Hi All,
Below is a snip from on going discussions between Geoff Harland and
myself. I was neglectful in adding my two cents to the Forum if not only
to get feedback but to back the merits of his suggestion for Protel to hear.
It is faily long, so anyone not interested please disregard.
Thanks,
Jim McGrath
CAD Connections, Inc.
Geoff Harland wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I recall you once emailing me with some details of a PCB that you had
> designed, in which you wanted various pads to connect to different Power
> Plane layers in different ways (Direct Connect, Thermal Relief Connect, or
> No Connect). Although I didn't respond to you soon afterwards, I did
> eventually send you a response in which I suggested that you could specify
> the pads concerned to Direct Connect to the Power Plane layers, and then add
> primitives (arcs or single layer pads) to each Power Plane layer as
> appropriate to effectively change each connection between each pad and each
> Power Plane layer to whatever you required (i.e. Thermal Relief Connect or
> No Connect). I acknowledged that there was a "Mickey Mouse" aspect to doing
> things that way, but also said that it would at least save you from having
> to manipulate Gerber files after these had been generated and/or change
> Design Rules or other aspects of the PCB's design in between generating
> Gerber files for different layers.
Yes, that is still a concern of mine. I feel the workaround you suggested will
work but may be very time consuming as apposed to being able to do it
globally by some common denominator for the given primitives.
>
>
> I don't know if you saw a relatively recent posting of mine to the TechServ
> Protel Users forum, in which I suggested that the existing Design Rules
> should be enhanced so that users could not only specify how each pad
> connects to and does not connect to the Power Plane layers (Connection
> Style, and Power Plane Expansion settings), but additionally have the
> ability to specify how each pad connects to and does not connect to *each*
> of the Power Plane layers.
Yes I did and couldn't agree more.
>
>
> Although that would be a Design Rule implementation of customised
> connections (and clearances), as opposed to an AdvPcb 2.8 type of
> implementation (using the "Pad" dialog box), it would still permit
> customised connections and clearances to be defined, and without having to
> resort to the "Mickey Mouse" technique of adding arcs and pads on each of
> the Power Plane layers where you didn't want a pad to make a Direct
> Connection to the layer concerned. And for the benefit of those who liked
> the "AdvPcb 2.8" way, I suggested that the "Pad" dialog box be enhanced so
> that these settings were at least *displayed*, and that while users should
> not be able to change these settings *directly*, pushbuttons could be
> provided so that an appropriate "Design Rule" dialog box could be invoked
> which would permit the user to change the associated settings for that pad
> (or for a number of pads) by defining a new Design Rule. That way, pad
> Connect Styles on each Power Plane layer settings would be defined *solely*
> by Design Rules, but certain "Design Rule" dialog boxes could be invoked
> from "Pad" (or "Via") dialog boxes, in addition to (/ rather than just by)
> the current method of invoking the Process provided for examining and
> editing Design Rules.
While I liked the 2.8 methode I feel that Protel has a large commitment
to the design rule methode. Therefore I whole heartedly agree with your
suggestion of the "design rule generator" being implimented based on a
simple querie that would work on all items selected at the time of the querie.
I could see how this rule generator could work for many aspects not only
for my need to modify pads/plane hits.
>
>
> I was hoping that you would have seen my posting and responded to it on the
> TechServ Protel Users forum as well, so that Protel's staff would have
> gained the impression that it was not just me who saw merit in what I
> suggested. In that regard, while it would have been preferable for you to
> have responded to my posting sooner, perhaps there is still something to be
> said for you to respond to that posting at this stage though.
I apologise as I do recognise the need send the loudest voice to Protel that
we possibly can.
> As a minimum, I see merit in at least displaying Power Plane
> properties in "Pad" and "Via" dialog boxes, but yet better would be the
> ability to also invoke appropriate "Design Rule" dialog boxes (from newly
> provided pushbuttons in the "Pad" and "Via" dialog boxes), thus permitting
> indirect changes to these properties (i.e. via Design Rules). I see that way
> as providing a hybrid which combines the best features of the "AdvPcb 2.8"
> way and the "Design Rules" way, whereas in comparison I regard the current
> implementation of setting Solder Mask and Paste Mask expansion values as
> being the *worst* of both these ways to some extent, because customised
> changes made from "Pad" and "Via" dialog boxes are *not* "reported" by the
> "Design Rule" dialog boxes.
Yes, especially since that used to be defined at libray level. Now I have to
set
up
many rules based on the many differnet types of components on a given
board.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
