Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-28 Thread Douglas McDonald
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-28 Thread Geoff Harland
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-28 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-28 Thread Clive . Broome
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-28 Thread Geoff Harland
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-27 Thread Douglas McDonald
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-27 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-27 Thread Bob Wolfe
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-27 Thread Mike Reagan
(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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-27 Thread Steve Baldwin
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-27 Thread Mike Reagan
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-27 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-27 Thread Geoff Harland
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.

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-26 Thread Douglas McDonald
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:

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-26 Thread Geoff Harland
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)

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-26 Thread Dennis Saputelli
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-26 Thread Geoff Harland
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-26 Thread Darren Moore
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-26 Thread Geoff Harland
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

Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)

2002-02-25 Thread Geoff Harland
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