s/feature/bug/g, perhaps? Matthew van de Werken - Electronics Engineer CSIRO E&M - Mining Geoscience Group 1 Technology Court - Pullenvale - 4069 p: (07) 3327 4142 * f: (07) 3327 4455 * e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." -- Native American Proverb
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phillip Stevens > Sent: Saturday, 4 November 2006 1:07 AM > To: Geoff Harland; Protel EDA Discussion List > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Many similar Sheet Symbols > > > Hi Geoff, > > As a user of AD, I'd first like to say "Thank You" for > "fighting the good fight" on our behalf, while you were there. > > I'm currently reading Beginning Python, by Magnus Lie > Hetland, Apress. There is a nice quote from page 343 that I > thought you might appreciate: > > "...it can be useful to adopt the attitude that a feature > doesn't really exist (or isn't really a feature) until you > have a test for it." > > Friday, November 3, 2006, 4:16:10 AM, you wrote: > > > I'm *not* advocating that users *don't* use the > Multi-Channel feature > > in Altium Designer - but I *am* recommending that users should > > exercise prudence whenever they do use it. > > > There are a number of options which can be selected when > that feature > > is used, ... and some of them might not work as well as others. For > > instance, if an Alphabetical option is selected instead of > a Numeric > > option, there could be problems if the design incorporates > more than > > 26 channels. With a 26th channel identified as "Z", the > best outcome > > would be for a 27th channel to be identified as "AA" (using a > > "numbering" scheme like that used to identify the columns within > > spreadsheet files), and *maybe* that has now been > implemented, ... but > > in all of the versions of AD which I have seen, the 27th channel is > > identified as "[" instead (with that character being the character > > that immediately follows the "Z" character within the ASCII set of > > characters). (As such, a 63th channel could be identified > by the "DEL" > > ("Delete") character, which could really cause some grief.) > > > And while it is possible to define "bussed" netlist labels > of a "one > > dimensional" nature (e.g. D[0..7] for D0 .. D7), it is not > implausible > > that "multi-dimensional" netlist labels are still sitting in the > > "too-hard" basket (as they certainly weren't implemented in > the first > > instance). I also recall that the "variable" part of netlist labels > > had to be at the very > > *end* of each label, so while D0 .. D7 can be "bussed" (in > the form of > > D[0..7]), there were (and still are?) problems with > attempting to "bus" > > netlist labels such as D0B, D1B, ... , D7B - as D[0..7]B > did not work as > > envisaged. > > > Another thing which I found, while experimenting with the > feature, was > > that if I had a "Top" sheet, a "Row" sheet, a "Column" sheet, and a > > "Cell" sheet (with the number of manifested instances of > each type of > > sheet being 1, N, M, and N*M respectively), then some options would > > work as envisaged, while others were "dysfunctional". > Furthermore, I > > can't recall off-hand whether any of the "dysfunctional" > options were > > totally warning-free when I attempted to compile the > project - but I > > do specifically recall that *none* of the working options were > > *totally* warning-free. When I subsequently reported those > findings to > > one of Altium's programmers, I was informed that the Multi-Channel > > feature was not intended to implement that type of > functionality. That > > would doubtless largely explain the outcomes I encountered, but it > > still doesn't change the fact that it's not inherently obvious that > > that type of functionality was not intended to be supported. > > > Moral of the story: if you want to use the feature, I would suggest > > looking at the netlist file and the set of components > created from the > > project, and checking that all of the associated details are fully > > compliant with what you intended. > > > As I have mentioned in other messages, there are many issues with > > Altium Designer concerning features and functionality which > have not > > been fully thought through, and testing of the application > is nowhere > > near as comprehensive as it should be. And of course there > are so many > > bugs which have either only been fixed many *years* after they were > > first reported or which have *yet* to be fixed (yet again > many years > > after first being reported). > > > I fully appreciate that it would not be appropriate for > *all* bugs to > > be fixed *only* when they reach the "front" of the queue, > as some bugs > > are more serious than others. That said, many of the bugs which are > > still outstanding, or which were only fixed many years after first > > being reported, are still bugs which *should* have been fixed in > > relatively short order, either because they are of a > "gotcha" nature, > > or because they force users to jump through multiple hoops to get a > > job done, or because they otherwise severely undermine > > user-productivity. > > > We really should be complaining about this situation to a > much larger > > extent than has been the case to date. Altium's corporate > culture is > > not conducive to raising the quality of its software > through its own > > efforts, so unless the level of complaining is distinctly > escalated, > > we are going to keep on getting more and more of the same. > > > When a new major version of software is released, the only > reason why > > users should feel ambivalent about it is the possible > requirement to > > install it on a PC with a higher running speed / yet more RAM / yet > > more hard disk capacity. (I don't know why "bloat" is so much of an > > issue, but Altium is certainly not the only offender in > this regard). > > > With Altium Designer though, we are "treated" to new features which > > haven't been fully thought through and which are still > buggy, and it > > is a lottery as to whether functionality which had been provided in > > previous versions is still retained. (One example: until the > > ".PrintoutName" Special String was eventually provided, the > > functionality previously provided by the ".LayerName" > Special String, > > in identifying the nature of each ("Final > > Mode") printout, had been lost. Another example: until > relatively recently, > > all versions following SP6 for Protel 99 SE did not permit users to > > re-sequence the sequence of printouts within a set of > printouts, which was > > painful if you wanted to create a PDF file within which the > sequence of all > > layers (including non-copper layers) matched the sequence > of layers within > > the PCB file (as resequencing the sequence of printouts > within a set of > > printouts *was* possible in Protel 99 SE). And yet another > example: the > > "Find Similar Objects" feature was (and still is?) less > user-friendly in > > implementing "global" editing (than with the previously > provided "expanded" > > dialog boxes), as it didn't (and still doesn't?) provide > users with the > > ability to specify that only "free" primitives should be > selected by that > > feature, while excluding primitives which are child objects > of components or > > polygons.) > > > Almost enough for a day. One last thing though: Is Altium Designer > > still "polluting" the RS-274X standard? In one of the SPs > released for > > AD6 (which I don't have a copy of, so I can't answer this > myself), the > > release note claimed that octagonal pads are now correctly depicted > > within Gerber files for all angles. My experience has been that > > octagonal pads have *never* been correctly depicted within Gerber > > files for *any* angle, so my initial inclination was to say > "oh oh". > > To test whether the "pollution" is still occurring, place > just one pad > > in a PCB file, with an Angle (Rotation) property of zero degrees, > > equal X-Size and Y-Size values (e.g. 60mil), and an Octagonal Shape > > property. Generate a Gerber file from that PCB file, and > check whether > > the pad which is depicted within the Gerber file appears > the same as > > the pad within the PCB file. If the RS-274X standard is still being > > "polluted", the pad depicted within the Gerber file will have two > > vertices on the X axis and another two vertices on the Y > axis, so *none* of its > > (eight) edges will be either horizontal or vertical. (OTOH, > the pad in the > > PCB file will have two horizontal edges and two vertical edges.) > > > While enquiring whether Altium Designer still "polluting" > the RS-274X > > standard could sound like I am asking whether somebody is still > > beating their wife, the fact remains that Altium Designer > *has* been > > "polluting" the RS-274X standard in at least the past, even > if it is > > not still doing so. Maybe things really have improved in > that regard, > > but I first reported that there was an issue in this regard back in > > 1997, so *if* that issue has since been rectified, it has > *only* been > > rectified some time this year. > > > (Class performance, eh?) > > > Regards, > > Geoff Harland. > > > >> Hi Jakub, > >> > >> It's too bad that AD6 isn't a possibility for you, as a > >> multi-channel > > design is > >> *much* easier with AD6. Otherwise a lot of manual intervention is > >> required. You might check out the multi-channel design > demo's just > >> to see what AD6 could do for you in this area: > >> http://www.altium.com/webdemos/?p=10 > >> > > > http://www.altium.com/Evaluate/DEMOcenter/AltiumDesigneroverview/Multi > > channeldesign/ > >> > >> I don't recall 99SE auto-generating the sheets for you > here, I think > >> you > > had to > >> copy/paste a sheet to make the new sheets. Then manually > edit all of > >> the > > ref > >> des so there were no duplicates. > >> > >> Somewhat painful in 99SE. A piece of cake in AD. > >> > >> ---Phil Stevens > >> > >> >> GET AD6 > >> >> :) > >> >> it really handles this pretty well > >> >> > >> >> in 99SE there are methods but at the end of the day i > found that > >> >> you really needed the 20 separate sheets and getting > them to all > >> >> annotate nicely was a major pain > >> >> > >> >> the 'repeat' feature was what finally drove me to AD6 > >> >> > >> >> Dennis Saputelli > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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] > ____________________________________________________________ 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]
