Re: [PEDA] Snap to Grid?
At 01:42 AM 5/5/2004, John Girvan wrote: thanks all for your help... i was just playing about with some tracks and had them at 8 mil thick on an 8mil grid spaced at 8mil edge to edge and wanted to change them to 10mil edge to edge - thus, change the grid, 'snap to grid' and hope! more curiosity than a neccessity... im just fumbling about in my first few months on 99SE... i moved them manually... Consider what would happen if there were a set of tracks at 8/8, one selected the tracks and there were a command which would snap to grid, in this case a 10 mil grid. The command would have to determine *which* grid to snap to, because the tracks are starting out on a 16 mil grid and need to be on, what? an 18 mil grid? a 20 mil grid? If I assume 18 mils -- i.e., 10 mils edge to edge, then where is the starting reference? It would have to be specified. And what would be moved, really, would not be the *tracks* but, more precisely, the *endpoints*. And what happens to something else that connects to the track? Does it become disconnected? Now, Mentor Expedition is a very expensive program, compared to Protel, if I've got it right. I think I recall seeing a demo one time. The interactive autorouting tools were really impressive. Here is how I look at the situation Mr. Girvan brought us. I have a group of tracks that are routed with 8 mil clearance rules. I want to increase the clearance rules to 10 mils. *This is an autorouter task.* To do this in the Protel environment, one would change the design rule. Then one would run a command that does not exist: Reroute violating track, and a simple autorouter would attempt to reroute the tracks while keeping the route topology the same. However, the need for something like this is not huge, because it is unusual that design rules get increased like that, and track bundles are not usually more than a few tracks wide. And the manual router is pretty fast at something like this. I'd just change the rule and run a DRC. Then I'd set Loop Removal and just redraw the tracks (it's not necessary to delete the original, generally, Loop Removal will do that). For, say, five tracks, not even a minute. It is just a topology change. A less experienced user might try to Move the tracks. That is going to be *much* slower. Rerouting them as described will automatically follow the new rules with no fuss. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Snap to Grid?
At 06:41 PM 5/4/2004, John Girvan wrote: As a new Protel User, coming over from Mentor 'Expedition' series, im trying to find a 'snap to grid' option as per Mentor, im sure there is something ive overlooked basically, i have drawn in a row of 3 straight 'dummy' tracks on an 8th grid. If i change to a 10th grid can i select them all, then 'snap to grid' and they all snap to the grid or do i have to select them each individually then snap them by 'pushing them' as i have been doing I'm not sure what is meant by 8th grid or 10th grid. It might mean 125 mils and 100 mils respectively, or it might mean something else Anyway, I've never seen anything like this in Protel except for Move to Grid which you mention: i know you can snap components to grid but what about other draw objects? I would not rule out that there is a way to do this in DXP, though it could be more trouble than it would be worth, but my question is, really, why do you want this? You have a set of tracks. You want to move them to, perhaps, tighten them up. If you are routing with Place Interactive, and you have Mode/Push Obstacle enabled, banging a track up against your collection of tracks will shove them to design rule clearance. If, for example, you had 8 mil tracks on a 20 mil grid, and your clearance rule is 8 mils for those nets, Shove will compress them to 8/8. And you don't even have to do anything but route your next track. Manual routing in Protel is really gridless. That is, you may use a grid for convenience, but what will ultimately control track spacing is not just the grid, but the clearance rules. Isn't this the way it should be? If you want to create an array of objects on some grid, you can use Edit/Paste Special/Paste Array * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Snap to Grid?
On 01:03 PM 5/05/2004, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said: ..snip.. i know you can snap components to grid but what about other draw objects? I would not rule out that there is a way to do this in DXP, though it could be more trouble than it would be worth, but my question is, really, why do you want this? You can move rooms to the grid in P2004 - depending on the rules that have been set up using the rooms this will probably move everything in the room but it won't necessarily move them to grid. You have a set of tracks. You want to move them to, perhaps, tighten them up. If you are routing with Place Interactive, and you have Mode/Push Obstacle enabled, banging a track up against your collection of tracks will shove them to design rule clearance. If, for example, you had 8 mil tracks on a 20 mil grid, and your clearance rule is 8 mils for those nets, Shove will compress them to 8/8. And you don't even have to do anything but route your next track. Manual routing in Protel is really gridless. That is, you may use a grid for convenience, but what will ultimately control track spacing is not just the grid, but the clearance rules. Isn't this the way it should be? Also, don't forget that instead of re-positioning individual tracks it is (usually) easier to use the Loop Removal feature, along with the electrical snap, and simply replace the section of interest. This works especially well when running around with bunch of internal corners (the Avoid Obstacle mode keeps you at the design rule) but is not quite as good when going around an external corner. I have suggested that there be some sort of support added (to P2004) for hugging external corners when manual routing and the Avoid Obstacle mode is on. I agree with Abd ul-Rahman, for the last few years I have been increasingly (and now exclusively) routing gridless - I set my clearance rules and then use the placement modes to keep everything happy. Rework with Loop Removal means I don't have to worry about tracks being on grid or difficulties in maintaining 45 deg angles. Is this the sort of thing you are worried about. I assume Menotor would have all these same sort of tools and features. As Abd ul-Rahman asked, what and why do you want to move to grid? It may help us answer better. Ian Wilson * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
