Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 components on the bottom layer ie. allowing you to move the mechanical bits to another layer and mirroring them when necessary. Put another way, wouldn't it be better, even now, to define a set of properly paired layers and (harking back to my original point) to make sure that ALL future layers are paired. _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 no pairing add to the confusion. Perhaps this is just my limited use of mechanical layers for assembly purposes ... what else are they used for that wouldn't deserve pairing ? Douglas McDonald I saw this posting at the time, intended to answer it, and am doing so now. Objects which reside on unpaired layers would remain on the same layers following an inversion (or partial inversion) of a PCB file, but like *all* items undergoing inversion, they would effectively be mirrored compared with previously (e.g. the mirrored state of all Strings toggle, and an arc whose start and end angles were previously (say) 0 deg and 90 deg (respectively) would change to 90 deg and 180 deg (respectively, and assuming a vertical inverting axis)). In some cases it would be preferable for some text items (on such layers) to remain in an unmirrored state, and if those items had been amongst those inverted, it would indeed then be necessary to follow the inverting procedure with other procedures which restored such items (and perhaps other objects on the same layers) into a desirable state. Exactly what following procedures should be undertaken at the time would depend upon the circumstances, but a typical scenario would involve deselecting everything, selecting all items on *some* of the layers of an unpaired nature (but not, for instance, selecting items on the KeepOut layer, or whichever Mechanical layer has been assigned to define the PCB's border), mirroring all selected items, moving those items to an appropriate location, then de-selecting everything yet again. Having to undergo such additional procedures could be regarded as a drawback of using an inverting procedure. That said, inversion would still be a useful capability to have provided, and an appropriate level of diligence would minimise the associated drawbacks; one example could be to cut various objects from a PCB file, then invert everything that is remaining, then to paste the previously cut objects back into the PCB file again. In other cases, when only *some* items in a PCB file are to be inverted (and assuming that such partial inversion was actually possible), the user could arrange to ensure that only those items which are desired to be inverted are in a selected state when invoking the inverting procedure. When I suggested (relatively recently) the provision of yet more layers, I envisaged that these would *all* be of a paired nature, and with those pairing relationships being of a *fixed* nature; I suggested that as an *alternative* to my longer-standing suggestion of providing an user-configurable pairing feature for the *existing* Mechanical layers, because it occurred to me (over an extended period of time) that having what in effect would be a variable type of pairing for those layers had the potential to cause problems (which Ian Wilson has since commented on as well). I did also suggest as yet another (and *distinct*) alternative the possibility of Protel emulating Autocad and PCAD in regard of users being able to define their layers as required, along with being able to pair such layers to one another. If that was implemented, and if users so wanted, they could define new layers that were solely of a paired nature. However, I still think that if such a feature was to be provided, then users should also be able to define layers of an *unpaired* nature, because users would typically want some items to *not* change layers following the inversion of a PCB file, even though followup action would often still be required following an inversion procedure (to restore such text items to an unmirrored state, for instance). Using a Mechanical layer to define the PCB's border is one example of a layer that users would not want to pair. (While it is not unheard of to use the KeepOut layer for that purpose, the true purpose of the KeepOut layer is to restrain where copper tracks can be placed, so while the border of the PCB falls in that category, there can also be *other* areas within a PCB where, for whatever reason, tracks should not be placed; in such cases, the KeepOut layer is not *just* defining the PCB's border. And in any event, the KeepOut layer, as implemented, is another example of a layer of an inherently unpaired nature.) Another example is using a Mechanical layer to hold text to document various aspects of a PCB, and/or to contain a '.Layer_Name' Special String, for the purpose of identifying different Gerber files and/or printouts. (If an entire PCB file was inverted, the contents of the KeepOut layer and the Mechanical layer used to define the PCB's border would typically *not* be touched afterwards, but other unpaired Mechanical layers,
Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 such a lousy job of handling designator and part numbering. If you use the current system like designator = part number = OA5, and use the designator mirrored and set to bottom silkscreen and part number set to top. Once you start to use pasted arrays and step/repeated sections, you get rubbish like connector names going from OA5 - OA5_1c. Looks like c**p on a board. Near as I can tell, this has nothing to do with pairing. But I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Broome is talking about. The way that Protel handles repeated section designators could be improved (I'd like a dialog box or configuration file or something other way to control the process), to be sure, but that is another topic. [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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 basically a mix of Protel generated arrays (with ' _1' type of renumbering from PCB) and copy/pasted sections with user defined renumbering (added suffix) Then this gets tied back in with schematic designators and becomes basically a mess. PCB builds and renumbers arrays by adding a suffix ie_1, _2, _3 SCH builds and renumbers arrays by incrementing the final number ie R1 - R2 Copy and pasting renumbered arrays in PCB gives you bizarre results like R1_1_1 which is hard to tie back to the schematic to maintain DRC ability. It really doesnt seem like a hard thing to get right. Geoff 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 idea worth considering. specially when Protel does such a lousy job of handling designator and part numbering. If you use the current system like designator = part number = OA5, and use the designator mirrored and set to bottom silkscreen and part number set to top. Once you start to use pasted arrays and step/repeated sections, you get rubbish like connector names going from OA5 - OA5_1c. Looks like c**p on a board. Clive Broome If you want to paste components while retaining the *original* designators, invoke the 'Edit/Paste Special...' command, and in the resulting 'Paste Special' dialog box, check the 'Duplicate designator' checkbox. (You will probably have to uncheck the 'Remove Duplicates' checkbox, within the 'Options' Tab of the 'Preferences' dialog box, before doing that though.) (Having duplicated components like that is best done only in panellised PCBs, and only after you are fully confident that the initial PCB fully passes muster. And when I panellise PCBs, I always retain separate files for the original PCB and for the panellised form of that.) If either additional paired layers or optional pairing of the existing Mechanical layers were to be provided though, I could still imagine some users wanting to use such layers as supplementary Silkscreen layers in some circumstances (say for Acrobat file/paper documentation of components over and above what was silkscreened onto the real PCBs themselves). And others have already commented on the merits of having a pair of Assembly layers... Regards, Geoff Harland. - E-Mail Disclaimer The Information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are confidential and not for public display. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 basically a mix of Protel generated arrays (with ' _1' type of renumbering from PCB) and copy/pasted sections with user defined renumbering (added suffix) Then this gets tied back in with schematic designators and becomes basically a mess. PCB builds and renumbers arrays by adding a suffix ie_1, _2, _3 SCH builds and renumbers arrays by incrementing the final number ie R1 - R2 Copy and pasting renumbered arrays in PCB gives you bizarre results like R1_1_1 which is hard to tie back to the schematic to maintain DRC ability. It really doesnt seem like a hard thing to get right. Clive Broome OK, I previously misunderstood what you were trying to achieve (but it does represent a change in topic from inverting PCBs or providing the ability to have more layers of a paired nature than the existing four pairs). I have an idea that someone has released an addon server which supports pasting components with designators to match user-designated specifications. But apart from that, it would be nice if Altium could improve upon what is currently provided on a built in nature in this regard. (A Paste Array command that not only satisfactorily designated (free) *pads* for two dimensional arrays, but also designated pasted components according to the 'Text Increment' setting (or still better, an additional and newly provided 'Designator Increment' setting) within the 'Setup Paste Array' dialog box, would be a start.) Regards, Geoff Harland. - E-Mail Disclaimer The Information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are confidential and not for public display. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 no pairing add to the confusion. Perhaps this is just my limited use of mechanical layers for assembly purposes ... what else are they used for that wouldn't deserve pairing ? Doug The pairing feature would primarily be provided for use with objects (arcs, fills, pads, strings, or tracks) that are part of some component (so that the Layer property of such objects automatically changes in an appropriate manner when their parent component changes which side of the PCB it is on), but would *also* be applicable (to some extent) to free objects (those which are *not* part of some component). While the use of the L key (while moving selected items or single components or other objects) is arguably currently broken to some extent, any free object should still *also* change which layer it is on, if it is on a Mechanical layer that has been (user-)paired to another Mechanical layer, and the L key is pressed while it is being moved (either by itself or as one of a number of objects that are currently in a selected state). In that regard, the paired Mechanical layers would behave like the existing layers of a paired nature, to wit the Overlay, Paste Mask, Solder Mask, and external signal (copper) layers. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 ability to produce bottom-view assembly drawings. (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. (3) The ability to associate mech layers (or even copper layers) with top and bottom, in pairs, such that when a component is flipped, layers interchange as do, presently, top and bottom. This allows library parts to contain specific mech layer information such as an assembly drawing outline of the part, or height information. (2) and (3) are closely related. One feature that would serve the bottom-view assembly problem, which is *common*, would be display-linking of one layer with others. Someone described something as being part of PCAD that I thought sounded like this. So an assembly drawing, a mech layer, might have a section which was the PCB, bottom-view, offset, with layers enabled differently (i.e., in the normal view top overlay and top padmaster might be enabled, in the reverse view, bottom overlay and bottom padmaster.) We'd like to be able to have separate top and bottom assembly drawings *or* common drawings, a single drawing showing both sides of the board. I do this now with re-imported photoplots, the down side being that it all must be done again when the board is edited. The others are less common as needs, but note that all three problems are solved or made easier to solve by extended layer pairing with top-bottom. A few hard-wired pairs would be nice, but I'd also like to be able to pair mid layers, this might be essential for design re-use where impedance-controlled structures existed on the copper layers immediately under the parts. It might be considered that *all* layers could be paired, with an option for each layer to turn it off. If the pairing were turned off, flipping parts or board sections containing primitives on a pairing-disabled layer would not change that layer. Perhaps a new dialog box which controlled layer pairing would accomplish this. An advantage of having controlled pairing would be that libraries could then contain standard information. Yes, we should have dedicated assembly layers. This should have been done long ago [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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 have been done long ago * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
(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 do this. The IPC -D-325 Documentation standard states insec 4.2.6 VIEWING : The layout of the board design should always viewed from the primary side of the board. blah blah blah.. I have hit mechanical engineers and anyone else who wanted to view it otherwise on the head with a sledge hammer until the morons got it right.Why did I use a sledge hammer you ask? Because the only designs that ever came back with backward connectors and parts were the freaking ones they wanted flipped. Since they got my message that I wouldn't flip boards anymore, we have not had one design come back flipped. It was almost a regular occurrence because we had a mech engineer who couldn't grasps the concept of a primary side, I have even seen BGAs, and earlier days PGAs flipped because someone thought it was a good idea to look at from the bottom.The advantage of the way the software flips it now is, you know it wrong when you look at it because the text becomes backward.Yes I said the view was wrong.I really do not want this feature, I know some of you mechanical types do but I don't. You can flip right now in the x axis or y axis, neither of which is an acceptable method of documenting a design. The board must be viewed from the primary side looking thu the board. (Actually ) I am going thru this same scenario right now with a chassis because some mech bozo doesn't know up from down. Stick to the standards and everyone is on the same page Mike Reagan EDSI Frederick Md * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 VIEWING : The layout of the board design should always viewed from the primary side of the board. blah blah blah.. Sure. That makes perfect sense once it is complete. Does it define primary side ? Is that the side with the most bits, the one the through-hole parts are on, the one that matches all the mechanical drawings of the complete product or something else ? I've never seen a drawing of a chair with the legs at the top, but I am sure it spends some time like that at the upholsterer. Why should it be any different when I am laying out a PCB ? 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. I could also put the connectors on top of each other so that I know they will match up. Once I am happy, I could select everything on the bottom layer and flip them with a copy of the outline. Now I have two boards as they will be manufactured on a panel, with the components on the top, no transposition errors and I still have the ability to keep in sync with the schematic. Steve. == Steve BaldwinElectronic Product Design TLA Microsystems Ltd Microcontroller Specialists PO Box 15-680, New Lynn http://www.tla.co.nz Auckland, New Zealandph +64 9 820-2221 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax +64 9 820-1929 == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 viewed one way. Not your way or ASTM way etc. Sure. That makes perfect sense once it is complete. Does it define primary side ? Is that the side with the most bits, the one the through-hole parts are on, the one that matches all the mechanical drawings of the complete product or something else ? Yes IPC T50 defines the primary side as the side with the most components sec 22.184 I've never seen a drawing of a chair with the legs at the top, but I am sure it spends some time like that at the upholsterer. Why should it be any different when I am laying out a PCB ? I cant speak for the chair it is governed by tag removal laws which I do not have documentioan on. I guess the chair can be rotate without contradicting IPC standards since IPC does not apply to the chair 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. I could also put the connectors on top of each other so that I know they will match up. Once I am happy, I could select everything on the bottom layer and flip them with a copy of the outline. Now I have two boards as they will be manufactured on a panel, with the components on the top, no transposition errors and I still have the ability to keep in sync with the schematic. You can flip x or y now and it flips correctly so why does anyone what to flip so it contrary to design standards? I dint get your point, but I have seen boards backwards when these standards were ignored. The problem is that mech engineers and designer dont know how to view a board. Mike Reagan EDSI Frederick * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 board from the bottom up and I cant figure out why anyone would do this. I think I explained it, but it was a bit densely stated. I'll dilate it a bit. Suppose, I have designed a little piece of RF circuitry on the top of a PCB, including vias to layers just below, and this has been used successfully, tested, etc. Now I have another design where I would like to use this same circuitry, only I need to place it on the bottom. The rest of the design is on the top. The IPC -D-325 Documentation standard states insec 4.2.6 VIEWING : The layout of the board design should always viewed from the primary side of the board. Primary side of the board gets a tad arbitrary with SMT designs with components on both sides. Sometimes there are even through-hole components on both sides. Yes. But we are not talking about documentation of the layout, but rather the layout itself, for one, where we might need to merge designs, flipping some of them and not others, plus, in documentation, we are talking about assembly drawings. Assembly drawings are traditionally done as viewed from the side being assembled. blah blah blah.. I have hit mechanical engineers and anyone else who wanted to view it otherwise on the head with a sledge hammer until the morons got it right. Tsk, tsk. I'd be a moron too if I were being regularly hit over the head with a sledgehammer. Why did I use a sledge hammer you ask? Because the only designs that ever came back with backward connectors and parts were the freaking ones they wanted flipped. Since they got my message that I wouldn't flip boards anymore, we have not had one design come back flipped. It was almost a regular occurrence because we had a mech engineer who couldn't grasps the concept of a primary side, I have even seen BGAs, and earlier days PGAs flipped because someone thought it was a good idea to look at from the bottom. I remember one layout where I was using a DIP relay and the only description I had of the relay was a catalog photo of it; the relay had a drawing pasted on top showing the pinout. Naturally, much to my chagrin, it was a bottom view. When I got the actual relay, there was even a tiny piece of text, not readable in the catalog, which said pin view or something like that. Yes, I understand Mr. Reagan's concern. But I'd make an exception for *bottom assembly drawings, which are not used for fab but for assembly reference. One should be able to easily look at the drawing and at the physical board and say, yes, they put that diode in correctly. If that is easy for Mr. Reagan, my congratulations on his profound sense of spatial relations, with which I am fairly good, but not that good. And I think that most people are like me. I can read mirrored text without much difficulty, but determining orientations can get a tad dicey. I end up saying to myself the cathode end will be near the IC or something like that, so that I don't have to depend on left or right. Which get reversed in a mirror view, unless it is rotated. The advantage of the way the software flips it now is, you know it wrong when you look at it because the text becomes backward.Yes I said the view was wrong.I really do not want this feature, I know some of you mechanical types do but I don't. You can flip right now in the x axis or y axis, neither of which is an acceptable method of documenting a design. The board must be viewed from the primary side looking thu the board. (Actually ) I am going thru this same scenario right now with a chassis because some mech bozo doesn't know up from down. Stick to the standards and everyone is on the same page I don't think the standards conflict with what I am saying, but I could not find my copies at the moment In any case, bottom view assembly drawings are very common. Techserv does them, for example (or did,as I recall, last time I saw one of their assembly drawings). How does Mr. Reagan propose doing a bottom assembly drawing where there are components on both sides? Especially if, as would be normal, there is only *one* assembly drawing for the board? [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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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. I could also put the connectors on top of each other so that I know they will match up. Once I am happy, I could select everything on the bottom layer and flip them with a copy of the outline. Now I have two boards as they will be manufactured on a panel, with the components on the top, no transposition errors and I still have the ability to keep in sync with the schematic. Steve Baldwin You can flip x or y now and it flips correctly so why does anyone what to flip so it contrary to design standards? I dint get your point, but I have seen boards backwards when these standards were ignored. The problem is that mech engineers and designer dont know how to view a board. Mike Reagan It is currently possible to *mirror* a PCB file (using the X or Y key), but due care is required when doing so, because of the potential to produce a PCB which contains mirrored footprints (which can't have real world components fitted to them). OTOH, an inverted PCB file contains components which are *still* in an *unmirrored* state (but on the opposite side of the PCB to previously). Inverting a PCB is thus inherently safer than mirroring it, because it is not necessary (nor sensible) to mirror components that are (newly) added to an inverted PCB, whereas that *is* necessary in the case of a mirrored PCB (because not mirroring them at that time will result in them being in a mirrored state after the entire PCB file is subsequently re-mirrored/un-mirrored). An inverted PCB should be inverted a second time (to restore it to its previous state) in order to comply with IPC standards, *but*, if that is *not* done, the PCB will nevertheless *still* be capable of being assembled, because none of its footprints will be in a mirrored state. However, using the alternative (and currently available) option of mirroring a PCB file does result in an increased risk of the manufactured PCBs incorporating mirrored footprints, due to the potential for the PCB designer to forget to (or overlook the need to) re-mirror/un-mirror the PCB file, or to *not* mirror components which are added to the PCB file while this is in a mirrored state. And apart from that, as others have already said, there can be occasions when it is desirable to invert an entire PCB, or else parts of this, when re-using such work in another new job. I don't know if the concept of inverting a PCB has previously occurred to Altium, but to some extent it is not surprising that such a feature has not been provided to date. As I have said on previous occasions, the provision of this feature could open large cans of worms, as there are issues to consider concerning what aspects of a PCB should be inverted. That is not just an issue when an *entire* PCB file is inverted (as there are differences between Standard Inversion and Deep Inversion), but also when just *some* of a PCB file (such as those objects that are currently selected) is inverted. I, and others, have pointed out why the provision of an inverting feature could be beneficial. But even if the feature of on-line inversion of an *entire* PCB file is not provided in Phoenix (off-line inversion is possible for users to implement (conditional upon ASCII versions of PCB files containing *all* of the data associated with the PCB file), and on-line inversion would also be possible for users to implement *if* the SDK files and associated documentation were up to par (something which is not currently the case with Protel 99 SE)), there is still a good case for at least improving the outcome of using the L key while moving either single objects or currently selected objects. (I have already requested others to comment on what should happen in those circumstances.) At present, the outcome of using that key is typically decidedly unsatisfactory... Regards, Geoff Harland. - E-Mail Disclaimer The Information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are confidential and not for public display. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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: http://mobile.msn.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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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) that are part of some component (so that the Layer property of such objects automatically changes in an appropriate manner when their parent component changes which side of the PCB it is on), but would *also* be applicable (to some extent) to free objects (those which are *not* part of some component). While the use of the L key (while moving selected items or single components or other objects) is arguably currently broken to some extent, any free object should still *also* change which layer it is on, if it is on a Mechanical layer that has been (user-)paired to another Mechanical layer, and the L key is pressed while it is being moved (either by itself or as one of a number of objects that are currently in a selected state). In that regard, the paired Mechanical layers would behave like the existing layers of a paired nature, to wit the Overlay, Paste Mask, Solder Mask, and external signal (copper) layers. Both free objects and non-free objects on such layers would also change layers in the event that the *entire* PCB file was inverted, and regardless of whether the inversion was of a Standard or Deep nature, and regardless of whether the inversion was provided with Protel or implemented by an user-provided addon server. I also envisage that users could pair Mechanical layers on an as-needed basis, so that up to eight pairs of paired Mechanical layers would be available for those needing that many, while others would alternatively be able to pair a smaller number of Mechanical layers, or even none at all. The implementation could be simplified to some extent (with no loss in the ability to control how many pairs of Mechanical layers are provided) by restricting the pairing feature to adjacent Mech layers. As such, Mech 1 could be paired with Mech 2, but no other layer; similarly, Mech 3 could be paired with Mech 4, but no other layer; ... ; Mech 15 could be paired with Mech 16, but no other layer. And for each such pair of adjacent Mech layers, the user could select whether those two layers actually are paired to one another or not. One way of implementing the associated user interface would be for the Setup Mechanical Layers dialog box to incorporate another eight Checkboxes (perhaps on a second Tab with a title of 'Pairing', but otherwise on the existing 'Properties' Tab). One of those (new) Checkboxes would select (and display) whether Mech 1 and Mech 2 are paired to one another or not, etc. Conceptually, Mechanical layers could *presently* be paired to one another, if an user-provided addon server was implemented which incorporated a Process for controlling (and displaying) which layers are paired to one another (details of which layers are thus paired could be retained, and within the PCB file itself, by the use of Embedded objects, a feature provided by Protel for use by developers), and one or more Processes for updating the layer properties of objects on such layers as required. A relatively recent post to this forum suggests that someone else actually has done this (or at least some of those aspects). *However*, if a component is moved to the opposite side of the PCB while using the L key (or invoking a 'Component' dialog box and then changing the 'Layer' property within that), any objects within the component that are on Mech layers of a user-paired nature will *not* have their Layer property appropriately updated at the time (unless the addon server was clever enough to be able to monitor that situation, and then arrange those properties to also be updated as required, but that would be no small task to implement, assuming it could even be done at all). And *that* is the reason why it would be desirable for this feature to be built into Protel itself. In more recent times, I suggested a couple of alternative options, such as providing eight (or sixteen) entirely new layers which would provide four (or eight) new hard-wired pairs of layers (for use *both* with components *and* otherwise, as desired by each user), or else providing the user with the ability to define new layers as desired (similar to Autocad and PCAD), together with the ability to pair these to one another as desired (similar to past versions of PCAD (and past/present versions of Autocad?)). In any event, I strongly suspect that the existing four pairs of paired layers is a source of frustration for at least some users, who would want to have more such layers available for their use. Regards, Geoff Harland. - E-Mail Disclaimer The Information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If
Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 unless you follow rigorously controlled naming conventions and usage you soon wind up with 'layer hell' which can take quite a while to sift through, sort and rename or combine acad 2002 supposedly has done something to ease this and although i have it i haven't had a chance to load it interestingly solidworks as far as i can tell in my limited explorations does not have layers at all! it seems to me that pc design is much more defined in it's scope than a do anything tool like acad and as such some structuring of layers for typical use (customizable) is adequate you most always want a title block, an outline, silkscreens and so forth and having these always setup the same from job to job takes a bit of discipline as it is i think what we need is the ability to define all this stuff once and then inherit that from a master template or from a menu of templates we do bds with parts on both sides all the time and i have not been (much) troubled by the current method of looking thru the board and flipping parts to the other side Dennis Saputelli Geoff Harland wrote: 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) that are part of some component (so that the Layer property of such objects automatically changes in an appropriate manner when their parent component changes which side of the PCB it is on), but would *also* be applicable (to some extent) to free objects (those which are *not* part of some component). While the use of the L key (while moving selected items or single components or other objects) is arguably currently broken to some extent, any free object should still *also* change which layer it is on, if it is on a Mechanical layer that has been (user-)paired to another Mechanical layer, and the L key is pressed while it is being moved (either by itself or as one of a number of objects that are currently in a selected state). In that regard, the paired Mechanical layers would behave like the existing layers of a paired nature, to wit the Overlay, Paste Mask, Solder Mask, and external signal (copper) layers. Both free objects and non-free objects on such layers would also change layers in the event that the *entire* PCB file was inverted, and regardless of whether the inversion was of a Standard or Deep nature, and regardless of whether the inversion was provided with Protel or implemented by an user-provided addon server. I also envisage that users could pair Mechanical layers on an as-needed basis, so that up to eight pairs of paired Mechanical layers would be available for those needing that many, while others would alternatively be able to pair a smaller number of Mechanical layers, or even none at all. The implementation could be simplified to some extent (with no loss in the ability to control how many pairs of Mechanical layers are provided) by restricting the pairing feature to adjacent Mech layers. As such, Mech 1 could be paired with Mech 2, but no other layer; similarly, Mech 3 could be paired with Mech 4, but no other layer; ... ; Mech 15 could be paired with Mech 16, but no other layer. And for each such pair of adjacent Mech layers, the user could select whether those two layers actually are paired to one another or not. One way of implementing the associated user interface would be for the Setup Mechanical Layers dialog box to incorporate another eight Checkboxes (perhaps on a second Tab with a title of 'Pairing', but otherwise on the existing 'Properties' Tab). One of those (new) Checkboxes would select (and display) whether Mech 1 and Mech 2 are paired to one another or not, etc. Conceptually, Mechanical layers could *presently* be paired to one another, if an user-provided addon server was implemented which incorporated a Process for controlling (and displaying) which layers are paired to one another (details of which layers are thus paired could be retained, and within the PCB file itself, by the use of Embedded objects, a feature provided by Protel for use by developers), and one or more Processes for updating the layer properties of objects on such layers as required. A relatively recent post to this forum suggests that someone else actually has done this (or at least some of those aspects). *However*, if a component is moved to the opposite side of the PCB while using the L key (or invoking a 'Component' dialog box and then changing the 'Layer' property within that),
Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 layer in internal/database representation. To similarly pair adjacent Mech layers would thus seem to be more helpful to users, overall, as they would still be able to set up a Print Configuration file which created a set of Printouts in a sequence of Mech 1, Mech 3, ... , Mech 13, Mech 15, Top Paste Mask, Top Overlay, Top Solder Mask, Top Copper, ... , Bottom Copper, Bottom Solder Mask, Bottom Overlay, Bottom Paste Mask, Mech 16, Mech 14, ... , Mech 4, Mech 2. The ideal would of course be to permit users to pair Mechanical layers to one another as they saw fit, and without any restrictions. (They could then pair in the manner you suggested if they so wanted.) Previous versions of PCAD provided a not dissimilar capability, so it is not without precedent. My suggestion of confining the pairing capability to adjacent Mech layers was based on the assumption that this would simplify the user interface and probably the actual implementation as well (and so make the implementation of this more straightforward for Altium). 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 unless you follow rigorously controlled naming conventions and usage you soon wind up with 'layer hell' which can take quite a while to sift through, sort and rename or combine acad 2002 supposedly has done something to ease this and although i have it i haven't had a chance to load it Both previous and existing versions of PCAD provide a default set of layers, which *reduces* the nature of this problem, though I concede that this is not *totally* eliminated as a consequence. I don't know how likely it is that Protel would evolve to a feature of user-defined addon layers, but I would suggest the retention of the existing four pairs of paired layers, plus the special-purpose MultiLayer, KeepOut, Drill Drawing, and Drill Guide layers as the default, pre-defined set of layers (which users would not be able to re-number, re-name, or delete). The provision of a suitable Wizard could facilitate what happens when users want to merge files with differing sets of layers (and while I am not familiar with Acad 2002, I suspect that something like that may well have been provided within it). But to some extent, this situation is not dissimilar to merging *existing* PCB files, when the Mechanical layers have been assigned different names and/or purposes... interestingly solidworks as far as i can tell in my limited explorations does not have layers at all! it seems to me that pc design is much more defined in it's scope than a do anything tool like acad and as such some structuring of layers for typical use (customizable) is adequate you most always want a title block, an outline, silkscreens and so forth and having these always setup the same from job to job takes a bit of discipline as it is i think what we need is the ability to define all this stuff once and then inherit that from a master template or from a menu of templates we do bds with parts on both sides all the time and i have not been (much) troubled by the current method of looking thru the board and flipping parts to the other side Dennis Saputelli The provision of additional Mechanical layers in Protel 99 SE could be regarded as indicative that while the dominant reason for using Protel continues to be to design PCBs, it is also enhancing its ability to accommodate other aspects of PCB design, such as mechanical details, supplementary documentation, etc. P-CAD 2001 has eleven hard-wired/pre-defined layers: the unpaired Board la yer, eight layers corresponding to the paired layers available in Protel 99 SE, and yet another pair of Assy (Assembly) layers. Assembly layers are one example of additional paired layers that many Protel users would probably want to have provided; another conceivable example could be two Height layers, in which height details of each component are depicted in some manner (so that if a component is moved to the other side of the PCB, associated height documentation details also change to the appropriate layer). The provision of a feature of adding your own layers as you see fit could be regarded as overkill for an application whose dominant purpose is to design PCBs, but perhaps one reason why PCAD provided this feature in the past (and continues to do so) is to lure prospective owners with the idea of owning an application which can match Autocad in (at least) that regard (and thus spare many such users from having to *also* purchase Autocad). But P-CAD is currently up-market
Re: [PEDA] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 to which layers are used for what. Just my 0.02, Darren Moore * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 to which layers are used for what. Just my 0.02, Darren Moore IMO, your suggestion is not devoid of merit. However, many users would probably not want as many as four pairs of paired Mech layers (and at least some could well want *none* of the Mech layers to be paired to one another). As such, unless the pairing of each of these layers could be disabled by the user, that would reduce the utility of those layers to such users. In the form I originally suggested, users would be able to select whether they had 8 sets of paired Mech layers and no unpaired Mech layers, or 7 sets of paired Mech layers and 2 unpaired Mech layers, or 6 sets of paired Mech layers and 4 unpaired Mech layers, ... , or 1 set of paired Mech layers and 14 unpaired Mech layers, or no sets of paired Mech layers and 16 unpaired Mech layers. Perhaps it is unlikely that anyone would want more than four sets of paired Mech layers, so the default names of the Mech layers could perhaps be changed along the lines you suggest. But I still submit that there is something to be said for being able to select which of those pairs of Mech layers actually do have the pairing feature enabled. And to avoid potential complications of whether particular Mech layers are paired to one another or not (i.e. whether the pairing feature is activated or not), was the reason behind my more recent suggestion of providing yet more additional layers, in which the pairing feature is of a permanent/hard-wired nature. These could have default names of Top Mech 1-4 (or 1-8) and Bottom Mech 1-4 (or 1-8), or Top Aux 1-4/8 and Bottom Aux 1-4/8, though presumably the user could rename these as desired (as with existing Mech and internal copper layers). The provision of yet more layers could be regarded as overkill by some, but then again, how many users use *all* of the *existing* layers (other than perhaps to fully test out Protel 99 SE)? OTOH, this suggestion has been made in relatively recent times, so perhaps it is too late to incorporate in Phoenix. OTGH (on the gripping hand (from three-armed motie aliens in two SF novels written by Niven Pournelle)), perhaps this is something that has already occurred to Altium, who could well have anticipated that there could be problems associated with providing a selective enabling of the pairing feature with the existing Mech layers. (We will find out in the not too distant future what Phoenix will be providing in this regard.) Regards, Geoff Harland. - E-Mail Disclaimer The Information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are confidential and not for public display. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Paired Mechanical layers (ex Inversion ...)
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 assemblies. Too much effort from what I see to deal with this appropriately other than making a top and bottom footprints, which really takes us backwards a few years in the way of doing things. Robert M. Wolfe I have also suggested the concept of being able to pair Mechanical layers to one another from time to time in the past, so it is not totally out of the question that such a feature could be provided in Phoenix (given that this is not a suggestion that has first reared its head in the past few days). In a previous job I used a DOS version of P-CAD (specifically version AD2.0), and that provided the feature of being able to define new layers as desired, and to also pair layers to one another as desired. In its contemporary manifestation, to wit P-CAD 2001, the ability to define new layers as desired is still there, ... but the ability to pair layers to one another is not currently provided (with only five pairs of layers being available, to wit, the pre-defined Assembly, Overlay, Paste Mask, Solder Mask, and external copper layers). However, I would not dismiss the possibility that that aspect of previous versions of PCAD could be restored (to future versions of P-CAD) at some stage... Another possibility (in Protel/Phoenix), rather than providing the ability to pair the *existing* Mechanical layers as required, would be to provide still more non-copper layers that are of a hard-wired paired nature. For example, Top Aux 1, Bottom Aux 1, Top Aux 2, ... , Bottom Aux 4 (8 new layers), or Top Aux 1, ... , Bottom Aux 8 (16 new layers); perhaps users could also have the ability to rename these layers as desired, e.g. Top Aux 1 and Bottom Aux 1 could be renamed, by the user, as Top Assembly and Bottom Assembly. And yet another possibility would be for Protel/Phoenix to implement an aspect of Autocad and PCAD, and provide the user with an ability to define new layers as desired, with each layer being of either a Signal, Power Plane, or mechanical/non-copper type; such layers should also be pairable to one another as desired (or at least for layers of a non-copper nature). (Certain layers, to wit the Overlay, Paste Mask, Solder Mask, external copper, MultiLayer, Keep Out, Drill Draw, and Drill Guide layers, would be pre-defined, but all other layers would be defined by the user as required.) To some extent, that would be a break from the Protel Way (as implemented to date), but it still need not be totally incompatible with that... (The predefined layers could be numbered as layers 1 to 12 in the Protel database format, and with user-defined layers starting from layer 13; one of the fields of each Layer object could be a variable that identifies the type of the layer (Signal, Power Plane, or Mechanical), with another field identifying the number of the other layer that the layer is paired to (with that number being set to zero (the null layer) if the layer is not paired), and yet another field containing the name assigned to the layer by the user, etc.) As I mentioned in another relatively recent post, apparently Phoenix will at least be providing an enhanced padstacks feature; one aspect could be providing the ability to define *different* solder mask expansion values for *each* side of the PCB (for Through Hole vias and MultiLayer pads), though I suspect that there will be more to it than just that. So fingers crossed that many of the current bugs and shortcomings of the PCB Server will also be seen to in Phoenix... Regards, Geoff Harland. - E-Mail Disclaimer The Information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are confidential and not for public display. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *