Yes and I mentioned that in a previous post but I don't think it ever arrived here because I sent it from the wrong address (one not listed with the forum server) I'll just add the entire text here so Bob can see it.
The annotation issue your having is due to the annotation engine wanting to annotate in the order things were placed?? That is the typical mode for it, and if you want to control it, there are several ways to go about it. Double click on one of the components it wants to change, and near the upper left hand corner you'll see the Properties area. There is a checkbox for part locking. (there is also a checkbox for designator locking. Since it doesn't want to re-order the designator number you dont want this) Part locking will stop the suffix reorder ( U1(2)->U1(5), etc) You can lock down 1/2 of each pair and it will probably stop all of them. If you pay attention to the message for R2 and the order they are in, you will understand what it's telling you. In the ECO, it wants to add R2. Fine. Next it wants to add the resistor pins to nets INT1 and GND. Since R2 is not part of the board YET, it can't verify the net additions. When you go ahead and run that ECO, it will place the part and then when it comes time to add the two nets to the two resistor pins, they exist and are added. That's why it shows OK afterwards. Now think if you were to add a 4 pin sch part with 4 net names yet your PCB part it added had a pin incorrectly numbered or had a missing pin? The ECO would state it would need to add the part and add 4 nets (which it can't confirm until the part is added) and then in the post ECO status it would actually tell you 1 of the nets couldn't be added. See how this pre / post operation works?? It's not "clearly a bug" as Hamid would like to believe. If he drove an automatic transmission car and hopped into my 5 speed I wonder if he would call the gear grinding a bug since he didn't bother to push in the clutch?? Maybe this email will make it. :) Tony Quoting Ian Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hamid, > > It looks to me like Bob chose this group rather than direct contact (phone > or email) to Altium or via their forum (where the support bods and the > developers are very active). His choice - not a reflection on the support > Altium are giving. If you have not seen the level of involvement by a wide > selection of Altium people in supporting their product via their forum then > I would suggest it might be worth your time having a look over the > archive. You would have to register and I know that this will be > uncomfortable for some for some reason. But your statements on Altium > support don't really match what is happening elsewhere. > > Bob has options other than this forum. Turning his use of this forum into > a slag against Altium support seems a bit weird to me. Does anyone else, > that is also a member of the Altium forums, find Hamid's statements at > least a little unfair? > > regards, > Ian > > > On 03:01 AM 18/01/2006, Hamid A. Wasti said: >> Bob Wirka wrote: >> >> > I've now spent a week with AD6 and, in general, am pleased with the >> > product. Have some questions, however, and would appreciate any help >> > offered. >> >> Bob, >> >> I am really interested in learning about AD6 -- both the advantages and >> the problems, especially from the perspective of someone migrating from >> 99SE. That is why I really appreciate your sharing this problem with us >> (or me at least). However, I can't help but notice that someone with a >> couple of weeks old $3K software has been cut loose by Altium and has to >> seek answers on a forum rather than calling up Altium. The problem is >> clearly a bug; either in the code (does not do what told), software >> design (designed to do the wrong thing) or in the documentation (does >> not communicate how to do it). Where is support from Altium? >> >> Having to turn to fellow users for any and all help is an acceptable and >> even expected path for a 5 year old orphaned software, but for the >> latest and greatest things from Alitum... that does not sit well with me. >> >> Hamid > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum > > To Post messages: > mailto:[email protected] > > Unsubscribe and Other Options: > http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com > > Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
