a fresh installed W2kPro/sp4, all files on local disk. I just about had it with P99SE. 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] Vias do not tent when expected
hi Leo i can't reproduce your problem, please see if i did it right i set via default paramter to tent i set a design rule to a big expansion to make it obvious note: i used via specification in design rule to apply only to the diameter and hole size of the defualt via type i then placed some vias nad they were tented on an individual vias i unchecked 'tenting' and the big expansion showed up this is all as expected did i miss something ? Dennis Saputelli Leo Potjewijd wrote: At 03-03-2004 23:35, Ian Wilson wrote: On 12:28 AM 4/03/2004, Leo Potjewijd said: Hi. I just discovered something strange: I like my vias tented so I keep the tenting checkbox in the default via settings dialog checked. While interactively routing a PCB I noticed that the automatically placed vias did not get tented (and the forementioned checkbox is still checked) I do not want to end up with a board that has some vias tented and some not, and the global edit on the complete board afterwards is too easiliy forgotten. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but haven't a clue Please help me out, guys.. There are two ways to force tenting on vias - or at least there are two places to control the solder mask expansion. The via has a tenting attribute and there is a design rule that controls solder mask expansion. I have no idea which has precedence, I would hope the tenting attribute of the via. However you may want to check, and play with, the Manufacturing-Solder Mask expansion rule. If you make the rule expansion ridiculously big do the auto-placed vias follow the silly expansion? I just did. They (the autoplaced vias) did, too Seems the rule takes precedence over the default setting. Only when the mfg rule specifically targets vias it has any effect, a rule specifying expansion for just surface and thru-hole pads does not change the expansion for the vias Before we had the tenting attribute you had to apply a large enough negative expansion to force tenting. The checkbox being tented but the actual via being untented does sound very odd - unless there is a conflict between the rules and the tent attribute. Are the auto-placed vias the same dimensions as the manual placed vias? Yep. Are they both vias? Again, yep. The manual ones aren't free pads are they? (Just asking some possibly silly questions.) Hey, everyone stands the chance to overlook the obvious... What happens if you save as ASCII and then re-load? What does the ASCII file show for a tented and untented via? The ASCII records are not hard to read. AhemI would not say not hard to read, just not hard to understand..;) The ASCII file states a neat tenting=true for the tented vias; for the non-tented vias there is no such statement. I would expect 'tenting=false', but its completely missing Reloading the ASCII file does not solve the problem. Further probing reveals no solutions but yet another mystery: the via annular rings are calculated different from pad annular rings... I've seen this one before, but still have no clues. To top it all off: I'm running a fresh P99SE/sp6 installation on a brand new computer under a fresh installed W2kPro/sp4, all files on local disk. I just about had it with P99SE. 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] Vias do not tent when expected
see my earlier response on this the via chekcbox takes precedence which i think is logical since you are at the most specific level only by having this ability can you easily make exceptions to the design rule without a NO DRC i for one would hate to wade through a DRC about this exception, but i see your point that there may be stuff going on without one's specific awareness i always thought that soldermask expansion belonged better as a property of the pad or via than as a design rule but at this point, whatever re the default primitive settings as in this example there is one more point that may need clarification and which may be at the root of the original post the 'default' setting applied in Tool Prefs Defaults ONLY applies when using the Place Via command if instead you are manually routing a board and the * key when changing layers then the via in the Via routing style is used and it does not carry the tenting attribute even if it matches the size hole of the default via Dennis Saputelli Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote: At 07:34 AM 3/4/2004, Leo Potjewijd wrote: I like my vias tented so I keep the tenting checkbox in the default via settings dialog checked. While interactively routing a PCB I noticed that the automatically placed vias did not get tented (and the forementioned checkbox is still checked) This discussion has gone back and forth a few times, yet some basic facts about the situation I found less than clear. There was an ambiguity about what was written. The aforementioned checkbox is the checkbox in the default via settings dialog. That is a setting which will control the configuration of vias manually placed while that setting is active. It does not affect vias that are already placed, nor will it necessarily affect what the autorouter places. (You might expect it to, but Protel is put together from various programs that do not always function together with complete rationality. The 99SE autorouter, in particular, is its own creature and I'm not surprised to find that it does not respect in any way the default settings, just as the default settings may be altered whenever you edit a primitive as it is being placed. The default settings dialog is a convenience of occasional use, not an absolute control. What I'm saying is that if the autorouter places vias which do not have the tenting checkbox checked, it is no big surprise once one is familiar with how 99SE works. Historically, tenting was controlled only by design rule, the tenting attribute was one of the latest things added in the Protel 99 release, as I recall. It's a convenience. It's not particularly one that we requested, since using design rules to control tenting was already quite sufficient. If there is a conflict between a design rule and the tenting checkbox, I'd place my bets on the design rule, given the history of the program. Which one is paramount? I don't know, and I'm not particularly motivated at the moment to go and test. I never check that tenting checkbox, precisely because I don't know the answer to the question. I do know that if the checkbox is unchecked and the design rule says tent, it will be tented. That's enough for me. Because the design rules are explicit and their scope can be readily determined (this gets even better in DXP), it is better design practice to control tenting through design rule than through a primitive attribute manually (or supposedly by default) assigned to each via. If somehow that checkbox got unchecked, how would you notice it? Suppose you have vias of a certain size and you want to tent some and not others? The checkbox does make a way for you to do this, but there is a better way, and that is to convert the vias to pads, give the pads a distinctive name (say TENTED for the ones you want tented), and create a pad-scope design rule for Free-TENTED. Vias are basically free pads with the restriction that they are only round and do not have names. If you want to distinguish some of these vias from others, it is better to select them and convert them to free pads (with Tools/Convert); then -- they will still be selected -- you can globally edit them to give them a distinguishing name. I do not want to end up with a board that has some vias tented and some not, and the global edit on the complete board afterwards is too easiliy forgotten. Yes. Precisely. That's why the design rule approach is better. They (the autoplaced vias) did, too Seems the rule takes precedence over the default setting. The basic error here is in assuming that the default settings. I can easily understand why one would make the assumption. *The default settings are a convenience to speed up manual design, they don't control anything.* What I don't know, it's an interesting question, is what happens if a design rule for tenting is in conflict with the checkbox on an individual via. I dislike ambiguities like
[PEDA] Vias do not tent when expected
Hi. I just discovered something strange: I like my vias tented so I keep the tenting checkbox in the default via settings dialog checked. While interactively routing a PCB I noticed that the automatically placed vias did not get tented (and the forementioned checkbox is still checked) I do not want to end up with a board that has some vias tented and some not, and the global edit on the complete board afterwards is too easiliy forgotten. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but haven't a clue Please help me out, guys.. 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] Vias do not tent when expected
At 03-03-04 22:24, BROCK RUSSELL wrote: Probably the current default for vias is not set for tenting. Check in Tools/Preferences/Defaults for the via property settings. Brock Russell Sorry Brock, just checked and is _is_ set for tenting Manually' placed vias tent, but auto-placed vias don't. Happens on two different systems (same ddb though). Leo * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Vias do not tent when expected
On 12:28 AM 4/03/2004, Leo Potjewijd said: Hi. I just discovered something strange: I like my vias tented so I keep the tenting checkbox in the default via settings dialog checked. While interactively routing a PCB I noticed that the automatically placed vias did not get tented (and the forementioned checkbox is still checked) I do not want to end up with a board that has some vias tented and some not, and the global edit on the complete board afterwards is too easiliy forgotten. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but haven't a clue Please help me out, guys.. There are two ways to force tenting on vias - or at least there are two places to control the solder mask expansion. The via has a tenting attribute and there is a design rule that controls solder mask expansion. I have no idea which has precedence, I would hope the tenting attribute of the via. However you may want to check, and play with, the Manufacturing-Solder Mask expansion rule. If you make the rule expansion ridiculously big do the auto-placed vias follow the silly expansion? Before we had the tenting attribute you had to apply a large enough negative expansion to force tenting. The checkbox being tented but the actual via being untented does sound very odd - unless there is a conflict between the rules and the tent attribute. Are the auto-placed vias the same dimensions as the manual placed vias? Are they both vias? The manual ones aren't free pads are they? (Just asking some possibly silly questions.) What happens if you save as ASCII and then re-load? What does the ASCII file show for a tented and untented via? The ASCII records are not hard to read. Not sure I have too many other ideas. Bye for now, Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Vias do not tent when expected
in 99SE the via tenting attribute (and/or the override) will take precendence over a design rule expansion amount as it should IMO i have never seen one be untented mysteriously, but maybe i never noticed it Dennis Saputelli Ian Wilson wrote: On 12:28 AM 4/03/2004, Leo Potjewijd said: Hi. I just discovered something strange: I like my vias tented so I keep the tenting checkbox in the default via settings dialog checked. While interactively routing a PCB I noticed that the automatically placed vias did not get tented (and the forementioned checkbox is still checked) I do not want to end up with a board that has some vias tented and some not, and the global edit on the complete board afterwards is too easiliy forgotten. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but haven't a clue Please help me out, guys.. There are two ways to force tenting on vias - or at least there are two places to control the solder mask expansion. The via has a tenting attribute and there is a design rule that controls solder mask expansion. I have no idea which has precedence, I would hope the tenting attribute of the via. However you may want to check, and play with, the Manufacturing-Solder Mask expansion rule. If you make the rule expansion ridiculously big do the auto-placed vias follow the silly expansion? Before we had the tenting attribute you had to apply a large enough negative expansion to force tenting. The checkbox being tented but the actual via being untented does sound very odd - unless there is a conflict between the rules and the tent attribute. Are the auto-placed vias the same dimensions as the manual placed vias? Are they both vias? The manual ones aren't free pads are they? (Just asking some possibly silly questions.) What happens if you save as ASCII and then re-load? What does the ASCII file show for a tented and untented via? The ASCII records are not hard to read. Not sure I have too many other ideas. Bye for now, Ian -- ___ 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
