There are problems with doing X and Y flips - they don't swap layers and
they leave components in upside-down. The L-Flip (layer flip) with
selections is also fraught.
What purpose does X Y flip serve with respect to the components themselves
apart from sorting out assembly layer issues for
Doesn't any unpaired layer (mechanical or otherwise) preclude the
implementation of a true flip board function in the future? The main
concerns about flip board have been what to do with layers especially
those
that don't have a logical flipped layer, so doesn't adding more layers
which
have
At 10:53 AM 3/1/2002 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paired top and bottom silkscreens would be another idea worth considering.
Within the meaning of paired as we have been discussing the issue, top
and bottom overlays (legend, silkscreen) are already paired.
specially when Protel does
Harland [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 03/01/2002 11:11:30 AM
Please respond to Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Clive Broome/sdc)
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
Paired top and bottom silkscreens would be another
Sure but doing this removes components unique identifier and the ability
to do
DRC against the schematic. For particular types of boards basically large
numbers of repeating sections ( 'widebus' logic test boards) using
connectors
mounted from the bottom side and a number of sites, its
Doesn't any unpaired layer (mechanical or otherwise) preclude the
implementation of a true flip board function in the future? The main
concerns about flip board have been what to do with layers especially those
that don't have a logical flipped layer, so doesn't adding more layers which
have
At 10:31 PM 2/26/2002 -1100, Douglas McDonald wrote:
Doesn't any unpaired layer (mechanical or otherwise) preclude the
implementation of a true flip board function in the future?
Let's back up and go for the ultimate functions which are presently lacking
except through workarounds:
(1) The
I'll keep it short and not copy the other post totaly, but it pretty much
puts the issues right on the money. Especially the statement below about
dedicated assembly layers.
Robert M. Wolfe, C.I.D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman wrote
Yes, we should have dedicated assembly layers. This should
(2) The ability to truly flip a design or design section for re-use in a
new design which might predominantly be oriented bottom-up from the point
of view of the first design.
I've read all the threads about wanting to view a board from the bottom up
and I cant figure out why anyone would
I've read all the threads about wanting to view a board from the
bottom up and I cant figure out why anyone would do this.
Because it can eliminate having to manually transpose dimensions
and therefore, a source of error.
The IPC
-D-325 Documentation standard states insec 4.2.6
Because it can eliminate having to manually transpose dimensions
and therefore, a source of error.
Let keep it in perspective: PCB design is governed by IPC , mechanical
widgets are govenened by ASTM, ASE, ( not sure about all the acronyms)
but the whole point is IPC says it must be
At 01:55 PM 2/27/2002 -0500, Mike Reagan wrote:
[I wrote]
(2) The ability to truly flip a design or design section for re-use in a
new design which might predominantly be oriented bottom-up from the point
of view of the first design.
I've read all the threads about wanting to view a
snip
In fact, I have a job at the moment where it would be a really useful
tool. There are two boards that plug together component side to
component side. If such a tool existed, I could place components
on both sides of a single outline so that I could check for
interferences as I go.
Geoff,
Does your suggested pairing mechanism only come into play for components
which are placed on the back of the board or is it to be used elsewhere as
well?
Doug
_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
Geoff,
Does your suggested pairing mechanism only come into play for components
which are placed on the back of the board or is it to be used elsewhere as
well?
Douglas McDonald
The pairing feature would primarily be provided for use with objects (arcs,
fills, pads, strings, or tracks)
wouldn't you want pairing to be mech 1 with 16 and mech 2 with 15, etc.
?
as to the ad hoc layer naming and creation in autocad ...
it can be as much of a source of clutter and trouble as it can be an aid
in getting the job done
much of the trouble comes when trying to re-use and merge designs
wouldn't you want pairing to be mech 1 with 16 and mech 2 with 15, etc.
?
While I can appreciate what you are saying, the *existing* layers of a
paired nature (with the exception of the external copper layers) are
adjacent to one another in dialog boxes and in the numbers assigned to
each
wouldn't you want pairing to be mech 1 with 16 and mech 2
with 15, etc. ?
I would name say 8 layers as Top Mech 1-4 and bottom Mech 1-4
to keep the same naming style as for the current top/bottom
layer pairs. This would leave 8 mech layers not paired.
That way it would force some standard
wouldn't you want pairing to be mech 1 with 16 and mech 2
with 15, etc. ?
I would name say 8 layers as Top Mech 1-4 and bottom Mech 1-4
to keep the same naming style as for the current top/bottom
layer pairs. This would leave 8 mech layers not paired.
That way it would force some
Even if it has been talked about I would add that this is very much needed
in capability. However or if ever Altium decides to implement something
like
this.
But as the software stands now it is very clunky with respect
to package info on a mechanical layer with respect to two sided
20 matches
Mail list logo