Re: [PEDA] Strange behavior on unconnected pins

2001-05-07 Thread Terry Harris
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:41:43 +0100, Gisbert wrote: >sorry, but I do not at all agree with you. >>As for showing no connect pins - it is about as useful as adding a few >>ficticious components to the schematic and marking them as not fitted and >>nothing to do with the design? > >These pins are n

Re: [PEDA] Strange behavior on unconnected pins

2001-05-07 Thread ga
Hi Terry, sorry, but I do not at all agree with you. >As for showing no connect pins - it is about as useful as adding a few >ficticious components to the schematic and marking them as not fitted and >nothing to do with the design? These pins are not fictitious and have everything to do with th

Re: [PEDA] Strange behavior on unconnected pins

2001-05-07 Thread Terry Harris
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:09:41 +1100, you wrote: >On 01:08 PM 14/03/2001 -03-30, Fabian Hartery said: >>Hi Everyone, >> >>I have some real strange behavior going on with the dreaded hidden pins. >>These are being assigned sub-nets and are showing global netlist behavior >>where none exists. That me

Re: [PEDA] Strange behavior on unconnected pins

2001-05-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
At 11:44 AM 3/15/01 +1100, Ian Wilson wrote: >>There should be a quick way to make top and bottom component classes and >>assign them to already placed parts. Anyone know one? > >Design|Classes click Component tab, click Class Generator - take it from >there. Never tried it myself. From the

Re: [PEDA] Strange behavior on unconnected pins

2001-05-07 Thread Ian Wilson
On 03:30 PM 14/03/2001 -0800, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said: >For those of us who have been using Protel for a longer time than the life >of 99SE, the component clearance rules are an addition, nor a shortcoming. >Until quite recently, we had no component clearance checking. > >It is not a mature fe

Re: [PEDA] Strange behavior on unconnected pins

2001-05-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
At 01:08 PM 3/14/01 -03-30, Fabian Hartery wrote: >I have some real strange behavior going on with the dreaded hidden pins. >These are being assigned sub-nets and are showing global netlist behavior >where none exists. That means, a floating terminal of part 1, pin 2, is >shown associated with pi

Re: [PEDA] Strange behavior on unconnected pins

2001-05-07 Thread Fabian Hartery
imited Paradise, Newfoundland -Original Message- From: Peter Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 5:08 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Strange behavior on unconnected pins Fabian Hartery wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > I have some real strange

Re: [PEDA] Strange behavior on unconnected pins

2001-05-07 Thread Ian Wilson
On 01:08 PM 14/03/2001 -03-30, Fabian Hartery said: >Hi Everyone, > >I have some real strange behavior going on with the dreaded hidden pins. >These are being assigned sub-nets and are showing global netlist behavior >where none exists. That means, a floating terminal of part 1, pin 2, is >shown a

Re: [PEDA] Strange behavior on unconnected pins

2001-05-07 Thread Peter Bennett
Fabian Hartery wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > I have some real strange behavior going on with the dreaded hidden pins. > These are being assigned sub-nets and are showing global netlist behavior > where none exists. That means, a floating terminal of part 1, pin 2, is > shown associated with pin 2