At 01:13 PM 6/29/01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Since everyone seems to be listing their suggested improvements for
>Protel, perhaps in anticipation of a new release soon, here are a few
>simple suggestions:
It's almost certainly too late to hit the next release. But some changes
are made through service packs, and we do know that Protel has, in the
past, collected suggestions made on this list, and many of them have been
implemented. They ask that we send suggestions and bug reports directly to
Protel, but it is much more fun to write about them here! Protel should
recognize that and not waste time -- theirs and ours -- trying to get
direct reports except as part of special programs (such as from Beta testers).
>- The ability to change or delete split planes and polygons should not
>be possible through mouse clicks/dragging, or perhaps this could be
>disabled as an option, too much time is wasted saying no to changes for
>the planes/polygons when an operation on a component or trace was what
>was intended.
Definitely it should not be impossible, but, yes, it would be good to be
able to turn it off. One way is to disable display of polygons, but that is
not fully satisfactory, since we might want to be able to see them still....
This is a special problem with polygons because they occupy so much board
space. They can be a real nuisance.
>- After the hole size editor lists the hole sizes it should be able to
>select each size of pads, a report on pad coordinates would also be
>helpful in finding that one hole size among thousands.
Hmm... I think you can select holes based on coordinates with the Query
Manager, or it might be quicker to just place a pad with the appropriate
hole and then do a global edit on it to select all holes with the same
size. Then Jump Select will find it. Yes, having a selection box to check
next to the sizes would be helpful.
>- Vias and pads should not snap to ratsnest lines. This is a problem
>when trying to place them at particular coordinates and having them snap
>to a nearby ratsnest line.
Right. You can turn off snap, but it is hard to imagine why one would want
to snap to a ratsnest line.
>- Hitting the spacebar after placing a via when trying to change the
>trace alignment instead places another via, fix this.
This process could use some work.
>- In the schematic browse parts, All In Hierarchy should be the default.
Yes, yes.
Somewhat similarly, when doing a global edit on a component, the default
should be All Primitives, not Free Primitives!
>- Many obvious improvements could be made in the auto
>increment/decrement pin numbers operation.
Some have been suggested in the past. In particular, being able to define
sequence files could be useful. This would allow alphabetical increments,
with or without skipped letters like O; something similar it would also
allow letters beyond Z to be defined as AA, AB, etc. instead of the present
mess with multi-part symbols. Tango had a renumbering tool that could be
used to renumber parts or pins; it used a wildcard and a controllable
increment. So if the pin basename were A?, and the increment were 3, and
the initial number were 2, it would number A2,A5,A8,... As simple as it
was, it was very useful. Protel has nothing like it. You want to renumber
pins in a footprint? Tedious.... You want to control component renumbering?
You have to individually edit each part. This is one place where Protel
lacks what I consider a basic tool.
>- Many of the print setup options of the CAM manager and schematic print
>setup have to be re-entered each time even though they have been saved.
No, I don't think so, at least not with the CAM manager. This would require
a better explanation. If you want to re-use a CAM setup with a new file,
just copy it and, if needed, rename it.
>- Right click pan should be transferred to the schematic package.
Yes.
>- When placing a track in Protel 2.8 didn't it automatically switch to
>the layer that the pad or track you were connecting to was on? That
>helped a lot, though sometimes it got in the way. An option to turn that
>on or off would be nice.
I thought it still did this. I just checked. Yes, it does. An option to
turn it off? Maybe, but maybe it would not be worth the increased
complexity of options. Every new option ends up confusing someone who
inadvertently turns it off and then wonders why the program is not
operating. And if you want to do this, you might Place Line instead of
Place Track (which is now called Place interactive rouTing -- why wasn't it
Place inTeractive routing?). It will not jump to another layer. So, yes,
there is an option to turn it off!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.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]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
