Clive, Yes - that is a relevant point. Basic functions should always be easy.
I am not sure the behavior is different from P99SE though - it showed the same messages about a to-be-added component's pads missing during a validate - I may be wrong but that is certainly what I recall. I am not sure any other behavior of the resistor, in Bob's case, is different. I wrote before that the annotator would normally only re-annotate the "?" designators - this is not quite the case. There is *no* option to restrict the annotation to just the "?" designators (annoying) - but you can certainly achieve this with a little planning. The re-annotation of the multi-part components is a problem (and was apparent in P99SE but, since you could restrict annotation to "?" designators only, the workaround became known). I think there should be changes to the annotator to reduce this re-annotation of multi-part components once they have been annotated without having to resort to the "don't annotate" component option. The option is very useful and should be used but the annotator could be more sensible I think. The option was provided when users asked for it an constructively argued the case. It sorts out a problem that exists in P99SE as well as the earlier versions of DXP. This may be a case of something that was essentially the same in P99SE but happened not to be noticed until the new version - or the removal of the "only annotate "?" designator" option may have caused a problem. Either way there are designed solutions and the adding of the resistor is not the root cause of the problem. It is still easily added - not really any different from P99SE. There is another area, though, that Bob would have come across, most likely, that is confusing to those starting with the "new" system - compiling projects (still don't like the term "compiling" when used for Sch). The new error checking system is so much more detailed and produces so many warnings that it can be overwhelming with detail - much of it not really useful most of the time (like the "no driving source" error). I am still arguing for better management and control of these, they can be turned off but there is still some improvement possible here I think. The extra Sch checking (and it being on-line) is great though. Ian On 09:59 AM 18/01/2006 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >I think its a bit of a concern that this question even has to be asked. > >Surely easy to use software should allow resistors to be added and updated >without having to ask a question from the forum or tech support. Makes me >very >nervous about upgrading. > > > >BR Clive B > >Bob Wirka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 18/01/2006 02:11:34 AM > >Please respond to Protel EDA Discussion List <[email protected]> > >To: Protel EDA Discussion List <[email protected]> >cc: (bcc: Clive Broome/sdc) > >Subject: [PEDA] 6.0 Questions... > >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. > >I've imported a design that was started in 99SE; it's a 6 layer board >with some .8mm bga components. Also have imported my 99SE libraries and >added them to the project (not as compiled libs). > >My first questions regard annotation and pcb board updating. I've >attached some PNG files to illustrate what's happening. > >A single resistor has been added to the top level schematic. It's >designator is R?, and I want to annotate it and bring it to the pcb. I'm >unable to just annotate this part; AD6 wants to re-annotate all the >multiple part designators, and I can't seem to stop it. I've tried the >"Quiet Annotation", checking and un-checking boxes in the annotation >dialog box, but no matter what I do it seems to want to mess with >multiple part items. See "UnwantedAnnotation.png"; I've boxed the >modifications I don't want it to make. > >The second question regards updating the pcb; AD6 tells me that it cant' >find pins for the resistor, yet it can successfully update the pcb. >Referring to "UnknownPins.png", you see that when the Validate Changes >button is pushed, it tells me that the pins on the resistor are unknown. >However, when the Execute Changes button is pushed, all is well; see >"UnknownPinsOk.png". This will probably be a problem when there are >really missing library components. How will you tell the difference >between real and imaginary errors? > >Where am I going wrong? > >Thank you, > >Bob Wirka >Realtime Control Works ____________________________________________________________ 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]
